Sola scriptura defense of the Papacy?

[Cpl_Ferro]

A friend of mine is a sola scriptura Christian and says that the Catholic Church is built on a (wilful) misinterpretation, namely that of the New Testament passage where Jesus says he will build his church on a rock. My friend claims that Jesus does not actually make Peter Pope, nor does scripture indicate there should be a hierarchy of popes, bishops and the like. So,

(1) Can anyone defend the Church’s existence? and

(2) Is he damned for believing this?

 

[Lead_Me_Home]

In response to question two, he is not damned for believing that. If he were a Catholic and believed this, knowing it was against the Church’s infallible doctrine he would be in a state of mortal sin until he went to confession. You can not be damned for things you do not know or understand, you are only for Mortal Sins which you knew were wrong and committed anyway, and did not repent and confess of course.

If your friend will not accept the biblical passages that support Peter as Pope, and give him the power to bind and lose i doubt any other passage will convince him. However read Ephesians 4:5 which states “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” that only the Catholic Church fulfills.

 

[Strevel]

It is logical that another faith would have its own self serving interpretation of …everything. I am a convert to our Church. I was a Mormon and am glad that I found Holy Mother Church. Many people will respond in a certain fashion because they have been taght to do so (stimulus response) not because they believe it. If we will sit down with them and share the importance of authority they will understand.
A guy is driving down the freeway at 80 mph. A milk truck stops him and writes a ticket on an order form. How valid is the ticket? The Milk Truck is not authorized, no matter how convinced he is, to write a ticket that is even worth the paper it is own. We are the authorized cops, they are politely, the Milk Man.
Thru diplomatic discourse we are able to correct their incorrect perceptions, share our wonderful uplifting beliefs and practices. As a precursor to all of this… we need to live the higher beliefs we have in our everyday lives. In that way we convert, lovingly, others to our faith. Holy Mother Church needs us and we need her.

Don in Las Vegas

 

[Spencerian]

A friend of mine is a sola scriptura Christian and says that the Catholic Church is built on a (wilful) misinterpretation, namely that of the New Testament passage where Jesus says he will build his church on a rock. My friend claims that Jesus does not actually make Peter Pope, nor does scripture indicate there should be a hierarchy of popes, bishops and the like. So,

(1) Can anyone defend the Church’s existence? and

(2) Is he damned for believing this?

Hi, there.

I think that, even I, a person not yet a decade into the pleasure of and service to the Faith, can help here.

Of course, your friend is referencing Matthew 16:13-19. Aside from Christ’s obvious words her that He is giving Peter something is the status of names.

Throughout the Bible, God often renames or gives titles to people who have found great importance to Him. Two critical examples are Abram, who is renamed Abraham by God to signify his importance as “father of all nations” (Genesis 17:1-9). God also renamed Abraham’s wife, Sarai, to Sarah (Genesis 17:15).

Later, God renamed Jacob, the progenitor of the Twelve Tribes, to Israel (Genesis 32:25-31). There are surely many other examples where God has renamed men to signify their importance–and, in Jewish custom for this reason, the changing of a name is a very big deal. So Simon’s name change by Christ to Peter is supportive of God’s continued support of his people, and the authority and responsibility He expects of them.

One of Peter’s first actions after the Assumption is an administrative task: To fill the one empty office of the lost Twelfth Apostle, Judas (Acts 1:12-26). Why would Peter perform this task if he were not given the leadership? Wouldn’t other Apostles and disciples there there object if it were not his place (including Mary, the Mother of God, who surely would never tolerate actions of blasphemy in her presence, such as assuming a position not bequeathed by her Son)?

That passage also notes a passage in Psalms that supports the role of the holder of keys to perform the responsibilities given to him by a king, which is also supported by Isaiah 22:20-22.

Given that the Apostles early on in the Bible were bickering on who would be Christ’s “favorite” in Heaven (Matthew 20:20-28), Peter’s leadership and authority is quite clearly defined and accepted by all around him. They were there when Christ gave Peter authority through both name change and statement.

There’s no wiggle room here. Peter maintains a new leadership of what we come to know as bishops (who can pass on their authority). When Peter dies, a new leader–who we come to know by title as the pope–is elected.

That’s more than just Scripture there, but history, fact. All elected 262-odd of them. All of them sinners. All of them guided by the Spirit, one way or another.

Your friend may still object, of course. But you might ask him, “How long will your version of the faith last? Christ said that the gates of hell will not prevail against the Keys of His new Church–and it has been here through many wars and falls of nations, even when surrounded by the evils of Nazism. Many versions of Christianity have died off. Don’t you believe there is a reason why the Catholic Church has been here longer than any other interpretation of Christianity? It’s right there in Scripture–because Christ said so.”

 

[MarcoPolo]

Links include:

Church
ScriptureCatholic.com on Church (note that the Papacy is not based on Matt 16:18 alone. For instance Luke 22:32 is a very strong passage for the Papacy, particularly if you get into the original Greek.

Papacy
ScriptureCatholic.com on Peter

A couple things you should point out to your friends. Even if you proceed to argue from Scripture alone, you should point out that sola scriptura is a false doctrine. You could counter by asking him to prove that Paul was struck on the road to Damascus but he’s only allowed to use the book of Jude to prove it. He’ll say, “Jude is not all of divine revelation.” You’ll say, “Exactly.”

Anyway, one of the things that Protestants, particularly modern Protestants, do that prevent them from understanding any New Covenant priesthood is avoid typology. A study of the Old Covenant priesthood reveals very much about the New Covenant priesthood, and the meaning of the Greek words in the New Testament for bishops, priests, and deacons.

And finally, there are many, many Protestant scholars who translate Matthew 16:18 similarly to Catholics.

 

[kepha1]

A friend of mine is a sola scriptura Christian and says that the Catholic Church is built on a (wilful) misinterpretation, namely that of the New Testament passage where Jesus says he will build his church on a rock. My friend claims that Jesus does not actually make Peter Pope, nor does scripture indicate there should be a hierarchy of popes, bishops and the like. So,

(1) Can anyone defend the Church’s existence? and

(2) Is he damned for believing this?

Cpl Ferro, ask your friend to defend the existence of the Bible without the Church, or better, ask him to prove, by the bible alone, a divinely inspired table of contents for the New Testament. It is impossible to answer this question without going outside the Bible. You can also ask him why his church has no bishops at all, since bishops are explicitly found all over the New Testament.

No one is damned for invincible ignorance. It’s rather sad that sola scripturists have an animousity towards early church history, making revisionism convenient.

 

[Alegare21]

Is your friend familiar with Catholic Church history? If he was, then he would know that Peter was the first pope, he was the head of the church in rome, and was the apostle whom everyone looked to. He was the true head of the catholic church. so many of the early church fathers said this.

I recall another group who recently studied the primacy of peter (along with other things) and came back to the church. Oh yeah, it was the Church of England, the Anglicans.

 

[peary1]

A friend of mine is a sola scriptura Christian and says that the Catholic Church is built on a (wilful) misinterpretation, namely that of the New Testament passage where Jesus says he will build his church on a rock. My friend claims that Jesus does not actually make Peter Pope, nor does scripture indicate there should be a hierarchy of popes, bishops and the like. So,

(1) Can anyone defend the Church’s existence? and

(2) Is he damned for believing this?

There is no doubt that Jesus placed Peter as the leader of the Apostles. This is very evident in Scripture.

Second, your friend is wrong on account that in other scripture verses, Simon Peter is also referred to as KEPHA, which, in Aramaic, means “ROCK”.

The word POPE comes from the following linguistic origin: before 900 AD, Middle English and Old English, papa; from low Greek, papas, meaning bishop, or priest; in high Greek meaning patriarch.

You have to go back to the understanding of the Patriarchs of the Old Testament. Wikipedia says of patriarch: a patriarch was a man who exercised autocratic authority as a *pater familias *over an extended family. The system of such rule of families by senior males is called patriarchy. This is a Greek word, a composition of πατήρ (pater) meaning “father” and ἄρχων (archon) meaning “leader”, “chief”, “ruler”, “king”, etc.

Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are referred to as the three patriarchs of the people of Israel, and the period in which they lived is called the Patriarchal Age.

The word has mainly taken on specific ecclesiastical meanings. In particular, the highest-ranking bishops in Eastern Orthodoxy, Oriental Orthodoxy, the Roman Catholic Church (above Major Archbishop and primate), and the Assyrian Church of the East are called patriarchs.

Jesus was creating a “New Israel” and a reformed “people”. This would fall to Peter and the Apostles. One could say that Peter fulfilled a role as the first patriarch of the New Israel, the Church. Your friend needs to realize this, and also the fact that the origin of the word pope comes from papa (father) meaning bishop. The pope is the bishop of Rome and, in another sense, the supreme patriarch of the Church.

Some Catholics might even have a problem with this, but it’s a logical conclusion.

 

[BigE]

It is logical that another faith would have its own self serving interpretation of …everything. I am a convert to our Church. I was a Mormon and am glad that I found Holy Mother Church.
Don in Las Vegas

Not to get off topic…but I am curious how you found the Church? I have a couple of Mormons coming to visit me next month and I’d be curious to know where you think it might be best for me to try and take the conversion.