The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Randy_Carson]

1. So it should be found clearly identified in scripture. Correct?

This is the second flaw in your tautology, and I reject your premise outright.

Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”

The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.

These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.

When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.

Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Yet there is no mention of the papacy until over a hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and no preserved written declarations from the “voice of Christ” until centuries later.

Your third error in only four points.

Since Clement of Rome was the fourth pope, his Letter to the Corinthians provides a written record of the “voice of Christ” from within the first century.

 

[tukfryer]

It denies nothing of the sort, and it does not make sense only because you do not understand it. It seems clear enough to me. Jesus knew he was about to depart this earth, and He appointed Peter to shepherd the flock. What is so difficult about that?

The positions that James and John asked for were in heaven. The position that Christ assigned to Peter was on earth. Jesus describes the humble attitude of those who are to be leaders in the Church, but He never denies that there would be leaders.

It does not make sense to me as it does you.
As Daniel Keeran has pointed out it is not found in the scripture and history indicates that it was a process that evolved after the letters we now call the NT.

The passage that I last referenced, you point out “but He never denies that there would be leaders”, simply because He does not deny it seems to indicate to you He does. With a premises like that we could also conclude most anything, like all Jews have to wear an emblem on there coat to identify them such. Jesus did not explicitly say you could not. Would the RCC support such a thing?

Two points here both accured after Jesus was resurrected. I believe Jesus never gave His chair to anyone.
Who is indicated here as being the authority over John? Answer Jesus.
20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”
22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

The same is true here. Some Catholics will use this verse to support a number of things Apostolic succession, laying of hands, baptism, Ananias teaching Paul ect ect. Again who is indicated as being in charge of Paul?

15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Jesus is resurrected He has not given His chair to Peter. To go a bit further who was in charge of Ananias? again Jesus. To imply that there is a different spirit for Apostles or leaders is also contrary to the testimony of the NT. We are all born of the same Spirit. When the RCC references the OT to support its apostle / sprite authority it is not admissible, the HS was only on the leaders not on the people, only threw Jesus did the Father send the HS into the world. Any thing less is a denial of the power of Jesus. Jesus did not come to setup another line of patriarchs, He came to establish a new convent to establish the way for God to have fellowship with man.

Conclusion Jesus is seated in Heaven, representing the Father threw the Spirit He leads the church on earth "Spirit Born Christians). We see this demonstrated in the verses above. With that in mind reread the passage.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. The first announcement of any bishop of Rome is Victor (189-199) when he excommunicated numerous churches for celebrating Easter on a day he did not approve of. He was the “voice of Christ” on earth?

Aside from your error of omission (see Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians), your sniping at Pope Victor is baseless.

In the second century Pope Victor threatened to excommunicate large sections of the Church in the East if they did not observe Easter according to the practice of Rome. Though some decried the wisdom of his declared intention, no one questioned his authority. Eventually his will prevailed throughout the Church.

 

[paul_c]

Since the only God-breathed writing is sacred scripture, as you agree, then that is where we need to start when considering ideas about the papacy. If the papacy cannot be found in scripture, it came too late.

The papacy is, I believe, a development of the dual process of institutionalization and imperialization. This becomes clear as one reads the early post-NT writings with the theme of papacy building over time culminating in Cyprian’s language, then later with Damasus following the Constantine-called council of Nicea.

Let me give you a different view point. Sola Scriptura was an impossibility before the printing press because very few people had access to scripture because of the cost and rarity of books. Prior to that (the first 1500 years of church history), the word of God was spread verbally. The reason the concept of Sola Scriptura even came about was that the Protestant Reformers wanted to disengage from the Magesterium and scripture was the only link they had left to Christianity so they embraced it as the only thing that counted.
But that’s a bankrupt position because even you believe lots of things form tradition, like Sunday worship, the date for christmas, what Jesus looked like, etc.

As for the papacy’s inclusion in scripture, we’ve spend three months showing you all the references to Peter’s primacy. With the exception of St. John’s writings, the rest of the new testament was completed before Peter died, so its not surprising that they didn’t talk about his successors.

 

[stephraim]

It does not make sense to me as it does you.
As Daniel Keeran has pointed out it is not found in the scripture and history indicates that it was a process that evolved after the letters we now call the NT.

The passage that I last referenced, you point out “but He never denies that there would be leaders”, simply because He does not deny it seems to indicate to you He does. With a premises like that we could also conclude most anything, like all Jews have to wear an emblem on there coat to identify them such. Jesus did not explicitly say you could not. Would the RCC support such a thing?

Two points here both accured after Jesus was resurrected. I believe Jesus never gave His chair to anyone.
Who is indicated here as being the authority over John? Answer Jesus.
20 Then Peter, turning around, saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, who also had leaned on His breast at the supper, and said, “Lord, who is the one who betrays You?” 21 Peter, seeing him, said to Jesus, “But Lord, what about this man?”
22 Jesus said to him, “If I will that he remain till I come, what is that to you? You follow Me.”

The same is true here. Some Catholics will use this verse to support a number of things Apostolic succession, laying of hands, baptism, Ananias teaching Paul ect ect. Again who is indicated as being in charge of Paul?

15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel. 16 For I will show him how many things he must suffer for My name’s sake.”

Jesus is resurrected He has not given His chair to Peter. To go a bit further who was in charge of Ananias? again Jesus. To imply that there is a different spirit for Apostles or leaders is also contrary to the testimony of the NT. We are all born of the same Spirit. When the RCC references the OT to support its apostle / sprite authority it is not admissible, the HS was only on the leaders not on the people, only threw Jesus did the Father send the HS into the world. Any thing less is a denial of the power of Jesus. Jesus did not come to setup another line of patriarchs, He came to establish a new convent to establish the way for God to have fellowship with man.

Conclusion Jesus is seated in Heaven, representing the Father threw the Spirit He leads the church on earth "Spirit Born Christians). We see this demonstrated in the verses above. With that in mind reread the passage.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re saying at all. If you’re trying to say that the Lord is ‘in charge’ of Paul, that’s fine because He is in charge of us all. However, even Paul “went up to Jerusalem” to consult with the “pillars of the church” to lay bare his gospel before them and ensure “he had not run in vain.” He also spent 15 days with Peter, and of this St. Chrysostom says:

“And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only their better but not their equal….He says, ‘to visit Peter’; he does not say to see ἰδεῖν] but to visit and survey ἱστορῆσαι], a word which those who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also.” (Commentary on Galatians 1, 18, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, ed. Phillip Schaff [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983], 13:12-13)

Strong’s Lexicon
2477. **historeo **his-tor-eh’-o from a derivative of 1492; to be knowing (learned), i.e. (by implication) to visit for information (interview):–see

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Incorrect. The papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18, Luke 22 and in John 21 (among about a zillion other places where Jesus indicated that Peter was being groomed to lead the apostles). Therefore, the papacy is found in scripture and precedes scripture.

Daniel, maybe the problem is in your definitions of “pope” and “papacy”. Could you please tell us what these terms mean to you?

I’m beginning to think that you are looking at the modern, full-blown papacy and failing to find it in the scriptures. And that might be true in the sense that the style of the papacy has developed in response to the times and the geo-political climate over the centuries. The first few centuries saw a papacy that was primarily a “court of last appeals” and focused on Church unity whereas the papacy in later centuries became involved in holding Western Civilization together under increasing pressure from a variety of hostile forces. So, while the style may have changed over time, the office itself was evident from the beginning.

In your own words, what is a pope? What is the papacy?

The papacy is the office of head of the whole church on earth, and with qualifications for successors. It is the singular infallible voice of God/Christ/Holy Spirit on earth. I am saying such an office is not described in scripture and was not established from the beginning of the church when it would have to be in order to be true because it is defender/proclaimer of truth from that point forward. It’s the kind of thing that can’t be invented later on.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The Apostles knew Peter was chosen and might have taken it for granted that everyone accepted the re-naming to Rock/Kipha, the reception of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the first to receive the authority to bind and loose and the specific instructions for Peter to feed His sheep.

Other than what I’ve explained above, some overlook the obvious. Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the other Apostles added together. Peter’s name is always listed first, when a list of the Apostle’s names are given. Peter always spoke on behalf of the Apostles, when they had questions or answers to Jesus. Peter is specifically named and those with him are referred to as “they that were with him” and “His disciples and Peter” in Luke 9:32 and Mark 16:7.

And you believe Paul’s three-pillars list of “James, Cephas, and John” is not a reference to the same Peter who was THE HEAD of the whole church?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Your third error in only four points.

Since Clement of Rome was the fourth pope, his Letter to the Corinthians provides a written record of the “voice of Christ” from within the first century.

If Clement wrote the letter, it also proves he was not THE bishop of Rome since it knows only a plurality of bishop/presbyters there and in Corinth. Thus Clement was not the Pope or Head of the whole church on earth and no reference to such appears in the letter.

 

[tukfryer]

But that’s a bankrupt position because even you believe lots of things form tradition, like Sunday worship, the date for christmas, what Jesus looked like, etc.

I can speak for myself, I do have reservations about the days you mention and their pre Jesus implications. Many simply dont know.
I will not …Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of an holyday…I’ll leave it at that.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Let me give you a different view point. Sola Scriptura was an impossibility before the printing press because very few people had access to scripture because of the cost and rarity of books. Prior to that (the first 1500 years of church history), the word of God was spread verbally. The reason the concept of Sola Scriptura even came about was that the Protestant Reformers wanted to disengage from the Magesterium and scripture was the only link they had left to Christianity so they embraced it as the only thing that counted.
But that’s a bankrupt position because even you believe lots of things form tradition, like Sunday worship, the date for christmas, what Jesus looked like, etc.

As for the papacy’s inclusion in scripture, we’ve spend three months showing you all the references to Peter’s primacy. With the exception of St. John’s writings, the rest of the new testament was completed before Peter died, so its not surprising that they didn’t talk about his successors.

The actual fact is that whole books and multi-volume sets and letters were written and widely circulated throughout antiquity. The ECF’s had copies and refer to them often. Please do not assume what traditions I hold to. Worship on the first day of the week is in scripture. Christmas is not a tradition I hold, and all I know about Jesus’ appearance is that he was not physically attractive to people but this detail is in scripture. There is not a single reference in scripture to Peter as HEAD of the church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The papacy is the office of head of the whole church on earth, and with qualifications for successors. It is the singular infallible voice of God/Christ/Holy Spirit on earth. I am saying such an office is not described in scripture and was not established from the beginning of the church when it would have to be in order to be true because it is defender/proclaimer of truth from that point forward. It’s the kind of thing that can’t be invented later on.

Daniel,

Your argument is flawed in that private interpretation is the same as the Papacy. Catholics answer to the authority of His Church and you answer to the authority of your own private interpretation, which is not explicitly told about in scriptures. Such a teaching is not described and was not established from the beginning of the Church when it would have to be in order to be true because it is defender/proclaimer of truth from that point foward. It’s the kind of thing that can’t be invented later on. Yes, I borrowed some of your wording in hopes it opens your eyes to how private interpretation is viewed, especially in light of all the Protestant denominations claiming Holy Spirit truth, but all with slight to great differences in doctrines/teachings and all based on someone’s private interpretation.

You are going to have to convince everyone here that the many different private interpretations of scriptures is scripturally supported, and you can’t because it’s not scriptural.

While you argue the Papacy with such assertion, you are assuming a “papacy” of your own. Now show your scriptural basis for your authority, above all others, or you’re just spinning your wheels and taking us continously in circles with this discussion.

 

[tukfryer]

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what you’re saying at all. If you’re trying to say that the Lord is ‘in charge’ of Paul, that’s fine because He is in charge of us all. However, even Paul “went up to Jerusalem” to consult with the “pillars of the church” to lay bare his gospel before them and ensure “he had not run in vain.” He also spent 15 days with Peter, and of this St. Chrysostom says:

“And the only object of this journey was to visit Peter; thus he pays due respect to the Apostles, and esteems himself not only their better but not their equal….He says, ‘to visit Peter’; he does not say to see ἰδεῖν] but to visit and survey ἱστορῆσαι], a word which those who seek to become acquainted with great and splendid cities apply to themselves. Worthy of such trouble did he consider the very sight of Peter; and this appears from the Acts of the Apostles also.” (Commentary on Galatians 1, 18, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 1st series, ed. Phillip Schaff [Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1983], 13:12-13)

Strong’s Lexicon
2477. **historeo **his-tor-eh’-o from a derivative of 1492; to be knowing (learned), i.e. (by implication) to visit for information (interview):–see

To summarize it Jesus did not a come to setup a NT line of patriarchs. Like the RCC has.
Jesus is the High Priest, He sits on the throne of David forever.
Jesus did not appoint Peter in charge and never intended for any one apostle to assume himself in charge over another.
He did clearly tell them He would not leave them orphans that He would send the HS.
Jesus in His resurrected Glory reiterates that point in John and Acts as I pointed out above. He will personally take care of both Paul and John. In ether instance He never indicated appointing someone in charge, instead He says He is still in charge of both Paul and John.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

And you believe Paul’s three-pillars list of “James, Cephas, and John” is not a reference to the same Peter who was THE HEAD of the whole church?

All three were Apostles and bishops and Simon Peter is referred to by the name he received from Christ, which interprets into “rock”. You ignore all the points I brought up and cling to one verse in hopes we see support in your argument. To accept one verse to contain a full meaning, is to ignore the other scriptures and we shouldn’t be doing that. That appears to be fitting scriptures to our own theology, instead of fitting our theology to scriptures.

Let’s add two verses to the one verse you reference.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.
Gal 2:8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)
Gal 2:9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

7. ‘. . . in the same way as to Peter was that of the circumcision’: the revelation made to Paul in Act_9:3 f. is comparable only with that made to Peter in Mat_16:16 f.; cf. Chapman, art. cit. supra.

‘8. He who wrought for Peter’, by making his apostolate fruitful among the Jews, ‘wrought for me also among the gentiles’. ‘The gospel of the uncircumcision’ means ‘the uncircumcised Gentiles as the object of the apostolate’ (Lagrange). This mission of Paul to the Gentiles must not be understood in any exclusive or monopolistic sense, but he himself had been called in the designs of God primarily for work among the Gentiles. Peter as the Chief of the Apostles and the centre of unity had the responsibility of welding the Jewish and Gentile elements in the Church into one whole and because of his closer contact with the mother-church of Jerusalem and of his pre-eminence among the Apostles (cf. Roiron, RSR 1913] 501-4) he personifies for Paul the principal agent in the conversion of the Jews, at this particular time at any rate. Of course St Paul never renounced, nor did St Peter ever confine himself to, the evangelization of the Jews; cf. Ac 10-11; 1 and 2 Pet passim.9. ‘the grace’, i.e. of the Gentile apostolate; cf.Rom_1:5. ‘James and Cephas and John’. Lightfoot (in loc.) remarks that when St Paul is speaking of the missionary office of the Church at large, St Peter holds the foremost place, 7, 8: when he refers to a special act of the Church of Jerusalem, St James is mentioned first, as here; cf.Act_12:17; Act_15:13; Act_21:18. On St Paul’s relative use of Cephas and Peter, see Chapman, art. cit. 143. ‘Who are regarded as pillars’, a statement without any touch of irony or depreciation. The accord here made between the Three Pillars and Paul on the latter’s second visit to Jerusalem was to be renewed on his third visit to the Holy City, Ac 15 passim. In all probability they agreed on a territorial delimitation of their spheres, the Pillars retaining the evangelization of Palestine, whilst St Paul kept to the westward; cf. also Rom_15:20.

The above is from the Catholic commentary.

You appear to be an educated person and I’d like to ask that you please take time to share your credentials with us. Do you have a theological degree? What seminary did you attend and what is the extent of your theological training?

I will say, I am an average layperson with no theological studies, other than on my own. I assume many of the Catholic posters here are the same.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,

Your argument is flawed in that private interpretation is the same as the Papacy. Catholics answer to the authority of His Church and you answer to the authority of your own private interpretation, which is not explicitly told about in scriptures. Such a teaching is not described and was not established from the beginning of the Church when it would have to be in order to be true because it is defender/proclaimer of truth from that point foward. It’s the kind of thing that can’t be invented later on. Yes, I borrowed some of your wording in hopes it opens your eyes to how private interpretation is viewed, especially in light of all the Protestant denominations claiming Holy Spirit truth, but all with slight to great differences in doctrines/teachings and all based on someone’s private interpretation.

You are going to have to convince everyone here that the many different private interpretations of scriptures is scripturally supported, and you can’t because it’s not scriptural.

While you argue the Papacy with such assertion, you are assuming a “papacy” of your own. Now show your scriptural basis for your authority, above all others, or you’re just spinning your wheels and taking us continously in circles with this discussion.

So you agree with my definition of papacy and that it is not in scripture. I am examining the scripture daily (Acts 17:11) to see if the things you claim are in fact true. The scripture is God’s word, not mine. My job is to search it, believe it, and obey it.

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

So you agree with my definition of papacy and that it is not in scripture. I am examining the scripture daily (Acts 17:11) to see if the things you claim are in fact true. The scripture is God’s word, not mine. My job is to search it, believe it, and obey it.

Where in the bible does it say to do all that?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The actual fact is that whole books and multi-volume sets and letters were written and widely circulated throughout antiquity. The ECF’s had copies and refer to them often. Please do not assume what traditions I hold to. Worship on the first day of the week is in scripture. Christmas is not a tradition I hold, and all I know about Jesus’ appearance is that he was not physically attractive to people but this detail is in scripture. There is not a single reference in scripture to Peter as HEAD of the church.

The emphasis in your quote above is mine. The missing single reference is due to your own personal interpretation of scriptures. To Catholics, it’s as clear as can be. This argument is not going to be resolved as long as there are interpretational differences, at least I know you’re not convincing me in the least.

Yes, we’ve come back to you showing us that every individual interpretation of scriptures is taught and supported by scriptures. Show us where you have the authority of infallible interpretation of scriptures…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you agree with my definition of papacy and that it is not in scripture. I am examining the scripture daily (Acts 17:11) to see if the things you claim are in fact true. The scripture is God’s word, not mine. My job is to search it, believe it, and obey it.

No I do not agree and really do not appreciate you twisting my words to mean such. While scriptures cannot come out and correct you about what is written, I can correct you about what I write.

The definition is clearly taught in scriptures. You cannot see it due to your own limited private interpretation.

I’ve asked you repeatedly, to provide the scriptural support for private interpretation of scriptures and the scriptures that without a doubt appoint you to have the infallible interpretation above all others. So far, you have avoided that request and kept to what appears to be your own agenda.

Where does scriptures tell us to privately search scriptures, come to a conclusion of interpretation on our own and believe it and obey it?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

All three were Apostles and bishops and Simon Peter is referred to by the name he received from Christ, which interprets into “rock”. You ignore all the points I brought up and cling to one verse in hopes we see support in your argument. To accept one verse to contain a full meaning, is to ignore the other scriptures and we shouldn’t be doing that. That appears to be fitting scriptures to our own theology, instead of fitting our theology to scriptures.

Let’s add two verses to the one verse you reference.

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they had seen that to me was committed the gospel of the uncircumcision, as to Peter was that of the circumcision.
Gal 2:8 (For he who wrought in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision wrought in me also among the Gentiles.)
Gal 2:9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision:

The above is from the Catholic commentary.

You appear to be an educated person and I’d like to ask that you please take time to share your credentials with us. Do you have a theological degree? What seminary did you attend and what is the extent of your theological training?

I will say, I am an average layperson with no theological studies, other than on my own. I assume many of the Catholic posters here are the same.

I have no theological degree but do hold an MA in European history and an MSW in social work. The author of the article in the Catholic Commentary makes the following exaggerations in bold not found in scripture:

“…Peter **as the Chief of the Apostles ****and the centre of unity ****had the responsibility of welding the Jewish and Gentile elements in the Church into one whole **and because of his closer contact with the mother-church of Jerusalem and of his pre-eminence among the Apostles (cf. Roiron, RSR 1913] 501-4) he personifies for Paul the principal agent in the conversion of the Jews, at this particular time at any rate. Of course St Paul never renounced, nor did St Peter ever confine himself to, the evangelization of the Jews; cf. Ac 10-11; 1 and 2 Pet passim.9. ‘the grace’, i.e. of the Gentile apostolate; cf.Rom_1:5. ‘James and Cephas and John’. Lightfoot (in loc.) remarks that when St Paul is speaking of the missionary office of the Church at large, St Peter holds the foremost place”

 

[Randy_Carson]

The papacy is the office of head of the whole church on earth, and with qualifications for successors. It is the singular infallible voice of God/Christ/Holy Spirit on earth. I am saying such an office is not described in scripture and was not established from the beginning of the church when it would have to be in order to be true because it is defender/proclaimer of truth from that point forward. It’s the kind of thing that can’t be invented later on.

Nor was it invented later on.

Would you agree that the papacy may be defined as “the ministry of supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church”?

Mind you, I’m not asking you to agree with that definition, but I am asking if that is a fair definition of what Catholics believe the papacy to be.