The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Prodigal_Son1]

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”

They are found in scriptures according to past and present Catholic theologians. As been pointed out to you many times is, you don’t agree because you believe your own private interpretation over anyone else. Are you going to show scriptures that gives you the authority to state your private interpretation is infallible over all other interpretations? I’m going to have to see those scriptures to accept your word over the word of the Church Christ built and promised to be with until the consummation of the world.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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?

The word “privately” is not in scripture as far as I know, but the expectation of the contents to be read, accepted, and obeyed is mentioned in several places. How can you deny this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

You keep mentioning this as if you expect to get some mileage out of it.

Here’s why this fails: Imagine a basketball team. It has twelve players on the roster, and five are considered “starters”; these are the five players that the coach has judged to be the best of the twelve.

All twelve are are equal members of the team; yet, whenever the team goes out on the court to begin a game, the five starters or “pillars” of the team will be out there every time. These are the “go-to” players. Others may be seen occasionally, while some are never heard from at all.

One player stands out as the team captain. He may not be the best player or the most prolific scorer. However, he is the player that the coach looks to to provide on-court leadership and inspiration. He’s the player that the others all listen to at “crunch time”.

Maybe Paul was the most prolific writer; maybe he travelled more extensively and won more converts for the Lord than any other Apostle. But Peter, James and John were chosen repeatedly by the Lord for special intimacy (the transfiguration, the agony in the garden, etc.), and above all, Peter was the Lord’s captain of the team.

He was just a “fellow-elder” in the sense that he was just another player on the team. But when the coach left the building to return to heaven, all the other team members looked to Peter for guidance…just as Jesus had planned all along.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Daniel-

Given your history of intentionally misquoting the fathers (trying to shanghai Tertullian is only the latest example), please provide the passage from Clement in context.

Thanks.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The word “privately” is not in scripture as far as I know, but the expectation of the contents to be read, accepted, and obeyed is mentioned in several places. How can you deny this?

They are to be read and I’m not denying that.

The words private interpretation are in scriptures.

**2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. **

Clarity is given about private interpretation in 2 Peter 3:16.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

You have continously made assertions, as if your interpretation is infallible over anyone else in this discussion, yet you have provided no scriptures that tell us of any individual having an infallible interpretation. As I said, I am comfortable trusting my salvation to the Church Christ built and promised to be with until the consummation of the world and promised to send the Holy Spirit to be with, over someone in the present day who privately interprets scriptures for themself.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

Yes it is a fair definition.

1. So where in scripture do we find Peter is called “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” or by any similar phrase?
2. Where in scripture do we find Peter is given singular “power of jurisdiction” or any singular responsibility to “maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church” ?

His name and the reference to a “supreme pastor” are conspicuously absent in the very passage that tells us the basis of unity and orthodoxy in the church:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to **keep the unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4There is **one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God **and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 **until we all reach unity in the faith **and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

There is no reference to a “supreme pastor” on earth in the above passage or in any part of scripture.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thus Clement was not the Pope or Head of the whole church on earth and no reference to such appears in the letter.

**Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).***

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

They are to be read and I’m not denying that.

The words private interpretation are in scriptures.

**2Pe 1:20 Understanding this first: That no prophecy of scripture is made by private interpretation. **

Clarity is given about private interpretation in 2 Peter 3:16.

2Pe 3:16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction.

You have continously made assertions, as if your interpretation is infallible over anyone else in this discussion, yet you have provided no scriptures that tell us of any individual having an infallible interpretation. As I said, I am comfortable trusting my salvation to the Church Christ built and promised to be with until the consummation of the world and promised to send the Holy Spirit to be with, over someone in the present day who privately interprets scriptures for themself.

2 Peter 1:20 is not about understanding prophecy but how prophecy originated/began.

2 Peter 3:16 is not speaking to the impossibility of understanding some things in Paul’s writing but about the difficulty of understanding, and NO assertion is made of exclusive authority to explain and understand scripture but this is the very place one would find such an assertion if true. Peter should be saying, “If anyone wants to know what Paul means, he should ask me.”

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

**Clement of Rome
Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).
Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus
But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).

Clement of Alexandria
[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? “Behold, we have left all and have followed you” [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian
[T]he Lord said to Peter, “On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven” [Matt. 16:18-19]. … Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

Letter of Clement to James
Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first-fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]).

Cyprian
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).
The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,” he says, “that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church” . . . On him he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church? (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4 [A.D. 251]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

Optatus
In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head — that is why he is also called Cephas — of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

Ambrose of Milan
[Christ] made answer: “You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church . . .” Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]? (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Augustine
Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]).
Who is ignorant that the first of the apostles is the most blessed Peter? (Commentary on John 56:1 [A.D. 416]).***

Very useful documentation for understanding how the papacy emerged and for understanding that it did not exist in the New Testament period.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

2 Peter 1:20 is not about understanding prophecy but how prophecy originated/began.

2 Peter 3:16 is not speaking to the impossibility of understanding some things in Paul’s writing but about the difficulty of understanding, and NO assertion is made of exclusive authority to explain and understand scripture but this is the very place one would find such an assertion if true. Peter should be saying, “If anyone wants to know what Paul means, he should ask me.”

If prophecy of scriptures came without private interpretation, where does it allow private interpretation in reading the scriptures?

How are you taking Peter’s place 2000+ years later? Where does scriptures grant you the infallible authority?

Peter is saying if anyone wants to know what Paul means, they should ask the learned/authority of the Church and not someone who privately interprets scriptures that’s the unlearned and/or unstable.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Very useful documentation for understanding how the papacy emerged and for understanding that it did not exist in the New Testament period.

Well if it’s not true, please provide the documentation that supports the Papacy emerged theory you are insinuating. Show us any writings that support Protestant doctrines from the early Church if the early Church was like those Protestant denominations of today.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Yes it is a fair definition.

1. So where in scripture do we find Peter is called “supreme pastor” or “chief shepherd” or “head pastor” or by any similar phrase?
2. Where in scripture do we find Peter is given singular “power of jurisdiction” or any singular responsibility to “maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church” ?

His name and the reference to a “supreme pastor” are conspicuously absent in the very passage that tells us the basis of unity and orthodoxy in the church:

Ephesians 4:3 “Make every effort to **keep the unity of the Spirit **through the bond of peace. 4There is **one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God **and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. 8This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men.” 9(What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) 11It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, 12to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up 13 **until we all reach unity in the faith **and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

There is no reference to a “supreme pastor” on earth in the above passage or in any part of scripture.

We don’t need to see the actual term any more than we need to see the word “Trinity”.

All we need to see is evidence of the functions.

Peter was given the responsibility to nourish and rule the flock in John 21. The Greek words for feed and tend support this.

Peter was also responsible for unifying the Apostles after the Resurrection and Ascension, for unifying the Jews, Samaritans and the Gentiles (since he first brought the Holy Spirit to each of these groups), for uniting Jewish and Gentile believers by ruling on the matter of circumcision and for preaching the Gospel in many cities including founding the Church at Rome.

We know that there was a Church at Rome, and we know that Paul did not found it since he states in the beginning of his Letter to the Romans that he was "eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome." Paul also wrote that “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.” (Romans 15:20) This is why Paul mentions that “I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.” (Romans 15:28)

The greatest evangelist of all time passes up the opportunity to preach in the heart of the Roman Empire in order to go to Spain instead? Why?

Because Peter had already been there, and Paul did not want to “build” on Peter’s foundation.

It’s always Peter, isn’t it, Daniel?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

We don’t need to see the actual term any more than we need to see the word “Trinity”.

All we need to see is evidence of the functions.

We need to see reference to Peter as a singular something, not just one of several, and we do not find it anywhere in scripture.

Peter was given the responsibility to nourish and rule the flock in John 21. The Greek words for feed and tend support this.

But not the sole or singular one to do this.

Peter was also responsible for unifying the Apostles after the Resurrection and Ascension, for unifying the Jews, Samaritans and the Gentiles (since he first brought the Holy Spirit to each of these groups), for uniting Jewish and Gentile believers by ruling on the matter of circumcision and for preaching the Gospel in many cities including founding the Church at Rome.

Unify the apostles? No. Jews, Samaritans, Gentiles? Not as the only responsible person except in speaking to Cornelius. Peter was not the only one to “rule” on circumcision at the council of Jerusalem. There were also Paul and James that were equally as prominent. And no one deferred to Peter or referred to him as a singular anything, except as he said to be the one to first speak the gospel to the Gentiles. Peter only reported his experience; James ruled.

We know that there was a Church at Rome, and we know that Paul did not found it since he states in the beginning of his Letter to the Romans that he was "eager to preach the gospel also to you who are at Rome." Paul also wrote that “It has always been my ambition to preach the gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation.” (Romans 15:20) This is why Paul mentions that “I will go to Spain and visit you on the way.” (Romans 15:28)

The greatest evangelist of all time passes up the opportunity to preach in the heart of the Roman Empire in order to go to Spain instead? Why?

Because Peter had already been there, and Paul did not want to “build” on Peter’s foundation.

Peter may well have been in Rome. But he was never THE bishop of Rome as there were no singular bishops. Why is the papacy not in Ephesians 4?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Well if it’s not true, please provide the documentation that supports the Papacy emerged theory you are insinuating. Show us any writings that support Protestant doctrines from the early Church if the early Church was like those Protestant denominations of today.

The quotes given are a good starting place: no pope in first Clement, none in Ignatius or Hermas, or Barnabas, or the Didache, and on and on. Victor does not claim to be THE pope. What list of claims or pronoucements do we have from “Popes” before Damasus?
Where is the universal pontiff in Eusebius?

 

[James224]

Hi Daniel,

Christ gave the power to bind and loose to all the Apostles as you said, however, He gave to Peter alone the Keys in Matt 16:19. Christ made Peter the Prime Minister. The basis for this is in Is 22 with Eliacim and Joseph in Gen 39:4. Eliacim is a type of Christ but he is also a type of Peter because God lays the KEYS on his shoulder. Joseph was given the KEYS to be the Prime Minister over the Pharoah’s (king’s) house.

May God bless,

James224

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

But not the sole or singular one to do this.

Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.

Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

You are ignoring examples clearly given. Peter, fisher of men, pulled the net alone. Peter was the only one the Lord specifically singled out to feed His sheep.

Now is time for you to respond to questions asked of you to avoid appearing as if you have an agenda you feel you must stay with. Where in scriptures do you get your authority that your interpretation of scriptures is infallible over all others?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The quotes given are a good starting place: no pope in first Clement, none in Ignatius or Hermas, or Barnabas, or the Didache, and on and on. Victor does not claim to be THE pope. What list of claims or pronoucements do we have from “Popes” before Damasus?
Where is the universal pontiff in Eusebius?

Now you play with semantics to make a point, in my opinion. The term Pope was accepted and approved by the Church that Christ gave authority to bind and loose on earth.

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Now, please stop with the circular argument and answer where scriptures tell us that we all are to individually interpret scriptures for ourselves and that anyone of those individuals has the authority to tell all others that their interpretation is wrong. You make such a large issue of Peter not being called specifically a “Pope” in scriptures, even though plenty of examples have been given showing his being chosen as leader, and you do not respond to what is NOT in scriptures that you follow. Why the double-standard?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Hi Daniel,

Christ gave the power to bind and loose to all the Apostles as you said, however, He gave to Peter alone the Keys in Matt 16:19. Christ made Peter the Prime Minister. The basis for this is in Is 22 with Eliacim and Joseph in Gen 39:4. Eliacim is a type of Christ but he is also a type of Peter because God lays the KEYS on his shoulder. Joseph was given the KEYS to be the Prime Minister over the Pharoah’s (king’s) house.

May God bless,

James224

Peter is not referred to as prime minister nor by any similar singular term in scripture. The keys can mean responsibility to open the kingdom which he did in Acts 2 and 10.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

…no pope in first Clement, none in Ignatius or Hermas, or Barnabas, or the Didache, and on and on. Victor does not claim to be THE pope. What list of claims or pronoucements do we have from “Popes” before Damasus?
Where is the universal pontiff in Eusebius?

Now you play with semantics to make a point, in my opinion. The term Pope was accepted and approved by the Church that Christ gave authority to bind and loose on earth.

Ignatius of Antioch
You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Now, please stop with the circular argument and answer where scriptures tell us that we all are to individually interpret scriptures for ourselves and that anyone of those individuals has the authority to tell all others that their interpretation is wrong. You make such a large issue of Peter not being called specifically a “Pope” in scriptures, even though plenty of examples have been given showing his being chosen as leader, and you do not respond to what is NOT in scriptures that you follow. Why the double-standard?

Still no universal pope or singular head or shepherd or pastor in Ignatius or Eusebius. If there was one, he must have not been very important or at least no one seemed to think he was important enough to mention. Very odd indeed if he was the voice of Christ on earth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Joh 21:11 Simon Peter went up and drew the net to land, full of great fishes, one hundred and fifty-three. And although there were so many, the net was not broken.

Joh 21:15 When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:16 He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.
Joh 21:17 He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.

You are ignoring examples clearly given. Peter, fisher of men, pulled the net alone. Peter was the only one the Lord specifically singled out to feed His sheep.

Now is time for you to respond to questions asked of you to avoid appearing as if you have an agenda you feel you must stay with. Where in scriptures do you get your authority that your interpretation of scriptures is infallible over all others?

Peter was the only one who denied Christ three times. The scripture is my authority and needs no interpretation. Where is Peter referred to as a singular head, pastor, shepherd, or anything else? The sole basis of unity? Where? Not in Ephesians 4.