The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

This, Prodigal, is an excellent point. Daniel is looking for evidence of a papacy in the writings of the early church. ** Yet his church has no voice, no written evidence until the 1800s? **

Is this correct, Daniel? Do you have anything written by any of your church’s theologians from, say, the Middle Ages?

When you cite this theologian’s writings, will you be able to provide evidence that this theologian was a member of the same denomination you belong to? (I suspect that you may attempt to provide a writing of an obscure reformist theologian, and disingenuously claim him as your own, but I hope you won’t do that…)

The word of God is the seed of the kingdom, so wherever it is sown in honest sincere hearts, it bears fruit. I believe in a succession of the word of God, not so-called apostolic succession never mentioned in scripture.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Now Daniel, I don’t feel you are being totally forthright here. There is one person who is in charge of the others.

No, only a plurality of presbyter/bishops that the letter to the Corinthians called First Clement speaks of, also in Phhilippians 1:1.

Doesn’t your Church have a website where we could read the tenets, doctrines, etc. etc.?

You could check out www.wbschool.org and www.biblegateway.com

 

[pipper]

No. The church I belong to has only a plurality of prebyter/bishops serving each autonomous congregation, and there is no central office or head other than Christ alone. We base our beliefs only on what the scripture DOES say, not on what it does not say. There is no rejection of one leader over the early church nor for centuries thereafter
because there was none to reject since all acknowledged Christ as the only head. When someone did try to claim singular authority in scripture, he was rejected by John.

3 John 1:9
I wrote to the church, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first, will have nothing to do with us. 10So if I come, I will call attention to what he is doing, gossiping maliciously about us. Not satisfied with that, he refuses to welcome the brothers. He also stops those who want to do so and puts them out of the church.

This is the spirit that arrogates to itself in a singular earthly pre-eminent head of the church, the right to excommunicate others, and this is the spirit of Catholicism as seen also in Victor, Stephen, and Damasus.

Daniel, in the NT bishops episkopoi, and elders presbyteroi are too seperate offices, they are not the same thing, or they would have been just called with one name.

Surely you would know that since you style yourself as a “New Testament Christian”.

 

[MonFrere]

Nice try Daniel, but so far, other than scriptures that came from the Catholic Church, you’ve offered no Church writings from the history of your Church. Where are the writings of this Church of yours from the past 2000 years? Remember the absence of evidence argument you made, surely you wouldn’t put your faith into a Church with no writings to support that that was the real Church.

I agree with PR - this is an excellent point. Protestants, by and large, have no use for the ECF and rarely quote anyone that’s not contemporary. In my conversations with Protestants there is an almost universal dismissal of the writings of ANYONE in the past. This is why their theology is so shallow. There is no prolonged intellectual inquiry as there is in virtually EVERY other intellectual discipline. Scientists, using the scientific method, are constantly building a body of knowledge where each generation builds on the findings of their predecessors. In the Summa Theologica St. Thomas Aquinas takes the best ideas of his predecessors and dissects and distills the very best from them. It is from this intellectual tradition that brings such depth and precision to Catholic theology.

The biblical phrase - being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine - describes Protestant theology to a “T”. Because they depend so little on any “tradition” - any idea that comes down the pike is given consideration. I was in one of these Protestant Churches in the 60’s and at that time the Muslims didn’t get any consideration into prophecy. But TODAY – they are the rage and now they are found on almost everyones biblical radar. In the next decade if the ecomomies of the Pacific Rim and China emerge - you can bet they will be getting more and more air time in their end time scenarios. A decade ago - the “house church” was the rage in some circles - the way of bringing sure growth to your church. Before this it was the “mega-church”. Religion becomes nothing more than the next fad and each idea is given its “spiritual application” ---- totally being tossed to and fro with every wind of doctrine. The Catholic Church provides a very stationary solid and, to be to the point, “TRUE” target; not so with Protestantism each generation brings their particular “spin” to such doctrines as “faith alone” “sola scriptura” and “once saved always saved” and the ever moving target of the ever “invisible church”. The shiftings sands of Protestant doctrine don’t compare to the doctrines built on the Rock.

MonFrere

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

[SIGN]The OP Once Again[/SIGN]​

This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.

1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a definer and protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.
2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ for church unity when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
3. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
4. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
5. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
6. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
7. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the period was fraught with heresies, and the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built upon?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

[SIGN]The Achilles Heal of the Papacy Theory[/SIGN]​

If indeed Peter was the head of the church with successors as the voice of Christ and the basis of unity, where is this voice during the turbulent years of persecution and heresy before Constantine? Someone will say, “They went to their deaths as martyrs.” But so did the apostles, yet we have their writings well-preserved for us. Where are the writings of the popes from 60 AD to 325 AD? (Clement’s letter is not from him as a singular bishop but from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, not to the singular bishop of Corinth.) We have something recorded ABOUT some of the other alleged popes but not a single written word FROM them. But correct me if I am mistaken. I would find their writings most interesting.

 

[paul_c]

Two points were raised: destruction of temple AND cessation of the sacrificial system. The first is clearly prophesied, and the second clearly taught in Hebrews.

Hebrews 7:27
Unlike the other high priests, he does not need to offer sacrifices day after day, first for his own sins, and then for the sins of the people. He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself.

Is Peter the “great priest over the house of God.”

Hebrews 10

1The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming—not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeated endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. 2If it could, would they not have stopped being offered? For the worshipers would have been cleansed once for all, and would no longer have felt guilty for their sins. 3But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, 4because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins.
5Therefore, when Christ came into the world, he said:
"Sacrifice and offering you did not desire,
but a body you prepared for me;
6with burnt offerings and sin offerings
you were not pleased.
7Then I said, ‘Here I am—it is written about me in the scroll—
I have come to do your will, O God.’ " 8First he said, “Sacrifices and offerings, burnt offerings and sin offerings you did not desire, nor were you pleased with them” (although the law required them to be made). 9Then he said, “Here I am, I have come to do your will.” He sets aside the first to establish the second. 10And by that will, we have been made holy through the sacrifice of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

11Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12But when this priest had offered for all time one sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God. 13Since that time he waits for his enemies to be made his footstool, 14because by one sacrifice he has made perfect forever those who are being made holy.

15The Holy Spirit also testifies to us about this. First he says:
16"This is the covenant I will make with them
after that time, says the Lord.
I will put my laws in their hearts,
and I will write them on their minds." 17Then he adds:
“Their sins and lawless acts
I will remember no more.” 18And where these have been forgiven, there is no longer any sacrifice for sin. 19Therefore, brothers, since we have confidence to enter the Most Holy Place by the blood of Jesus, 20by a new and living way opened for us through the curtain, that is, his body, 21and since we have a great priest over the house of God,

Daniel, Sure there are prophesies about the destruction of the temple in the gospels, but no where is there an actual account of it happening nor is there an actual account of the cessation of blood sacrifices. In Hebrews, the author talks about the new covenant which Christians partake in instead of the old covenenant. but it does not say that the Jews themselves had abandonned the old covenent because at this time, they hadn’t.

Funny how you can infer what you want from scriptures, yet at the same time deny what is actually written in it about St. Peter.

 

[MonFrere]

The gates of hell (by your definition) prevailed? Surely they lived long enough to write some words of assurance to the churches. The apostles lived under severe persecution and were also martyred, yet we have their writings well-preserved for us. This point is the achilles heal of the papacy theory.

When did Achilles heal anything? Sorry, but where in the bible are we told that the apostles were to write some words of assurance? There is plenty of written record, however, less is to be expected during periods of severe persecution. As I mentioned, the first bishops of Rome, being the hotbed of persecution, were in the crosshairs of persecutors and the fact that they don’t have a written legacy is not surprising. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy gig being the target of a powerful government that wanted you dead. In that written record there are several mentions that the bishop of Rome was consulted for his opinion on various matters. St. Polycarp comes to mind in the dating of Easter. St. Polycarp went to the bishop of Rome. To be perfectly honest, if there would be a host of writings from the first popes, there would be something you would find disconcerting about them. But, it’s there IF you want to see it. But you are trained to be blind to evidence.

MonFrere

 

[pipper]

No. Each individual church has a plurality of presbyter/bishops with deacons

33 AD on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ:bigyikes:

You should be kidding, but I know you are dead earnest Danel. Those who aware of Disciples of Christ, and churches of Christ history know that your denomonation became seperate from the Disciples and was founded in roughly 1906.

Tell me where was the “were the only Christians” church that worshipped the bible, held that in order to become a Christian, one needs to be taught and hear the Gospel, repent, confess one’s faith, and then be baptised, but only as a mature beleiver, and by dunking only, had to “observe” watch the “Lord’s Supper” each Lord’s Day but no other day, and must sing without instrumental accompanyment, had to make up their own prayers as they go along church prior to 1906?

No where the churches of Christ invented all of that out of whole cloth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, in the NT bishops episkopoi, and elders presbyteroi are too seperate offices, they are not the same thing, or they would have been just called with one name.

Surely you would know that since you style yourself as a “New Testament Christian”.

Catholic scholars as well as Jerome, do not dispute the fact that bishops and presbyters are the same office in scripture. There are several passages that prove this, but I give you one. Here Paul refers to the elders (presbyters) in v.17 as overseers (bishops) and shepherds (pastors) in v.28…

Acts 20:17From Miletus, Paul sent to Ephesus for the elders of the church. 18When they arrived, he said to them: "You know how I lived the whole time I was with you, from the first day I came into the province of Asia. 19I served the Lord with great humility and with tears, although I was severely tested by the plots of the Jews. 20You know that I have not hesitated to preach anything that would be helpful to you but have taught you publicly and from house to house. 21I have declared to both Jews and Greeks that they must turn to God in repentance and have faith in our Lord Jesus. 22"And now, compelled by the Spirit, I am going to Jerusalem, not knowing what will happen to me there. 23I only know that in every city the Holy Spirit warns me that prison and hardships are facing me. 24However, I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me—the task of testifying to the gospel of God’s grace. 25"Now I know that none of you among whom I have gone about preaching the kingdom will ever see me again. 26Therefore, I declare to you today that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27For I have not hesitated to proclaim to you the whole will of God. 28Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. **Be shepherds **of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

Then Paul strongly warns that among their own number a departure will occur.

 

[pipper]

So, you belong to a denomination with LOTS of leaders over individual Churches? Same difference Daniel. Each Church has it’s own leader. One more question about your Church, if you don’t mind. When was it founded?

You have based your belief that Peter was not a leader on the absence of scriptures. Where are the supporting scriptures for your belief that there was not a primary leader in the early Church?

Oh, for a minute I thought you were providing a scripture to show a person who had ordained themself to make eccumenical decisions.

Daniel, please don’t try to say your Church would never ex-communicate anyone. It happens in Protestant Churches all the time, so you’ve chosen another weak point in my opinion.

Even the Apostles believed in ex-communication Daniel.

**1Co 16:22 If any man love not our Lord Jesus Christ, let him be anathema, maranatha.

Gal 1:8 But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.

Gal 1:9 As we said before, so now I say again: If any one preach to you a gospel, besides that which you have received, let him be anathema.**

Daniel, is there a reason you won’t identify your denomination? Is there something you don’t want us to ask questions about? Are you hiding something? Where does scriptures tell us to “hide” any part of the truth when sharing the Gospel?

Daniels church excomunicates plenty of people, but they can say they don’t by calling it “disfellowshipping” it’s the same thang.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

When did Achilles heal anything? Sorry, but where in the bible are we told that the apostles were to write some words of assurance? There is plenty of written record, however, less is to be expected during periods of severe persecution. As I mentioned, the first bishops of Rome, being the hotbed of persecution, were in the crosshairs of persecutors and the fact that they don’t have a written legacy is not surprising. I’m sure it wasn’t an easy gig being the target of a powerful government that wanted you dead. In that written record there are several mentions that the bishop of Rome was consulted for his opinion on various matters. St. Polycarp comes to mind in the dating of Easter. St. Polycarp went to the bishop of Rome. To be perfectly honest, if there would be a host of writings from the first popes, there would be something you would find disconcerting about them. But, it’s there IF you want to see it. But you are trained to be blind to evidence.

MonFrere

I can’t find this letter from Polycarp. Can you help? No writings FROM the popes before Damasus? None at all? They were being hunted to death, so they couldn’t write anything before they died? I am not convinced.

 

[pipper]

Now Daniel, I don’t feel you are being totally forthright here. There is one person who is in charge of the others.

Nice try Daniel, but so far, other than scriptures that came from the Catholic Church, you’ve offered no Church writings from the history of your Church. Where are the writings of this Church of yours from the past 2000 years? Remember the absence of evidence argument you made, surely you wouldn’t put your faith into a Church with no writings to support that that was the real Church.

All the Apostles were leaders, but Peter was singled out by Christ. He called him Kipha (Aramaic for rock) and said upon this rock I will build my Church. He did this with none of the other Apostles. He told Peter, He would give him the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which He did not do with any other Apostle, and told him, first, that whatever he bound and loosed on earth would be made so in heaven. He also singled Peter out and told him 3 times to feed His sheep before ascending to heaven.

I can understand your concern over what we’ve explained to you. If Peter was the leader, then your Churches presbyters/bishops or deacons do not have an Apostolic successive authority. If they don’t have that authority, they could be teaching a gospel different than what the Apostles taught, and we know what the Apostles said about that.

I’m not exactly understanding your point here?

Is it a Pentecostal Church? I remember attending a Church of Christ that was Pentecostal when I was a teenager. Of course it couldn’t be. I’ve not been able to locate any information on a Church of Christ that was founded prior to the early 1800s at best. Most were founded in the 1900s.

Doesn’t your Church have a website where we could read the tenets, doctrines, etc. etc.?

I have already given one, I don’t know why you guys refuse to listen to me, cos you sure won’t get it out of Danny boy.

www.bible.ca

That website will show you exactly where Dan is coming from. It shows you how they hold in contempt any church but their own.

 

[MonFrere]

Then Paul strongly warns that among their own number a departure will occur.

According to YOUR accounting this departure developed into the Catholic Church which presently is the largest Christian Church in the world. And my question to you is – where is the pedigree of those who stayed “true to the faith” and where are they today?

According to the accounting of HISTORY those who departed from the faith began to believe in gnosticism and/or a syncretism of Jewish and gnostic thought. Those who remained unscathed by these heretical ideas (which were simply NOT a debate on “scripture alone” doctrines and who kept the faithful view of scripture) became the Catholic Church.

The Protestant insistence that this spooky departure of the faith swallowed up all of Church history and became the Catholic Church is an insult to the intelligence of reasonable men.

MonFrere (P.S. I’ll check to see if I can find the Polycarp quote. It may have been an historical account and not a direct letter from Polycarp.)

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

[SIGN]

Where’s the paper trail for the papacy?​

[/SIGN]

1. Peter wrote two letters in which he does not refer to himself as the supreme pastor or humbly by any similar phrase.
2. Then we have a Catholic-produced list of popes many of whom starting with Linus were in “office” quite long enough to write letters of assurance to the persecuted flock of which each alleged pope was the “supreme pastor” and ground of unity. But what do we find?
3. **No writing at all from any bishop of Rome until Damasus **who in 370 AD claims he is head of the whole church after he murdered hundreds of supporters of a rival bishop of Rome.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I have already given one, I don’t know why you guys refuse to listen to me, cos you sure won’t get it out of Danny boy.

www.bible.ca

That website will show you exactly where Dan is coming from. It shows you how they hold in contempt any church but their own.

I already mentioned www.wbschool.org and www.biblegateway.com and there are hundreds maybe thousands of others.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

According to YOUR accounting this departure developed into the Catholic Church which presently is the largest Christian Church in the world. And my question to you is – where is the pedigree of those who stayed “true to the faith” and where are they today?

According to the accounting of HISTORY those who departed from the faith began to believe in gnosticism and/or a syncretism of Jewish and gnostic thought. Those who remained unscathed by these heretical ideas (which were simply NOT a debate on “scripture alone” doctrines and who kept the faithful view of scripture) became the Catholic Church.

The Protestant insistence that this spooky departure of the faith swallowed up all of Church history and became the Catholic Church is an insult to the intelligence of reasonable men.

MonFrere (P.S. I’ll check to see if I can find the Polycarp quote. It may have been an historical account and not a direct letter from Polycarp.)

In my checking there is no letter from Polycarp to any bishop of Rome. But my question is where are the writings of assurance to the flock from the vicar of Christ after Peter?

 

[pipper]

I already mentioned www.wbschool.org and www.biblegateway.com and there are hundreds maybe thousands of others.

How about that! I noticed that neither of those sites reveal much about the churches of Christ, their views, and the opinion they hold about other Christians (yes I know, there are no other Christians outside the group that calls itself THE churches of Christ).

You are pussyfooting around Dan.

I know of no other web site that lays church of Christ doctrine explicitly on the line like:

www.bible.ca

I noticed that biblegateway offers no other translations or versions, except for those popular with the cofc and other Evangelical Fundamentalists, hardly a description of Catholics.

 

[mardukm]

(P.S. I’ll check to see if I can find the Polycarp quote. It may have been an historical account and not a direct letter from Polycarp.)

Off the top of my head, try Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. I’m 90% sure you’ll find it there.

Blessings

 

[tukfryer]

According to YOUR accounting this departure developed into the Catholic Church which presently is the largest Christian Church in the world. And my question to you is – where is the pedigree of those who stayed “true to the faith” and where are they today?

According to the accounting of HISTORY those who departed from the faith began to believe in gnosticism and/or a syncretism of Jewish and gnostic thought. Those who remained unscathed by these heretical ideas (which were simply NOT a debate on “scripture alone” doctrines and who kept the faithful view of scripture) became the Catholic Church.

The Protestant insistence that this spooky departure of the faith swallowed up all of Church history and became the Catholic Church is an insult to the intelligence of reasonable men.

MonFrere (P.S. I’ll check to see if I can find the Polycarp quote. It may have been an historical account and not a direct letter from Polycarp.)

I cant tell you who and where they went. But my reading of this scripture is clear enough. The woman is the Israel read Josephs dream Gen 37:9 about his mother and father (sun and moon) and the 11 stars bowing to him . Start their with the woman being pregnant with Israel. Giving birth of Jesus and then where does the NT church go? Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days. The true church went under ground for 1260 days. When you use the well known standard for prophesy that’s 1260 years. If you read on you can see why, the dragon was enraged after Jesus resection and all those souls now pulled from his grasp. a great war broke out in heaven and the dragon perused the children of the woman the dark ages as it was referred to by historians ect ect.

Revelation 12
The Woman, the Child, and the Dragon
1 Now a great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a garland of twelve stars. 2 Then being with child, she cried out in labor and in pain to give birth.
3 And another sign appeared in heaven: behold, a great, fiery red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and seven diadems on his heads. 4 His tail drew a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was ready to give birth, to devour her Child as soon as it was born. 5 She bore a male Child who was to rule all nations with a rod of iron. And her Child was caught up to God and His throne. 6 Then the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there one thousand two hundred and sixty days.

Satan Thrown Out of Heaven

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them[a] in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
10 Then I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, “Now salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of His Christ have come, for the accuser of our brethren, who accused them before our God day and night, has been cast down. 11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb and by the word of their testimony, and they did not love their lives to the death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you who dwell in them! Woe to the inhabitants of the earth and the sea! For the devil has come down to you, having great wrath, because he knows that he has a short time.”

The Woman Persecuted

13 Now when the dragon saw that he had been cast to the earth, he persecuted the woman who gave birth to the male Child. 14 But the woman was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fly into the wilderness to her place, where she is nourished for a time and times and half a time, from the presence of the serpent. 15 So the serpent spewed water out of his mouth like a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away by the flood. 16 But the earth helped the woman, and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed up the flood which the dragon had spewed out of his mouth. 17 And the dragon was enraged with the woman, and he went to make war with the rest of her offspring, who keep the commandments of God and have the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[Irish_Catholic_1]

This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.

1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a definer and protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.
2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ for church unity when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.
3. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.
4. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.
5. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.
6. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.
7. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the period was fraught with heresies, and the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built upon?

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

I’m sure we all know THIS scripture, which most Christians argue over, by heart by now:

"…Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.”

I’ll try to make clear what the Pope actually is. Many people have mistaken ideas about what the Pope is, which is why they don’t see the office in scripture.

Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors, just as many things in the New Testament are fulfillments of their Old Testament “types”.

“And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word ‘Pope’ means ‘Father’) to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music.” (Isaiah 22:20-24)

In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the abouve text and in other historical documents. There were many “ministers” to the king, but only one Prine Minister, sometimes known as the “Vizier” of the House of David.

So now let’s fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the “son of David”, in the line of David. So, the apostles, steeped in their Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the “Keys”. Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ’s Kingdom, the “Keeper of the Keys”.

So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King’s Kingdom: The Kings’s representative, or “vicar” if you will. But the Pope also has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: “feed my lambs… …feed my sheep… …tend my sheep.”

(continued in next post)