The Papacy

[Christian7]

Can anyone here show me and write where in the bible Jesus Christ tells Peter that he holds an office as Pope, and after his service that he will be succeded?

 

[katerivincent]

Mat. 16:18-19"you are peter, and on this rock i will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"…“and i will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven”…he who holds the keys(authority) according to Isaiah 22:21-22, he shall be a father…"just read further in the articles of papacy in catholic.com

 

[NotWorthy]

Anyone familiar with Isaiah 22 would note the position (or office) that Jesus is handing to Kephas (the Rock). Take a look at what it says:

I will thrust you (a) from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him (b) your authority. (c) He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place (d) the key of the House of David on his shoulder; (e) when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. (Is 22:19-22).

Notice:
A) This position is an office. It is the prime minister of the kingdom of David. This position resides in EVERY kingdom throughout the bible, although sometimes under other names, i.e. Grand Vizier. Take a look at the story of Joseph in Egypt. Also, note that in Acts, it’s obvious that Kephas (The Rock) recognizes that these positions are offices when he talks of replacing Judas. He uses the term “bishopric” which translates to “office”.

B) This position obviously instills in its owner authority. We’ll get more specific later.

C) He shall be a father. Pope translates to Papa. The Italians lovingly call him “Il Papa”. I love that term.

D) The key to the House of David is the symbol of the Prime Minister’s power of authority. Again, in all the kingdoms there were symbols of this position. In Egypt, Joseph was given Pharaoh’s signet ring to show his position.

E) You’ll recognize the parallel between opening and shutting (Is.) and binding and loosing (Mt.).

Remember now, Jesus has been preaching about the Kingdom of God. Not a democracy. Not a confederacy. A Monarchy! All prophecies refer that he would rule over the House of David, the only kingdom that Judea saw, other than Saul.

Now, I ask you, what other interpretation could a Jew in Ancient Israel get from the words of Jesus in Matthew?

Notworthy

 

[mercygate]

Christian7:

Can anyone here show me and write where in the bible Jesus Christ tells Peter that he holds an office as Pope, and after his service that he will be succeded?

I see others have covered the main points for you. The office of Bishop (the Pope is a bishop) derives from apostolic authority. For scriptural warrant that this office is handed on in succession, see Acts 1:15-26. Note: it is Peter who takes the initiative and determines why and how Judas will be replaced.

In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said, "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus. For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry. (Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out. And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel’dama, that is, Field of Blood.) For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate,

and let there be no one to live in it’; and `His office let another take.’ So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us, beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us – one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection." And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. And they prayed and said, “Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place.” And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthias; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.

Other warrants for Peter’s primacy of place are Luke 21:31-32

“Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you [Greek: you all], that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you [Greek: you singular = Simon] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

and John 21:15-19

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” A second time he said to him, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord; you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go.” (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, “Follow me.”

 

[fwon2638]

Just wondering, before you post this question, have you done much research on this topic so as to properly appreciate the Catholic position. If not, may I suggest you to read articles from the following website:

· http://catholic.com

· catholic-legate.com/

also: lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page107.html

After you have done so, we are happy to further discuss this matter with you including the following:

1. petro/petra argument;
2. keys of kingdom (cf: Isaiah 22:22);
3. John 21:15ff
4. apostolic succession;
5. Matthew 16:19 & 18:18

Regards,

Francis

 

[awfulthings9]

Christian7:

Can anyone here show me and write where in the bible Jesus Christ tells Peter that he holds an office as Pope, and after his service that he will be succeded?

Given the tone of your other post on the Eucharist, I assume that these explanations will not be sufficient and that you will actually want to see the word “Pope” in Scripture, as well as the actual details of how that office would be passed on. That is understandable and I apologize that nobody had the curtesy to direct you to this passage. You will find the word “Pope” and its definition right next to the word “Trinity”. I can’t remember the book, chapter, and verse right off the top of my head, but its somewhere in the epistles, right after Paul explains the concept of an altar call.

 

[NotWorthy]

awfulthings9:

You will find the word “Pope” and its definition right next to the word “Trinity”. I can’t remember the book, chapter, and verse right off the top of my head, but its somewhere in the epistles, right after Paul explains the concept of an altar call.

:clapping:

Good point! Me doth detectith the faintest hint of doubt in Christian7’s post.

Notworthy

 

[mercygate]

Good point! Me doth detectith the faintest hint of doubt in Christian7’s post.

Notworthy
[/quote]

Awfulthing & NotWorthy – Is counter-sarcasm useful? Aren’t we above this?

 

[allisonP]

mercygate:

Awfulthing & NotWorthy – Is counter-sarcasm useful? Aren’t we above this?

Dont know where to find the clapping hands but I am glad you said that1 As someone who is truly searching I read responses to these kind of questions with great intrest. Maybe the person asking is only spoiling for a fight (maybe not) but I read your repsonses and try to learn.
Notworthy gave a wonderful explaination of why he believes in the Pope and his ruleing. In fact although I have read those same reasons before, the way notworthy presented them was so clear and has brought me closer to believeing.
On the other hand there was a link someone put up that led to an apologetics sight that showed someone burning in a pot ( little icon) and a statement that said something to the effect of sticking it to our liberal reletives this Christmas. Personally I dont care if you call yourself Catholic or Christian or whatever, if you claim to follow Christ and you put your self on a forum to answer questions concerning why you beleive what you believe(which I understand we are always supposed to be ready to do as Christians) then you should curb the sarcasm and just be preapared for those who arent sincere while keeping yourself appealing to those who are.
allie

 

[NotWorthy]

AllisonP, Wow! This is my first opportunity to say, “Thank you” and “I’m sorry” in the same sentence.

Thanks for the heads up to Mercy and You.

Notworthy

 

[CollegeKid]

awfulthings9:

Given the tone of your other post on the Eucharist, I assume that these explanations will not be sufficient and that you will actually want to see the word “Pope” in Scripture, as well as the actual details of how that office would be passed on. That is understandable and I apologize that nobody had the curtesy to direct you to this passage. You will find the word “Pope” and its definition right next to the word “Trinity”. I can’t remember the book, chapter, and verse right off the top of my head, but its somewhere in the epistles, right after Paul explains the concept of an altar call.

Nice. Got a good laugh out of that.

 

[Della]

Sarcasm aside, I do think it is legitimate to ask Protestants where some of their most cherished expressions and practices can be found in the Bible. Many, many aren’t, any more than many Catholic expressions and practices that developed over time. You know, Jesus never said his Church should remain just as it was in the 1st century (not in MY Bible he doesn’t ), rather, he promised that he Church would be guided into “all truth” by the Holy Spirit.

This clearly shows that he expected his Church to interact with cultures and to have to deal with issues that would come up in every generation. In the first century they had to deal with the Judaizers and because of the decisions the Apostles made (cf. Acts 15), the Church changed from a mostly Jewish sect to a universal Church filled with Gentiles who were mostly pagans before becoming Christians. And in our day we are battling modernism and sins of the body, such as contraception, abortion, and euthanasia. If the Church couldn’t learn and develop over time, it would have ceased to exist long ago.

 

[JaneFrances]

Sometimes sarcasm is a wonderful mirror and sometimes it is a brick wall. . .

Having said that, I think a very important point is being made here. We ALL (Catholics and Protestants of all stripes) have very fundamental doctrines and beliefs that are not as explicit in Scripture as we would hope and even as some demand. We all come from certain faith traditions. The fact that a person would require full disclosure and specific citations from Scripture to proove a particular doctrine is, in itself, an extra-Biblical tradition.

Without moving too far from the topic of this thread, I would hope that the original poster, Chrisitan7, realizes that his or her request for specific Scriptural prooftexts is not a standard that he or she demands from thier own personal faith tradition.

I think this is the point of Awfulthings’ comment. Some very fundamental CHRISTIAN doctrines are not so explicit or specifically mentioned within the pages of Scripture. The doctrine of the Trinity is always a wonderful example that many, who would discredit Christianity, look to as a weak point in the Christian faith. As much as we would like it to, Scripture simply never says: “The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God in Three Persons.” Yet, this is an essential doctrine based on the Traditional teachings of the Church. Much the same case can be made for the doctrine of Original Sin (which is contentious among Christians) and even the common Protestant doctrines of Sola Fide and Sola Scriptura. Not everything we (Catholics AND Protestants) say we believe is spelled out in writing–a point that many ignore.

This is the whole reason Christ sent his disciples into the world to TEACH!

If Christian7 is truly interested in the teaching of the Church regarding the Pope, there are volumes of wonderful Catholic writings on this topic–beginning in the first centuries of Christianity!

A start:
“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.” (Clement, Letter of Clement to James 2, AD 221).

“The Lord says to Peter: “I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . .On him [Peter] 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, and he established by his own authority a source and 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 dn one chair. . .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?” (Cyprian of Carthage, The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition; 251 AD).

“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first given to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [Rock]—of all the apostles; the one chair which unity is maintained by all.” (Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists 2:2, 367 AD)

“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them [the bishops of Rome] from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not conquer it.’ Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement. . .” (Augustine, Letters 53:1:2, 412 AD).

 

[Ignatius]

Christian7:

Can anyone here show me and write where in the bible Jesus Christ tells Peter that he holds an office as Pope, and after his service that he will be succeeded?

Your kidding right? They didn’t teach you this above( Matthew, Acts and Isaiah) in Sunday school?

 

[estesbob]

mercygate:

Awfulthing & NotWorthy – Is counter-sarcasm useful? Aren’t we above this?

Heck no-it was brilliant!

 

[Erich]

I personally don’t need any convincing that Peter was the first Pope and that he had successors in this office (beginning with Linus and continuing through to Benedict XVI)… but I’m curious as to how folks here would respond to the following objections to the claim that Matthew, in 16:19, intended an allusion to Isaiah 22:22, giving Peter a unique decision-making authority over the people:

a) Matthew’s Gospel abounds in “fulfillment citations,” passages from the OT which he quite explicitly says are fulfilled in Jesus; he does not do so in 16:19.

b) What about the differences between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:19:

1. In Isaiah, “key” is singular; in Matthew, the plural “keys” is used.
2. Isaiah speaks of a “shoulder”; Matthew does not.
3. In Isaiah, the “key” is of the “house of David”; In Matthew, the “keys” are of “the kingdom of heaven.”
4. In Isaiah, the key “opens and shuts” in Matthew, the keys “bind and loose” .

c) Revelation 3:7 preserves 3 of the 4 features of Isaiah 22:22 which Matthew 16:19 lacks.

d) What would someone who actually knew Isaiah 22:20-25 make of Isaiah’s judgment on Eliakim: “[T]he peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way; it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will perish” (Isaiah 22:25)? Would such a person consider a comparison between Eliakim and the House of David, on the one hand, and Peter and the Church on the other, a favorable omen for either Peter or the Church?

Similarly, I’m curious as to how folks here would respond to the following objections to the claim that 1 Clement was written by Pope Clement (thereby illustrating that, already by the end of the first century, the papacy was firmly established as an institution).

a) look at the inscriptions on two letters to the Church in Rome:

“Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ … To all God’s beloved in Rome, who are called to be saints.” (Romans 1:1, 7)

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church … which also has the presidency in the country of the land of the Romans …” (Ignatius to the Romans, Inscription)

These letters are sent by a person – Paul and Ignatius, respectively.

b) look at the inscription on two letters to the Church in Corinth:

“Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus, by the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes… To the church of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia.” (1 Corinthians 1:1-2).

Paul, and apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, and Timothy our brother. To the church of God that is in Corinth, including all the saints throughout Achaia." (2 Corinthians 1)

Two more letters listing the name of the author(s), not the Church with which the authors were affiliated.

c) look at 1 Clement: “The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth, to those who are called and sanctified by the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Clement Inscription.)

No name, but the Church in Rome, as the sender.

Five letters. all of them written to a church (or a community).

In four of them, those sending the letter are specifically named individuals (Paul alone, Paul and Sosthenes, Paul and Timothy, Ignatius).

Only 1 Clement is in the name of a Church, without any individual being named.

At the end of the first century, if someone wanted to send a letter to a Church on his own personal authority, there was a clear and unsurprising way of doing so: "[Paul, or Ignatius, Clement] to the Church in [Rome, Corinth].

1 Clement was a letter from the church in Rome to the Church in Corinth, and not from any individual in the Church in Rome.

 

[PepeRoni]

Guys, the bible is VERY clear. The apostles were given earthly authority, the authority to appoint representatives in every city they went, had the powers to absolve or retain sins, the power to eject someone from the (faith) community for transgressing the laws they preached and the power to vote on successors.

But we all know once we get to the last letter in the bible all that earthly authority suddenly vanished! POOF

Although, I wonder why Protestants who say everything needs a biblical justification don’t seem to ask where in the bible it says all the earthly “judicial” and spiritual power they had was taken away. Anyone have any ideas?

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Christian7:

Can anyone here show me and write where in the bible Jesus Christ tells Peter that he holds an office as Pope, and after his service that he will be succeded?

1st Letter of Saint Paul to the Lubbockonians, a fragment of which was recovered at about the same time as the Dead Sea Scrolls, only this was found in Lubbock, Texas. Mind you, only a fragment remains, but it seems to be Saint Paul’s commentary on Saint Matthew’s Gospel:

…loosed in heaven." Further, when He had done with this mandate, Our Lord did say unto Peter that he was to possess himself of a pointy, post-hole digger hat and take unto his hand a long bo-peepy stick thingy and the other apostles, they too were to have similar hats and sticks, but not nearly as ver-shmancy as Peter’s. And Our Lord did say, “Lo, it shall tick the Protestants off immensely, but bearerth thou in mind that it is because they are jealous of thine cool hats and sticks that they shall tear out their beards and gnash their teeth. But thou shalt behave with charity toward them, for behold I love them and that Jimmy Swaggert is a real hoot…”

 

[Todd_Easton]

After explaining to his disciples the need for faithfulness and watchfulness, Jesus goes on to explain to Peter the need for faithfulness in his stewardship over the Church.
41Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45But if that servant says to himself, `My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful. (Luke 12:41-46)
By this passage is shown that Peter is the steward (pope) set over the Church and that there will be such a steward (pope) over the Church until the Lord comes.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Todd Easton:

After explaining to his disciples the need for faithfulness and watchfulness, Jesus goes on to explain to Peter the need for faithfulness in his stewardship over the Church.41Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” 42And the Lord said, "Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? 43Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. 44Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions. 45But if that servant says to himself, `My master is delayed in coming,’ and begins to beat the menservants and the maidservants, and to eat and drink and get drunk, 46the master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not know, and will punish him, and put him with the unfaithful. (Luke 12:41-46)

By this passage is shown that Peter is the steward (pope) set over the Church and that there will be such a steward (pope) over the Church until the Lord comes.

I don’t think that this refers to the Papacy at all. I’ve never seen any Church teaching that indicates that this is a rational for the papal office (which I believe in, but based on the Gospel of Matthew).