The Role and Authority of The Pope

[Mungo]

This topic arises out of an initial discussion with Simons in the thread Peter The Rock over the role of the Papacy and whether that role existed in the early Church.

In His book, The Early Papacy, Fr. Adrian Fortescue lists four claims that the Catholic Church makes about the role of the Pope and the evidence for those claims; also whether this role existed from the beginning or were much later additions. Fr. Fortescue goes up the Council of Chalcedon in 451).

These claims are (and I quote from his book):
1.The Pope is the chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.
2. He has the episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.
3. To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man [or woman] must be in communion with the Pope.
4. The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.

It is clear from scripture that Peter, whom Catholic claim was the first Pope, was appointed by Christ himself as leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole; that he was given more authority than the other apostles.

This has been explained in several threads - The Primacy of Peter, the Chair of Peter, Peter and the Keys, Peter the Rock. The issue really is was that a one-off - for Peter alone - or was that a role (and the authority that goes with it) that was handed on to Peter's successors.

The first point to make is that should be obvious that someone has to be the ultimate arbiter and decision maker. The experience of Protestantism shows the error of everyone thinking they can decide themselves what to believe; that they can be their own Pope. Currently I have read that there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations, sects and one-pastor churches teaching different and contradictory doctrines.

Jesus founded one Church (not 40,000 plus), with one set of doctrines (not with many contradictory doctrines) and promised to preserve it from error. That can only happen with a hierarchy with an ultimate (earthly) leader and continuity of leadership.

I believe the role and authority that Jesus gave Peter was of necessity handed on and we can see this in that the four claims listed by Fr. Fortescue that were recognised by the early Church.

I'll start with claim 1 - "The Pope is the chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth."

Irenaeus
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies, Bk 3, Chap 3 [AD 180]

The Council of Ephesus (431) records this in session III
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xv.html

Historians outside the Catholic Church also acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries,

The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines writes:
"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).

 

[Simons]

This topic arises out of an initial discussion with Simons in the thread Peter The Rock over the role of the Papacy and whether that role existed in the early Church.

Thanks for starting this thread

These claims are (and I quote from his book):

1.The Pope is the chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.

2. He has the episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.

3. To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man [or woman] must be in communion with the Pope.

4. The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.

this is a useful list…thanks for posting it

It is clear from scripture that Peter, whom Catholic claim was the first Pope, was appointed by Christ himself as leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole; that he was given more authority than the other apostles.

here we disagree already….and it is not just me that disagrees with this claim of yours. Eminent scholar James D G Dunn (in Unity and Diversity in the New Testament at p. 142) wrote: “In particular, we must note that in 18. 15-20 responsibility for exercising discipline lies with the church as a whole. Similarly the authority of ‘binding and loosing’, whether it is a teaching function that is envisaged or the declaration of sins forgiven belongs not to Peter alone but once again to the whole congregation. Where any two believers exercise their faith or celebrate their faith, God acknowledges it and Jesus is present. Here is a believer and community centred understanding of worship, not a worship regulated by officebearer and tradition.” When one understands the “power of the keys” to be summed up in ‘binding and loosing’, then nothing is given to Peter that isn’t given to the rest.

This has been explained in several threads - The Primacy of Peter, the Chair of Peter, Peter and the Keys, Peter the Rock.

Earlier I had responded to your post(s) on the Peter and the Keys and the Peter’s Profession of Faith threads and provided reasons why I think your claim fails. I looked quickly at the opening posts in the Peter the Rock and the Chair of Peter threads and didn’t see anything significant that I hadn’t already covered in my responses on those other two threads. The Primacy of Peter has a few things for me to address, but I am sure that they will come up in this thread where I can address them in due course.

The issue really is was that a one-off - for Peter alone - or was that a role (and the authority that goes with it) that was handed on to Peter's successors.

I count five issues:

1. Was Peter appointed (by Christ) as the leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole?
2. If so, was there an office to which that position of leadership/authority attached?
3. If so, did that office of authority remain with Peter until his death?
4. If so, did that office of authority pass on to any successor(s) after Peter’s death? And
5. If so, are the successors to Peter’s authority the bishops of Rome?

I would suggest we go through these issues one at a time and see what the other has to offer. Are you on board with that approach?

Before, I turn to the first of the 5 issues I will address the practical matter of a Pope being necessary for unity.

The first point to make is that should be obvious that someone has to be the ultimate arbiter and decision maker.

That doesn’t appear to be the approach that God took in OT times and so I don’t see that it is obvious that God did it in NT times. I will agree that without an iron-fisted leadership and without adequate humility amongst all believers there will be doctrinal divisions. The way doctrinal uniformity was maintained (for long periods of time) after Constantine was by secular and religious powers working together to suppress any variation through violence and intimidation. That to me is not a uniformity to be cherished, but it is a uniformity that other religions (such as Islam) can (and do) achieve.

The experience of Protestantism shows the error of everyone thinking they can decide themselves what to believe; that they can be their own Pope.

I don’t know of any Protestant that seeks to be his “own Pope”. One doesn’t claim to be “the chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth”….or make any one of the other 3 claims identified by Fortescue. The rejoinder to your observation is that the experience of Catholicism shows the error of a hierarchy thinking it can infallibly decide for all what to believe and, in particular, to decide what man-made innovations to add to God’s revelation.

Currently I have read that there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations, sects and one-pastor churches teaching different and contradictory doctrines.

This site https://www.christianitytoday.com/h...-times-of-jesus-of-nazareth-did-you-know.html puts the population of Israel during the time of Christ at 600,000. Josephus described four sects in Judaism at that time: the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the Essenes and the Fourth Philosophy. We know that there were also the Samaritans. As such, they had 5 sects/600,000 or 1 sect for every 120,000 people. Apply that rate to the 2.2 billion Christians in the world today and we should expect to see over 18,000 Christian denominations. Further, the 40,000 figure is grossly inaccurate.

First of all, it’s always important to do a fact check. The World Christian Encyclopedia, one of the two sources from which the 40,000 number is taken, has a very specific definition of ‘denomination’ for the purposes of its study. … they define a denomination as an organized Christian group within a specific country. So, for example, although there is only one Roman Catholic Church, over 200 Roman Catholic ‘denominations’ are listed – one ‘denomination’ for each national body of Roman Catholics.

….The actual number of denominations is a far smaller number (they count 300 major ecclesiastical traditions worldwide, grouped into 6 ecclesiastico-cultural mega-blocs), and even across denominations there is significant partnership and unity.​

The above is from: https://thebensmartblog.com/2014/02/12/40000-denominations-worldwide-christianity-divided/

So yes, there are divisions within the ranks of un-Poped, and that division is unfortunate, but it is not on a scale of division that is significantly different from what Jesus witnessed in Israel in 30 AD. (it could even be less). Further, although Catholicism on paper (at least) can claim one set of doctrines (the Catechism) its members in fact hold various beliefs. It all comes down to the question of whether Catholic doctrine and dogma is inerrant or corrupt? Is it a unity around error or is it a unity around truth that is being achieved? If it is unity around error, then the divisions of Protestantism look a lot better.

Given the divisions that existed in Judaism, I find it interesting to note how much time Jesus devoted to preaching against that division versus how much time he devoted to preaching against the traditions that the Jewish hierarchy had added to God’s revelation.

Jesus founded one Church (not 40,000 plus), with one set of doctrines (not with many contradictory doctrines) and promised to preserve it from error.

In what passage(s) do you see that promise? One would think that if God was going to go to the considerable work of setting up such a papal office and of preserving it from error, then he would at least have gone to the bother of spelling it out very clearly (in scripture) so that the hierarchy which claims that special authority would not have to resort to self-serving interpretations of a few and very inadequate passages in scripture. I think it cuts both ways. If one wants to say that, for practical purposes, a monarchical Pope is necessary, then one should also say that, for practical purposes, an irrefutable identification (in scripture) of that monarchical Pope (and his successors) is every bit as necessary.

Just think of how much ink is used in the OT to describe the who, what, when, where and why of clerical duties and positions…and yet, you would have me believe that God initiated a papal office, but then totally neglected to have his intentions clearly recorded so that we still have the 5 questions that I identified above? That just doesn’t smell right….and please keep in mind it is not just Protestants that don’t recognize Rome’s claim to the papal office.

 

[Mungo]

Thanks for starting this thread

this is a useful list…thanks for posting it

here we disagree already….and it is not just me that disagrees with this claim of yours. Eminent scholar James D G Dunn (in Unity and Diversity in the New Testament at p. 142) wrote: “In particular, we must note that in 18. 15-20 responsibility for exercising discipline lies with the church as a whole. Similarly the authority of ‘binding and loosing’, whether it is a teaching function that is envisaged or the declaration of sins forgiven belongs not to Peter alone but once again to the whole congregation. Where any two believers exercise their faith or celebrate their faith, God acknowledges it and Jesus is present. Here is a believer and community centred understanding of worship, not a worship regulated by officebearer and tradition.” When one understands the “power of the keys” to be summed up in ‘binding and loosing’, then nothing is given to Peter that isn’t given to the rest.

You made a very long post and I'm not going to try and answer all you points in one post. I will start with the points above.

I'm not impressed by your "eminent" scholar's comments. It seems to me he makes several fundamental errors.

Firstly In Mt 18:!8 Jesus is speaking to the apostles not the whole Church (Matthew consistently uses disciples when referring to the apostles). Moreover binding and loosing is not just about discipline but teaching of doctrine, as James D G Dunn admits. The apostles are those that Jesus selected to lead his Church and to teach (Mt 28:19).

Secondly, whilst this authority is given to the apostles acting together (i.e. all together - including Peter - as in a council) it is clearly given individually to Peter to exercise alone (Mt 16:19).

Thirdly the power of the keys is not summed up in binding and loosing. The keys represent much more as I showed in Peter and the Keys. I know you are not an American but let me give you a parallel with the President of the United States. He has the power to pardon (loose) a convicted criminal but his authority is much more than that. Similarly with Peter, the Keys confer much more than mere binding and loosing.

Fourthly he tries to conflate two or three people praying together for a particular intention (vs 19-20) with communal worship. That is not justified by the text.

 

[Simons]

You made a very long post and I'm not going to try and answer all you points in one post. I will start with the points above.

Please take your time

I'm not impressed by your "eminent" scholar's comments. It seems to me he makes several fundamental errors.

well, he is not alone in disagreeing with your interpretation. As indicated on the other thread a group of mainly Catholic and Lutheran scholars looked at the Matthew 16 passage in a work entitled “Peter in the New Testament”. They could not say with certainty what Jesus intended when he gave Peter “the Keys” and they also couldn’t say with certainty whether the authority attached to those keys was described with “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As such, they couldn’t be sure if the same authority was later granted to the rest of the other disciples. Now they didn’t go as far as Dunn, but they most certainly see as “unclear” what you have described as “clear”.

Firstly In Mt 18:18 Jesus is speaking to the apostles not the whole Church (Matthew consistently uses disciples when referring to the apostles).

What is the basis for this claim? Matthew used “disciples” in reference to Jesus’s disciples more than 50 times. On eight occasions when Matthew was considering the followers of Jesus, Matthew referred to them as the “twelve/twelve disciples”….so when Matthew wanted to make it clear that only the 12 apostles were under consideration he was well able to do so. The last time Matthew had used “twelve” was seven chapters earlier at 11:1. The passage has Jesus speaking to his disciples and telling them to take a dispute to the church. It is no more of a stretch for Dunn to say that 18:18 applies to the congregation than it is for you to insist that Jesus was providing these promises/instructions only to the apostles to not the whole Church.

Secondly, whilst this authority is given to the apostles acting together (i.e. all together - including Peter - as in a council) it is clearly given individually to Peter to exercise alone (Mt 16:19).

In Matthew 16 Jesus responded to Peter because Peter is the one that answered his question. Jesus never specified that what Peter was given was for him and him alone or that Peter would be able to exercise it alone whilst all the others would be restricted to exercising it collectively.

Thirdly the power of the keys is not summed up in binding and loosing. The keys represent much more as I showed in Peter and the Keys.

whether or not it is summed up in “binding and losing” is something the experts (who contributed to the book “Peter in the New Testament”) couldn’t determine. As such, I am not prepared to merely accept your declaration on the matter. Further, as I pointed out on that thread there are problems with trying to identify “the keys” with a prime ministerial role on the basis that such a role is associated with “the key of the house of David” found in Isaiah. As I said on the other thread, if Jesus was truly referring back to Isaiah 22, (and in doing so appointing Peter to a prime ministerial role) then he was rather sloppy in the process. The author of Revelation isn’t plagued by that sloppiness, for when he refers back to Isaiah, he properly uses the singular “key of David” and doesn’t say “keys”. On the other hand, the author of Revelation does use “keys” with reference to Hades. Coincidentally, just before Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” he also mentioned the gates of Hades. Perhaps the keys aren’t about a prime ministerial role. Perhaps the keys are about salvation and the opening and closing of the gates of both heaven and hell (through preaching the gospel of salvation). In that regard, if it is about preaching, then that authority would be something that extends to the whole congregation.

Fourthly he tries to conflate two or three people praying together for a particular intention (vs 19-20) with communal worship. That is not justified by the text.

Matthew 18:20 reads: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” It doesn’t read “For where two or three are gathered in my name for the purpose of praying, I am there among them.” It also doesn’t read “For where two or three of you apostles are gathered in my name, I am there among you.”

I get the feeling that we have two very different approaches to scripture. As a rule, I expect that, when someone declares that a passage means a certain thing, then that certain thing will be expressly stated in that passage or will be an obvious metaphor. Anything short of that, and I will only entertain the declared meaning as a possibility and then assess the likelihood of that possibility. On the other hand, you seem much more inclined to draw inferences (and declare their appropriateness to be clear)…especially when those inferences align with the teaching of the Catholic Church. I suspect this difference in our approaches will prevent us from finding much common ground on this topic.

 

[Mungo]

well, he is not alone in disagreeing with your interpretation. As indicated on the other thread a group of mainly Catholic and Lutheran scholars looked at the Matthew 16 passage in a work entitled “Peter in the New Testament”. They could not say with certainty what Jesus intended when he gave Peter “the Keys” and they also couldn’t say with certainty whether the authority attached to those keys was described with “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” As such, they couldn’t be sure if the same authority was later granted to the rest of the other disciples. Now they didn’t go as far as Dunn, but they most certainly see as “unclear” what you have described as “clear”.

You can fin tens of millions of Protestants who disagree with the Catholic Church over the position of the Pope. If they didn't they would not be Protestants.

What is the basis for this claim? Matthew used “disciples” in reference to Jesus’s disciples more than 50 times. On eight occasions when Matthew was considering the followers of Jesus, Matthew referred to them as the “twelve/twelve disciples”….so when Matthew wanted to make it clear that only the 12 apostles were under consideration he was well able to do so. The last time Matthew had used “twelve” was seven chapters earlier at 11:1. The passage has Jesus speaking to his disciples and telling them to take a dispute to the church. It is no more of a stretch for Dunn to say that 18:18 applies to the congregation than it is for you to insist that Jesus was providing these promises/instructions only to the apostles to not the whole Church.

It is a huge stretch to say binding and loosing belongs to every individual Christian. That is total anarchy. It's that sort of belief is why Protestantism has splintered into 40,000+ sects, cults and one-pastor churches.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits". (Mt 7:15-16).

In Matthew 16 Jesus responded to Peter because Peter is the one that answered his question. Jesus never specified that what Peter was given was for him and him alone or that Peter would be able to exercise it alone whilst all the others would be restricted to exercising it collectively.

whether or not it is summed up in “binding and losing” is something the experts (who contributed to the book “Peter in the New Testament”) couldn’t determine. As such, I am not prepared to merely accept your declaration on the matter. Further, as I pointed out on that thread there are problems with trying to identify “the keys” with a prime ministerial role on the basis that such a role is associated with “the key of the house of David” found in Isaiah. As I said on the other thread, if Jesus was truly referring back to Isaiah 22, (and in doing so appointing Peter to a prime ministerial role) then he was rather sloppy in the process. The author of Revelation isn’t plagued by that sloppiness, for when he refers back to Isaiah, he properly uses the singular “key of David” and doesn’t say “keys”. On the other hand, the author of Revelation does use “keys” with reference to Hades. Coincidentally, just before Jesus gave Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven” he also mentioned the gates of Hades. Perhaps the keys aren’t about a prime ministerial role. Perhaps the keys are about salvation and the opening and closing of the gates of both heaven and hell (through preaching the gospel of salvation). In that regard, if it is about preaching, then that authority would be something that extends to the whole congregation.

Perhaps and perhaps.

As I said in the other thread, in the example of Matthews' account of Peter's profession of faith I think it's important to recognise that Matthew is a Jew, writing to Jews whereas Luke is writing to Gentiles. Matthew's gospel is full of references to the Old Testament to show how Jesus fulfill prophecies. Some are explicit and some are not. But they would have been noticed by his Jewish audience

Matthew 18:20 reads: “For where two or three are gathered in my name, I am there among them.” It doesn’t read “For where two or three are gathered in my name for the purpose of praying, I am there among them.” It also doesn’t read “For where two or three of you apostles are gathered in my name, I am there among you.”

It doesn't say when two or three are gathered together for the purpose of worship either.
It two or three are gathered together to ask for something they are not worshipping. The focus is on their needs not God.

I get the feeling that we have two very different approaches to scripture. As a rule, I expect that, when someone declares that a passage means a certain thing, then that certain thing will be expressly stated in that passage or will be an obvious metaphor. Anything short of that, and I will only entertain the declared meaning as a possibility and then assess the likelihood of that possibility. On the other hand, you seem much more inclined to draw inferences (and declare their appropriateness to be clear)…especially when those inferences align with the teaching of the Catholic Church. I suspect this difference in our approaches will prevent us from finding much common ground on this topic.

This is the problem with Protestantism. Everyone feels free to make their own interpretation of passages. If it's true for them then it is true. It's anarchy.

“From the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant Baptism, Ordination, and the function of civil authority…… By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Word, “This is My Body” was published at Ingolstadt, Germany.”
(A Biblical Defence of Catholicism by Dave Armstrong)

That is the fruit of personal interpretation of Scripture.

 

[Simons]

Matthew's gospel is full of references to the Old Testament to show how Jesus fulfill prophecies. Some are explicit and some are not. But they would have been noticed by his Jewish audience

That’s fair, but where you go too far is in assuming that if Matthew used a word that was also used in the Old Testament, then that makes it a reference to one of the OT passages where that word was used. For example, in 9:17 Matthew quotes Jesus talking about wineskins that will burst. In Job 32:19 it talks about wineskins ready to burst. Despite the similarity in wording there is simply no reason to think that Jesus was making a reference to the Job passage.

This is the problem with Protestantism. Everyone feels free to make their own interpretation of passages. If it's true for them then it is true. It's anarchy.

In the past is was actually quite a bit worse than mere anarchy….at times it was Lutherans killing Anabaptists and Catholics. Protestants, however, are learning to emphasize their shared faith in Jesus and tolerate their doctrinal differences. That toleration is more easily achieved once one abandons the practice of declaring that an ambiguous passage clearly means this (what one would want it to mean) and instead limits oneself to saying that “perhaps” the passage means this.

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits". (Mt 7:15-16).

….That is the fruit of personal interpretation of Scripture.

”ravenous wolves” would most certainly describe the hunger for power possessed by many of the Bishops of Rome. Their fruit was not indicative of someone possessing a special gift from God.

 

[Mungo]

That’s fair, but where you go too far is in assuming that if Matthew used a word that was also used in the Old Testament, then that makes it a reference to one of the OT passages where that word was used. For example, in 9:17 Matthew quotes Jesus talking about wineskins that will burst. In Job 32:19 it talks about wineskins ready to burst. Despite the similarity in wording there is simply no reason to think that Jesus was making a reference to the Job passage.

I'm not assuming that if Matthew used a word that was also used in the Old Testament, then that makes it a reference to one of the OT passages where that word was used. That's just trivialising my argument.
I look at the whole context.

As I pointed out, in Matthew 16 Jesus tells Peter that he (Jesus) was going to build his church on Peter, and thereby making him the leader and Jesus’ representative on earth (Mt 16:17-18) he continues in the next verse to declare Peter’s authority.

It's not just keys that parallel with the OT passage.
The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead:
In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,
and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him,
and will commit your authority to his hand;
and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David;
he shall open, and none shall shut;
and he shall shut, and none shall open.
And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place,
and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

he shall open, and none shall shut;
and he shall shut, and none shall open.
Parallels
"whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Moreover the OT says this about the master of the
1. He will be a father to the inhabitants2. He will be clothed with a robe
3. He will be girded with a girdle [or sash]
4. He will be given keys and authority.

The Pope (father) has a robe, a sash and keys as the symbols of his authority and sits on a throne.

These are the garments which they shall make: a breastpiece, an ephod, a robe, a coat of checker work, a turban [miter], and a girdle; they shall make holy garments for Aaron your brother and his sons to serve me as priests. "They shall receive gold, blue and purple and scarlet stuff, and fine twined linen.(Ex 28:4-5)

The high priest in Israel wore a tunic, a robe, a girdle, a miter (like the pope), all made of fine linen in gold, violet, purple and scarlet.

“The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses' seat” (Mt 23:2). The seat (chair) of Moses represents his teaching authority

The Popes chair (seat) is the symbol of his teaching authority. That is why we say he speaks authoritatively when he speaks ex-cathedra (from the chair).

In the past is was actually quite a bit worse than mere anarchy….at times it was Lutherans killing Anabaptists and Catholics. Protestants, however, are learning to emphasize their shared faith in Jesus and tolerate their doctrinal differences. That toleration is more easily achieved once one abandons the practice of declaring that an ambiguous passage clearly means this (what one would want it to mean) and instead limits oneself to saying that “perhaps” the passage means this.

Toleration of differences in doctrine is one thing. Actually agrreeing doctrine is quite nother

”ravenous wolves” would most certainly describe the hunger for power possessed by many of the Bishops of Rome. Their fruit was not indicative of someone possessing a special gift from God.

In terms of personal impeccability that is equally true of Protestant leaders. But the position of the Pope does not rest on personal impeccability, it rests on the authority given by Jesus.

 

[Simons]

As I pointed out, in Matthew 16 Jesus tells Peter that he (Jesus) was going to build his church on Peter, and thereby making him the leader and Jesus’ representative on earth (Mt 16:17-18) he continues in the next verse to declare Peter’s authority.

This seems like a great place to start looking at issue #1: Was Peter appointed (by Christ) as THE leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole?

There is no doubt that the record shows that Peter was a leader of the apostles and the prominent leader at the start. The record tells of a Peter that was inclined to speak/act first and that was a characteristic of his before the Matthew 16 exchange. Sometimes he got things right and sometimes he got things wrong. His emergence as leader could simply be the natural product of this tendency (of his) coupled with his abilities. Catholics would have you believe that it was also attributable to an appointment (in Matthew 16) to a position of official leadership of the apostles and the whole church.

What should be noted at the outset is that nowhere in the Matthew 16 passage is anyone said to be appointed and nowhere in the passage is any sort of leadership mentioned. As such, we don’t get close to having an express statement that Peter is appointed as THE leader of the apostles or that Peter is appointed as THE leader of the whole church. Somehow the traditional Catholic must find those ideas (and more) in these three statements (of Matthew 16):

a. On this rock I will build my religious congregation (typically translated as “Church”);
b. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of the heavens; and
c. whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in the heavens, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in the heavens.

It should be noted that the Catholic will typically attempt to bolster his interpretation of Matthew 16 by reference to Luke 22 (where Peter is instructed to strengthen his brethren) and in John 21 (where Peter is instructed to feed Jesus’s sheep). Again, neither Luke 22 nor John 21 get close to making an express statement that Peter is appointed as the leader of the apostles or that Peter is appointed as the leader of the whole church.

Re: On this rock I will build my religious congregation (typically translated as “Church”)

Now statement “a” above is seen to mention “church” and is directed to Peter alone, but it speaks of Jesus building the church (on a rock) and not of Peter as the leader of the church. Ephesians 2:20 also speaks of the foundation on which the “church” is built:

….but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God’s household (typically translated or understood as “the Church”); having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the cornerstone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord (the notation in brackets added by me)​

A second reference involving both the apostles and a foundation is found in Revelation 21:

And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them were the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.​

With respect to the Matthew 16 passage (and statement “a” above) at least two possibilities exist: 1. Peter could be the one and only apostle upon which the church is built (and therefore he has a status that the other apostles do not enjoy and this could mean that he is the leader of the church), or 2. Peter could be merely the first apostle and maybe the only apostle who is told that the church will be built upon him (but nevertheless, the other apostles share that status even though they aren't told about it that day). The latter possibility (#2) is strongly favoured by the Ephesians and the Revelation verses quoted immediately above where Peter is given no special consideration (or even mentioned) and where all the apostles are accredited with the same status. Jesus has one church and built it once so “building it on Peter” and “building it on Jesus, the apostles and the prophets” can’t be two separate building endeavours (even though Matthew and. Ephesians designate those two different things upon which the church is built). Understanding that all the apostles share the same status, and that Peter is merely the first apostle that is told that the church will be built upon him (with the church still being built on all the apostles, plus the prophets and plus Jesus) nicely accounts for the difference that is seen between Matthew and Ephesians. Now I suppose that a traditional Catholic could say that if one takes a certain perspective then it is valid to say that the church is built on Peter alone (with no credit even being given to Jesus as part of the foundation) and that if one takes another perspective then it is valid to say that the church is built on Jesus, the apostles and the prophets…but I have a hard time accepting that there exists this certain perspective/thing about Peter that is so grand that it is fair to say that the church will be built on him alone, but isn’t grand enough to merit a mention in either Ephesians or Revelation or any where else in the New Testament.

Another way to reconcile the building base described in Matthew with the base described in Ephesians is to understand that the “rock” upon which Jesus will build his church (in Matthew) is Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah(and not Peter himself). This interpretation has an ancient tradition behind it established by the likes of Augustine and Chrysostom. With “Jesus as Messiah” being the rock then Jesus, the prophets who pointed to the Messiah and the apostles who identified the Messiah/witnessed the Messiah’s ministry would all be properly identified as the foundation for the church.

Further, if Peter was truly given the position of leader of the apostles and THE leader of the whole church, isn’t it odd that at the start of Matt 18 the disciples are still asking: “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?” And if Peter was their official leader why are the disciples arguing about who of them will be the greatest? (Mark 9:24, Luke 9:46)…and why does the mother of James and John still think (in Matt 20) that seats are still available at both the left and right hands of Jesus?

Regarding Matthew 16 statement “b” that is the statement where Catholics think that they see a designation of an office for Peter and so, I will deal with that statement (and the Matthew 16 statement “c” which is attached to statement “b”) when we get to the second issue.

It's not just keys that parallel with the OT passage.

The passage refers back to Isaiah 22: 20-23 when God deposes Shebna as the master of the palace and installs Heliakim instead

and this seems like a great place to start looking at issue #2: If Peter was appointed as the leader of the apostles etc., was there an office to which that position of leadership/authority attached?

 

[Mungo]

This seems like a great place to start looking at issue #1: Was Peter appointed (by Christ) as THE leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole?

There is no doubt that the record shows that Peter was a leader of the apostles and the prominent leader at the start.

At least there is something we can agree on.

As to the rest of your post it is mainly straw men claims about what Catholics teach and downgrading or dismissing important pieces of scripture.

I would go through it but you seem keen not to and to move on to the next part of the topic.

and this seems like a great place to start looking at issue #2: If Peter was appointed as the leader of the apostles etc., was there an office to which that position of leadership/authority attached?

From your responses so far I'm not sure it's worth it. I would just be a waste of time - something I don't have much of at the moment.

 

[Simons]

I'm not assuming that if Matthew used a word that was also used in the Old Testament, then that makes it a reference to one of the OT passages where that word was used. That's just trivialising my argument.
I look at the whole context.

Sorry, you are right that I oversimplified your attempt at an Isaiah 22/Matthew 16 connection…I hadn’t noticed that you were also referring to this:

he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Parallels

"whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

There is enough of a similarity between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:13-19 for Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars to conclude that Jesus intended to make a connection between those two passages. There are also enough of a difference between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:13-19 for other Catholic scholars and other Protestant scholars to recognize that Jesus may not have intended that connection at all. Those differences include:

a. In Isaiah it is “key” and in Matthew it is “keys”; and

b. In Isaiah it is “opens and shuts” and in Matthew it is “Binds and loosens”.

Now one might be inclined to think that such differences are unimportant, but the contrast with how the connection to Isaiah 22:22 is made in Rev. 3:7 is very striking. Rev. 3:7 reads:

“To the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.”

We can see that God, when he wanted to make a connection to Isaiah 22:22 (and the office of vizier), made that connection very precisely in Revelation. So why, when God allegedly wanted to make that same connection to Isaiah in Matthew and make it regarding a more significant matter, did He do it less than precisely? The use of plural “keys” just after the use of plural “gates” causes some scholars to think that the “keys” refer to the gates of Hades. As such, it is not the key of David, which is in mind, but rather the keys to the gates of Hades that Peter received.

The Pope (father) has a robe, a sash and keys as the symbols of his authority and sits on a throne.

I am not sure why you think this is worth mentioning….the first use of Matthew 16 to support the claim of Primacy for the church of Rome goes back to Pope Stephen I (254-7 AD) See: Lives of the Popes - Richard P. McBrien p. 50. As such, the Catholics have had quite a few centuries to scour the scriptures and make (for themselves) the connection to Isaiah 22 and then dress up their Pope in a like fashion to the vizier described there. In any event, bringing up the Pope’s attire really has more to do with issue 5: If so, are the successors to Peter’s authority the bishops of Rome? ….and so I will return to this sort of stuff when I get to that issue.

Returning to: If Peter was appointed as the leader of the apostles etc., was there an office to which that position of leadership/authority attached?

Without there being a connection to Isaiah 22 made in Matthew 16, however, I don’t see how one can reasonably conclude that an office was involved. On the other hand, one could envision that Peter is commissioned to a ministry without an office being involved. The options are:

1. In Matthew 16 Jesus was making a connection to Isaiah 22 and in so doing, he was indicating that Peter was being appointed to an office.

2. In Matthew 16 Jesus was making a connection to Isaiah 22, but in so doing, he was NOT indicating that Peter was being appointed to an office.

3. In Matthew 16 Jesus was NOT making a connection to Isaiah 22, however, he was still indicating that Peter was being appointed to an office.

4. In Matthew 16 Jesus was NOT making a connection to Isaiah 22 and he was NOT indicating that Peter was being appointed to an office.

Of these 4 options, it seems that more traditional Catholics go with #1. Protestants and less traditional Catholics are inclined to go with #2 or #4 and I don’t know of anyone that goes with #3. If a Catholic could establish that Jesus was indeed making the Key-keys connection, then that Catholic is only halfway home. The Catholic must still establish that the connection went so far as to establish an office for Peter.

I think that it is very significant that Jesus never mentions any (such papal) office in Matthew 16 (or anywhere else for that matter). The OT does specifically mention both religious and bureaucratic offices. We don’t have to infer that they existed. In the NT, apostles, overseers (interchangeably with elders) and deacons are all mentioned…but, it would depend on the definition one uses for “office” as to whether any of those ministry roles could properly be categorized as an “office”. In any event, the mention of those positions (apostle is one definitely I wouldn’t count as an office) only serve to emphasize that the alleged office of “Pope” is never mentioned even though it is supposedly the highest existing office. That silence is deafening (IMHO) and calls into question the validity of assuming that such an office existed.

I am aware that Catholics will also reference John 21 (where Peter is instructed to feed/care for Jesus’s sheep/lambs three times) and argue that John 21 indicates that Peter was to be the Shepherds of all Shepherds. Such a ministry (as leading Shepherd) would not necessitate an office and because the gospels stress that Peter was a threefold failure, it may simply be that he needed a threefold restoration to balance it out. In any event, nothing in John 21 clearly establishes Peter as the one Shepherd over all the other Shepherds…not even close. Doesn’t it trouble you that, when trying to establish a biblical basis for the papacy, you must assert a prime ministership, when no such thing is expressly stated, and for other Catholics, aren’t they troubled by the assertion of a supreme shepherd when no such position is expressly stated? ….especially when you contrast the NT’s silence with the OT’s practice of expressly describing the offices and positions?

 

[Simons]

As to the rest of your post it is mainly straw men claims about what Catholics teach and downgrading or dismissing important pieces of scripture.

Straw men claims?....I admit I oversimplified how you were trying to make the Isaiah 22/Matthew 16 connection, but I can't think of anything else that you could properly call a straw man. Could you please provide examples so that I could improve?
As for downgrading or dismissing any scripture, I don't think that I have done that at all. I have dismissed your interpretation of certain passages (and I have provided my reasons for doing so), but I don't think dismissing scripture is appropriate in any situation. How does one downgrade scripture when it is never said to be anything other than God's Word? If I were to say you place too much significance on one passage over another, then again, I am criticizing your approach and not downgrading scripture.....but if you have an example of where I downgraded/dismissed scripture (and not your interpretation of it) then please provide same. Thanks

I would go through it but you seem keen not to and to move on to the next part of the topic.

like you I only have so much time to spend on this....I fully intend to get to all five issues, but I want to cover each one fully, in their numerical order and not go back and forth (if it can be avoided). Cheers

 

[Mungo]

like you I only have so much time to spend on this....I fully intend to get to all five issues, but I want to cover each one fully, in their numerical order and not go back and forth (if it can be avoided). Cheers

So why jump to #2 when we haven't finished #1?

I'll continue with my responses to #1 when I have time.
Also I'm away next week but I'll do what I can before I go.

 

[Mungo]

Simons

Regarding Mt 16
This is from someone else's work on another forum.
Christ's language in Matthew is connected to the writings of Isaiah 22:15-25.

There, we see the new steward of the House of David receiving authority over the house. Among the rich language of the conferring of authority and honor there we see the laying of the key of the House of David connected also [verse 22] to the "opening and shutting" which is also connected to the "binding and loosing" power given to Peter in Mathew 16.

Several prominent Protestant Bible scholars agree:

W.F. Albright and C.S. Mann tell us the keys are a sign of authority in Ancient Israel:

"Isaiah XXII, 15 ff., undoubtedly lies behind this [Mathew 16:19] saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and Roland de Vaux rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the Vizier, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. Eliakim is describes as having the same authority in Isaiah;... and Jotham as regent is also described as 'over the household' [2 Kings 15:5]." Albright & Mann, The Anchor Bible: Mathew, p. 196.

The late F.F. Bruce also concurs:

"And what about the keys of the kingdom? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or major domo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliachim [Isaiah 22:22]. So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, the chief steward." FF Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus, pp. 143-144.

New Interpreter's Bible:

The keeper of the keys has authority within the House as administrator and teacher...The language of binding and loosing is rabbinic terminology for authoritative teaching, for having the authority to interpret the Torah and apply it to particular cases, declaring what is permitted and what is not permitted. Jesus who has taught with authority and has given authority to his disciples here gives his primary disciple the authority to teach in his name." Mathew, The Interpreter's Bible, vol. 8, p. 346.

Here then we see that the keys were a Jewish sign of authority vested on the Chief Steward of the House. In Isaiah 22, the keys are those of the House of David, of which Jesus becomes the King. Only the King could vest his steward with such authority, as Pharaoh vested Joseph with a similar power under Pharaoh. In Mathew 16 we have a series of things said and given to Peter signalling the transfer of authority:

a. All the disciples are asked about the identity of Christ, the one with authority over the House;
b. Jesus is the one chosen by the Father to give the right answer;
c. Peter is acknowledged by Christ and blessed. As Peter confessed the identity of Christ, now Jesus, the King, invests his steward with power, delegated power;
d. Jesus confers on him the name of rock;
e. Jesus confers the keys of the Kingdom. Only the King could do that!;
f. Peter is also given the power to "bind and loose." Although the 12 as a whole are given such binding and loosing authority [Mathew 18], only Peter is given it in connection with the keys of the Kingdom.

Intervarsity Press Bible Background Commentary New Testament, p. 90:

"The keeper of the keys was one of the most important roles a household servant could hold [Mark 13:32-34]. A higher official held the keys in a royal kingdom [Isaiah 22:22] and in God's house, the temple."

The New Bible Commentary:

"The keys of the kingdom of heaven: the phrase [from Matt. 16] is almost certainly based on Isaiah 22:22 where Shebna the steward is displaced by Eliachim and his authority transferred to him." p. 837.

Other descriptions of the Steward of the House are found in 2 Kings 15:5; Genesis 41:39 & 41:40. A similar position existed in other Semitic cultures and kingdoms. As Roland deVaux states in Ancient Israel,

"The Master of the Palace had similar functions at the court of Judah. Announcing the promotion of Elayakim, Isaiah 22:22 says: "I lay the key of the House of David upon his shoulder; if he opens, none will shut; if he shuts, none will open."

"One is reminded of the Lord's words to Peter, the Vizier of the Kingdom of Heaven. Like the Egyptian vizier, the master of the palace was the highest official in the state: his name comes first in the list of 2 Kings 18:18; he alone appears with the King in 1 King 18:3; and Yotam bears this title when he acts as regent of the kingdom (2 Kings 15:5) as the Vizier did in the absence of Pharaoh."

The Interpreter's Bible:

"The keys of the kingdom would be committed to the chief steward in the royal household and with them goes plenary authority. In Isaiah 22:22 the key of the House of David is promised to Eliakim. According to Paul, Jesus is the only foundation (1 Cor. 3:11) and in Rev. 1:18; 3:7, Jesus possesses the key of David and the keys of death and Hades. But in this passage [Mathew 16:19] Peter is made the foundation and holds the keys.' p. 453.

Again, only the King could vest authority on his officers. The 12 are the royal officers and Peter the Chief Officer or Vizier with the possession of all the keys by delegation. Jesus retains the keys as King, they are his. But he vests delegated power on his Steward, Peter.

The House of David was established around the 11th century B.C. or about 1010-970 B.C. [See Eerdman's Bible Dictionary, p. 262]. Isaiah [Chapters 1-39] was written about the 8th century or 760-680 B.C. So the position of Vizier in Isaiah 22:22 is dynastic, successive. It had been in place for about 300-400 years by the time of Isaiah 22.

Oscar Cullmann:

"In Mathew 16:19 it is presupposed that Christ is the master of the House, who has the keys of the kingdom of heaven, with which to open to those who come in. Just as in Isaiah 22:22 the Lord lays the Keys of the House of David on the shoulder of his servant Eliakim, so Jesus commits to Peter the keys of his House, the Kingdom of Heaven, and thereby installs him as administrator of the House." Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, p. 203.

In Isaiah 22, King Hezekiah is a type of the Messiah. In Jewish tradition, the Messianic type is fleshed out in Jewish commentaries. Jewish scholars David Sterns and Jacob Neusner comment:

"See 2 Kngs 20:8 (in which King Hesekiah is raised up from terminal illness to go up to the Temple on the third day)."

or:

"And as he [Rabbi Zakkai, a foremost first century Pharisaic leader upon the fall of Jerusalem] breathed his last said: "Clear the house of vessels which can receive corpse-uncleanness, and prepare a throne for Hezzekiah, king of Judah, who cometh." See First Century Judaism in Crisis, p. 200.

"King Hessekiah is identified in Jewish literature with the messiah." David Stern, Jewish New Testament Commentary, p. 11.

So, as in Isaiah 22, King Hezekiah [type of Christ] vests his Vizier with authority over the House, Jesus in Mat. 16, the Messiah, vests Peter with authority over Jesus' house.

I am not sure why you think this is worth mentioning….the first use of Matthew 16 to support the claim of Primacy for the church of Rome goes back to Pope Stephen I (254-7 AD) See: Lives of the Popes - Richard P. McBrien p. 50.

Wrong again.
Tertullian :
"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[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]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

 

[Mungo]

I am aware that Catholics will also reference John 21 (where Peter is instructed to feed/care for Jesus’s sheep/lambs three times) and argue that John 21 indicates that Peter was to be the Shepherds of all Shepherds. Such a ministry (as leading Shepherd) would not necessitate an office and because the gospels stress that Peter was a threefold failure, it may simply be that he needed a threefold restoration to balance it out. In any event, nothing in John 21 clearly establishes Peter as the one Shepherd over all the other Shepherds…not even close. Doesn’t it trouble you that, when trying to establish a biblical basis for the papacy, you must assert a prime ministership, when no such thing is expressly stated, and for other Catholics, aren’t they troubled by the assertion of a supreme shepherd when no such position is expressly stated? ….especially when you contrast the NT’s silence with the OT’s practice of expressly describing the offices and positions?

Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd
I am the good shepherd. A good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. (Jn 10:11)

He has a flock
I have other sheep that do not belong to this fold. These also I must lead, and they will hear my voice, and there will be one flock, one shepherd. (Jn 10:16)

He is the successor of King David whom God promised would look after his sheep (Ez 34:23)

Then in John 21:15-17 he asks Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep
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.” Jesus 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.” Jesus said to him, “Tend my sheep.” He said to him the third time, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter felt hurt 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” (Jn 21:15-17).

Jesus is still the good shepherd, the sheep still belong to him, but he is giving them into Peter’s charge to look after on his behalf.

Jesus has said about his sheep “they will hear my voice”. He also said to those to whom he gave authority “whoever listens to you listens to me” (Lk 10:16). So when the Pope, as the successor of Peter, speaks under authority of Jesus then we hear Jesus our good shepherd.

There is another point about John 21:15-17
Let us move to another interesting passage in Luke's gospel

In Luke 12 Jesus is warning about the end times and the coming of the Son of Man. Peter asks (vs 41) “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”

Jesus replies to Peter “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?"
Jesus is saying to Peter that when a master goes away to a marriage feast he will leave one of this servants in his place to look after all the others including feeding them.

No move forward to John 21. Jesus is risen and is soon the go away to the Father. Jesus says to Peter “Feed my lambs.”(vs 15), “Feed my sheep" (vs 17).

Do you see the connection?
Jesus is the master who is going away and he leaves Peter "set over his household [the Church]" (Lk 12:42) and told to feed them. Not literally with food but to nourish then with sound teaching., and to look after them (“Tend my sheep.” (Jn 21:16).

 

[JLB]

This topic arises out of an initial discussion with Simons in the thread Peter The Rock over the role of the Papacy and whether that role existed in the early Church.

In His book, The Early Papacy, Fr. Adrian Fortescue lists four claims that the Catholic Church makes about the role of the Pope and the evidence for those claims; also whether this role existed from the beginning or were much later additions. Fr. Fortescue goes up the Council of Chalcedon in 451).

These claims are (and I quote from his book):
1.The Pope is the chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth.
2. He has the episcopal jurisdiction over all members of the Church.
3. To be a member of the Catholic Church, a man [or woman] must be in communion with the Pope.
4. The providential guidance of God will see to it that the Pope shall never commit the Church to error in any matter of religion.

It is clear from scripture that Peter, whom Catholic claim was the first Pope, was appointed by Christ himself as leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole; that he was given more authority than the other apostles.

This has been explained in several threads - The Primacy of Peter, the Chair of Peter, Peter and the Keys, Peter the Rock. The issue really is was that a one-off - for Peter alone - or was that a role (and the authority that goes with it) that was handed on to Peter's successors.

The first point to make is that should be obvious that someone has to be the ultimate arbiter and decision maker. The experience of Protestantism shows the error of everyone thinking they can decide themselves what to believe; that they can be their own Pope. Currently I have read that there are over 40,000 different Protestant denominations, sects and one-pastor churches teaching different and contradictory doctrines.

Jesus founded one Church (not 40,000 plus), with one set of doctrines (not with many contradictory doctrines) and promised to preserve it from error. That can only happen with a hierarchy with an ultimate (earthly) leader and continuity of leadership.

I believe the role and authority that Jesus gave Peter was of necessity handed on and we can see this in that the four claims listed by Fr. Fortescue that were recognised by the early Church.

I'll start with claim 1 - "The Pope is the chief bishop, primate and leader of the whole Church of Christ on earth."

Irenaeus
Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies, Bk 3, Chap 3 [AD 180]

The Council of Ephesus (431) records this in session III
Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [i.e. Rome] said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince (ἔξαρχος) and head of the Apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation (θεμέλιος) of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to to-day and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Cœlestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod, which the most humane and Christian Emperors have commanded to assemble, bearing in mind and continually watching over the Catholic faith. For they both have kept and are now keeping intact the apostolic doctrine handed down to them from their most pious and humane grandfathers and fathers of holy memory down to the present time, http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.x.xv.html

Historians outside the Catholic Church also acknowledge the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome in the early centuries,

The Anglican scholar J.N.D. Kelly in his classic work Early Christian Doctrines writes:
"Everywhere, in the East no less than the West, Rome enjoyed a special prestige, as is indicated by the precedence accorded without question to it....Thus Rome's preeminance remained undisputed in the patristic period. For evidence of it the student need only recall the leading position claimed as a matter of course by the popes, and freely conceded to them, at the councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451).

No such title as “Pope” in scripture.


It’s a man made title to promote a man made religion based on man made doctrines.






JLB

 

[Mungo]

No such title as “Pope” in scripture.

Incarnation and Trinity are not in scripture either.
Your point is irrelevanrt.

It’s a man made title to promote a man made religion based on man made doctrines.






JLB

A reminder of TOS 1.4: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member. Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith. (Exodus 20:16)

 

[Simons]

Regarding Mt 16
This is from someone else's work on another forum.

it is always nice when you don’t have to type everything out for yourself…that being said, I don’t think anything that you produced from Protestant scholars needs to be addressed by me as I had already indicated that:

There is enough of a similarity between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:13-19 for Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars to conclude that Jesus intended to make a connection between those two passages. There are also enough of a difference between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:13-19 for other Catholic scholars and other Protestant scholars to recognize that Jesus may not have intended that connection at all.

….but to round out the field, here is something from an Orthodox scholar:

The exegetical question that flows from this interpretation is whether the “power of the keys” (here given to Peter alone) is different from the authority to “bind and loose” that Jesus later confers to the Twelve in Matthew 18:18. Orthodox theologians past and present have consistently interpreted the power of the keys to be “a symbol of the authority of binding and loosing,” and thus something possessed by all the apostles, who were given this authority in Matthew 18:18…. Biblical scholarship has achieved no real consensus on this question, or on the exact nature of these powers.” A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate (p. 72) The interpretation contemplated in the first line is the one where it is understood that Peter is (possibly) appointed as a sort of vizier of the kingdom of heaven.​

I would sum up the current scholarship as follows:

• most scholars today understand the “foundation rock” to be Peter (as opposed to his faith or his confession…even though this is a view held by a good number of early church fathers),
• a scholarly consensus has not been achieved on the question of whether “the keys” are a connection to Isaiah 22 or not; and
• Even if “the keys” are connected to Isaiah 22 where the office of vizier is mentioned, a scholarly consensus has not been achieved on the question of whether Peter received an office (as opposed to being commissioned to a ministry of leadership etc.) and as indicated by Siecienski no scholarly consensus has been achieved on the question on whether Peter received a unique authority or whether all the apostles received that same authority 2 chapters later.

Where no consensus has been achieved one can find scholars to quote on both sides of the question…and where a consensus has been achieved one can still find the odd scholar (and in this case early church fathers) to quote on both sides of the question.

I also think that it is worth mentioning that scholars often look at the Matthew 16 passage in isolation from the other NT books. That is understandable as, in the scholarly field, it is not assumed that the Matthean community held the exact same views as the Pauline communities, for example. With that approach there is no need to reconcile the Matthew’s “church being built of Peter” with Ephesian’s “church being built on Jesus plus the apostles plus the prophets” nor is there any need to account for the total absence of a special office for Peter in the rest of the NT. There is also no need to explain why the clear reference to Isaiah 22 in Revelation differs so much from the possible reference in Isaiah 22 in Matthew. Once one takes the position that all the NT books are inspired by the same God, however, one must account for any apparent inconsistency.

Wrong again.

Tertullian :

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

"[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]. . . . What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

Huh? Wrong again? Did you think that I said that the “first use of Matthew 16 goes back to Pope Stephen I (254-7 AD)”…if so, you would be wrong about what I said, but your citing of Tertullian would make sense. Or did you rightly understand that I said: the first use of Matthew 16 to support the claim of Primacy for the church of Rome goes back to Pope Stephen I (254-7 AD) If so, you please clarify where the passages you cited support the claim of Primacy for the church of Rome (as opposed to a special gift for Peter)…or I guess you could demonstrate that Tertullian thought any gift for Peter also became a gift for Rome.

 

[Mungo]

it is always nice when you don’t have to type everything out for yourself…that being said, I don’t think anything that you produced from Protestant scholars needs to be addressed by me as I had already indicated that:

There is enough of a similarity between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:13-19 for Catholic scholars and Protestant scholars to conclude that Jesus intended to make a connection between those two passages. There are also enough of a difference between Isaiah 22:22 and Matthew 16:13-19 for other Catholic scholars and other Protestant scholars to recognize that Jesus may not have intended that connection at all.

….but to round out the field, here is something from an Orthodox scholar:

The exegetical question that flows from this interpretation is whether the “power of the keys” (here given to Peter alone) is different from the authority to “bind and loose” that Jesus later confers to the Twelve in Matthew 18:18. Orthodox theologians past and present have consistently interpreted the power of the keys to be “a symbol of the authority of binding and loosing,” and thus something possessed by all the apostles, who were given this authority in Matthew 18:18…. Biblical scholarship has achieved no real consensus on this question, or on the exact nature of these powers.” A. Edward Siecienski, The Papacy and the Orthodox: Sources and History of a Debate (p. 72) The interpretation contemplated in the first line is the one where it is understood that Peter is (possibly) appointed as a sort of vizier of the kingdom of heaven.​

I would sum up the current scholarship as follows:

• most scholars today understand the “foundation rock” to be Peter (as opposed to his faith or his confession…even though this is a view held by a good number of early church fathers),
• a scholarly consensus has not been achieved on the question of whether “the keys” are a connection to Isaiah 22 or not; and
• Even if “the keys” are connected to Isaiah 22 where the office of vizier is mentioned, a scholarly consensus has not been achieved on the question of whether Peter received an office (as opposed to being commissioned to a ministry of leadership etc.) and as indicated by Siecienski no scholarly consensus has been achieved on the question on whether Peter received a unique authority or whether all the apostles received that same authority 2 chapters later.

Where no consensus has been achieved one can find scholars to quote on both sides of the question…and where a consensus has been achieved one can still find the odd scholar (and in this case early church fathers) to quote on both sides of the question.

I also think that it is worth mentioning that scholars often look at the Matthew 16 passage in isolation from the other NT books. That is understandable as, in the scholarly field, it is not assumed that the Matthean community held the exact same views as the Pauline communities, for example. With that approach there is no need to reconcile the Matthew’s “church being built of Peter” with Ephesian’s “church being built on Jesus plus the apostles plus the prophets” nor is there any need to account for the total absence of a special office for Peter in the rest of the NT. There is also no need to explain why the clear reference to Isaiah 22 in Revelation differs so much from the possible reference in Isaiah 22 in Matthew. Once one takes the position that all the NT books are inspired by the same God, however, one must account for any apparent inconsistency.





Huh? Wrong again? Did you think that I said that the “first use of Matthew 16 goes back to Pope Stephen I (254-7 AD)”…if so, you would be wrong about what I said, but your citing of Tertullian would make sense. Or did you rightly understand that I said: the first use of Matthew 16 to support the claim of Primacy for the church of Rome goes back to Pope Stephen I (254-7 AD) If so, you please clarify where the passages you cited support the claim of Primacy for the church of Rome (as opposed to a special gift for Peter)…or I guess you could demonstrate that Tertullian thought any gift for Peter also became a gift for Rome.

Sorry. My mistake.

I thought you seriously wanted a discussion but I see you are only playing games.
I don't have the time or inclination for games so I'll leave you to find someone else to play with.

God bless, and goodbye.

 

[Simons]

Jesus refers to himself as a shepherd
Then in John 21:15-17 he asks Peter to be the shepherd of his sheep

And there is no indication that any office is involved. Do you really think that shepherding is an office just for Peter and not a ministry expected of all the apostles?

Jesus has said about his sheep “they will hear my voice”. He also said to those to whom he gave authority “whoever listens to you listens to me” (Lk 10:16). So when the Pope, as the successor of Peter, speaks under authority of Jesus then we hear Jesus our good shepherd.

so just as soon as you have demonstrated that an office was granted to Peter and that it would be passed on to his successors and that the Pope is an actual successor…then you could have a point

Let us move to another interesting passage in Luke's gospel

In Luke 12 Jesus is warning about the end times and the coming of the Son of Man. Peter asks (vs 41) “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?”

please note how Peter understands the options to be “us” (the disciples) or “all” (the believers) and not “me” (Peter)….yet you want the next parable to apply to Peter alone.

Jesus replies to Peter “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?"

….No move forward to John 21. Jesus is risen and is soon the go away to the Father. Jesus says to Peter “Feed my lambs.”(vs 15), “Feed my sheep" (vs 17).

Do you see the connection?

I can see the connection that you are trying to make…I just think that it is way too much of a stretch. When you try to connect Luke 12 to John 21, for a non-Catholic like me it doesn’t bolster your case. Instead, it emphasizes the fact that the NT has so little evidence in support of your claim (for a Petrine office) that you are forced to try and make this type of connection.

 

[Simons]

Issue 3: If Peter was granted an office that made him THE leader of the apostles, did that office of authority remain with Peter until his death?

As the New Testament never mentions the existence of such an office, of course, there is nothing in scripture indicating that the said office of authority remained with Peter until his death…nor is there anything in scripture indicating that the said office of authority did not remain with Peter until his death. As stated, scripture simply does not acknowledge the existence of such an office.

Here are some things that can be noted from scripture:

Peter was definitely a leader (the primary leader) of the Church at its very start, but is there any indication that Peter’s decision would trump the decision of another apostle (let alone another 2 apostles)? In Acts 15 (at what is commonly called the Jerusalem council) there is no indication that Peter could make doctrinal decisions on his own. After much debate had occurred at the meeting, Peter provides evidence and gives his opinion, but it is James that renders the judgment. Further, it appears that involvement of the whole church was vital. It should also be noted that the letter is not sent by Peter in any papal capacity, but rather it is sent by the apostles and elders without any special mention of Peter. It would seem that James had the greater status by that time and, interestingly, Peter gets no further mention in Acts after that meeting. The decision was not the decision of any one man (and that would include Peter) but was the decision of the Holy Spirit (attested, unanimously by the apostles, the elders and the congregation). So again, the Jerusalem council does not provide evidence for the exercise of any papal authority by Peter.

Paul originally looks to Peter for assurance, but then confronts Peter when Peter falls into error (Gal . 2) and eventually surpasses Peter in the areas of writing scripture, missionary journeys, and church planting. Paul may not have been Peter’s peer at the start, but he most certainly was his equal at the end.

Similarly, Peter was the primary leader of the Church in Jerusalem at the outset, but James takes over that position. Peter may have been viewed as James’s superior at the outset, but by the time Paul wrote Gal. 2:9 it is James that gets the first billing, ahead of Peter. There Paul refers to the so-called Pillars of the Church which he names as: James, Peter, and John.

1 Peter 5:1 has Peter referring to himself as a “fellow elder” ….and not as the Pope or as the Chief Apostle. Any greater authority that is claimed by Peter in that book is attributed to his apostleship, and not some office of prime ministership.

When looking at the New Testament it is impossible to not notice the prominence of Peter at the start. For example, he is mentioned 60 times in Acts 1-15. It is also impossible to not notice that the importance of Peter fades. For example, he is not mentioned at all in Acts 16-28. By the time of Acts 15 James has assumed leadership at Jerusalem and (as summarized above) Paul is about to start surpassing Peter in a few areas. This fading of Peter’s prominence is much more consistent with Peter having been commissioned to a ministry than for Peter to have been appointed to a Papal office.