Comments on the pope

Hoonbaba · Feb 13, 2003

Hi guys,

Someone gave some interesting (negative) comments on the pope which I'd like some of you to address:

 

It's hard to exercise any patience toward this view. I don't hope to convince you, but maybe other people will read this response.

You said, "It's clear that Peter was given particular authority from Christ to 'loose and bind'." You make a big deal out of Christ telling Peter that he has the keys, which are inseparably attached (as per Isaiah 22) to the power of loosing and binding.

Your reference is to Matthew 16. But what about Matthew 18:18? Doesn't Christ speak to all the apostles? Doesn't he give them the power to "loose and bind" in this place? It would seem then that even in Matthew 16 he didn't mean to be exclusive of Peter (as if the charge of stately office was excluded from the rest). Christ didn't have one prime minister or one emissary, but many. Jesus even elsewhere tells the twelve that they will sit on twelve thrones ruling over the twelve tribes. Revelation speaks similarly. There is no papacy here.

Even when Paul speaks of Peter, John, and James as pillars in Jerusalem, he doesn't even hint at any kind of pope-like status for Peter. He doesn't subordinate himself to Peter nor does he subordinate John and James to the supposed first pope.

The bottom line is this: The papacy was a historical development within Latin Christianity. Large bishopricks (especially in major cities) naturally began to rise in influence over smaller satellite regions. There came to be schools of thought associated with geographical affiliations (ex: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome).

Rome was successful in dominating the churches far and wide (especially in the West). This influence is hardly any different than Paris dominating and influencing fashion throughout Europe and the Americas (and part of Africa) in previous centuries. Rome became a seat of power. This power developed over time and changed. Christianity's acceptance by the Roman Empire influenced this shift considerably. Though not specifically established by Christ, this Roman domination just worked out that way. Many traditions arose within this Latin Christianity (i.e. Romanism) which tended to bolster or uphold its legitimacy. The office of pope, centered upon the Bishoprick of Rome and supposedly beginning in Peter (or Peter and Paul as per Eusebius), was part of this tradition.

Yet the case to identify Peter as a Bishop of Rome, historically, is a major conflict of interest for Latin (i.e. Romanist)writers/historians. The Scriptural account shows Peter as a pillar in Jerusalem. He writes from "Babylon" in 1 Peter, which again is Jerusalem. If Peter lived beyond a.d. 70, then maybe I could see him going to Rome, but most of the same historians who claim that Peter served in Rome also believe that he was martyred prior to Jerusalem's destruction. The Romanist story does not fit together.

The papacy, to be sure, has many other problems, but I will leave the argument here for now. Yet I will say one last thing: it is beyond dispute that the first several Bishops of Rome had no idea that they were actually popes who had a divinely-appointed authority over other Bishopricks. They didn't exert this authority (because they didn't have that authority). It was only later revisionist history that gave them the universal-church-wide hierarchical office.

Can anyone respond to any of this?

-Jason

Wolseley · Feb 13, 2003

Try these:

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/apostolic_succession.html

geocajun · Feb 13, 2003

Along with the articles Woseley gave you, I suggest you read the following tracts which address this persons statements:

the following is a quote from Peter and the Papacy

Peter and the Papacy

There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28). On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peters faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and Peter is given Christs flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48).

Peter the Rock

Peters preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was thataside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abrams name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacobs to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakims to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youthsDaniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Barak "lightning," (Judg. 4:6), Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.

also, see the following links:
Peter's Primacy (quotes from Church fathers)
Peter's Roman residency
Was Peter in Rome?

isshinwhat · Feb 15, 2003

" '...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"
Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae(Primacy text),4(A.D. 251),in NE,228-229

I find this quote from Cyprian interesting for several reasons. First, it predates the Council of Nicea, second Cyprian was an Eastern Christian, and third it takes into account Matthew 16:18 and 18:18. It points out that the Bishop of Nashville, for instance, is no more or less a bishop than the Bishop of Rome. Their ministry is different, but none is "more a bishop."

God Bless,

Neal

dignitized · Feb 15, 2003

isshinwhat: what is the source of the this quotation? From what collection does it come? The trouble with some of the writings of the church fathers is that many things are said to have been written or said by them which are spurious creations of the Middle ages. During this time in history it was not unheard of to create a document to support the claims of some one to legitimacy when the were making exaggerate claims. One example would be the Donation of Constantine, an other the false Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore. Sadly, the latter was used by Aquinas to support His claims for papal primacy in the Summa.

I would be greatly interested in knowing if any ultramontanest here has ever read Dollingers work on papal primacy: THE POPE AND THE COUNCIL . . . .

Stormy · Feb 16, 2003

Could someone answer my question calmly, and clearly. I really just want yes or no answers. I am not out to debate, nor win any points for any cause, but rather just to gain knowledge for my own decision.

Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?

linda4jesus · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 01:42 PM Stormy said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656747#post656747)

Could someone answer my question calmly, and clearly. I really just want yes or no answers. I am not out to debate, nor win any points for any cause, but rather just to gain knowledge for my own decision.

Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?

Stormy,

None of the Apostles singled Peter out and declared that he was the pope or head of the early Church. When Jesus told Peter that "He is the Rock" Jesus was referring to himself...Jesus Christ is the Rock. Every believer is a stone in Christs Church. Peter was not the rock, but just one of many who are a part of this spiritual house of worship.

kern · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 01:42 PM Stormy said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656747#post656747)
Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?

Yes. Those words are not quoted in the Bible, but they certainly did acknowledge him as the head.

-Chris

Hoonbaba · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 03:04 PM linda4jesus said this in Post #7

Stormy,

None of the Apostles singled Peter out and declared that he was the pope or head of the early Church. When Jesus told Peter that "He is the Rock" Jesus was referring to himself...Jesus Christ is the Rock. Every believer is a stone in Christ's Church. Peter was not the rock, but just one of many who are a part of this spiritual house of worship.

I'm sure any of the Catholics would greatly disagree with you.  I won't spend time giving a long response to your statement that Peter wasn't the rock.  Someone else can get to that. 

But Peter was singled out many times, it's just that many don't really notice how Peter is often singled out ahead of the other apostles (Matt 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Act 1:13; 2:37; 5:29)

Stormy, as for the specific reference to Peter as 'pope', the quick answer is no.  But neither is the trinity mentioned anywhere in the bible, yet almost every Christian denomination agrees it's biblical.  If you'd like, I'll explain the papacy.  But it might take me some time.

God bless!

-Jason

geocajun · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 01:42 PM Stormy said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656747#post656747)

Could someone answer my question calmly, and clearly. I really just want yes or no answers. I am not out to debate, nor win any points for any cause, but rather just to gain knowledge for my own decision.

Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?

Please carefully read my post and the links here: http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=652161#post652161

also, did anyone in scripture ever refer to scripture as the 'bible' ?
did anyone refer to Yahweh as triune?
there are many more examples I did not provide of extra biblical traditions that Christians accept - such as the canon of the bible....

Peter is clearly acknowledged as the authority among the Apostles in scripture, and if you read the references in my post I linked above, I believe you will conclude the same.

Reformationist · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 12:45 PM Hoonbaba said this in Post #9

Stormy, as for the specific reference to Peter as 'pope', the quick answer is no.  But neither is the trinity mentioned anywhere in the bible, yet almost every Christian denomination agrees it's biblical.

Today at 12:48 PM geocajun said this in Post #10

also, did anyone in scripture ever refer to scripture as the 'bible' ?
did anyone refer to Yahweh as triune?

I know this is the OBOB forum and I would certainly never dream of starting a debate as to the interpretation of Scripture, but I do want to offer some advice on dealing with interpretational credibility.  I hope none of you will see this as an attack but rather as constructive criticism.

I just wanted to point out that it is, IMO, fruitless to explain something that you hold to be true by saying that it's possible because there are other examples in the Bible of things that are commonly believed that aren't directly spelled out.

The Mormons do this exact same thing in an effort to provide credibility for the legitimacy of their extrabiblical "scripture."  They commonly cite verses which speak of other texts in an effort to show that there are books that the Apostles and Prophets referrenced in a biblical account so their claim of extra revelation can't be completely disputed so there's a possibility of it being divinely authentic.

Again, I hope only to provide you with some insight in how this weakens your position, instead of strengthening it.

God bless

geocajun · Feb 16, 2003

Ref, thanks for the advice, and I agree, I would never lead with such a weak argument, but I do think it is a suitable response to the argument "the word 'Pope' isn't in the bible..."

chelcb · Feb 16, 2003

Hey, reverend is not in there either. And Pope means Papa, just a term of endearment, his official name is the bishop of Rome. I do not see his name being a big deal of it not being in the bible. Also trinity in not in there either and none of us question that.

Miss Shelby · Feb 16, 2003

Again, I hope only to provide you with some insight in how this weakens your position, instead of strengthening it.

I don't think it weakens the position. Just because the word 'pope' isn't found in the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach it.

Michelle

kern · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 03:07 PM Reformationist said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656931#post656931)

I just wanted to point out that it is, IMO, fruitless to explain something that you hold to be true by saying that it's possible because there are other examples in the Bible of things that are commonly believed that aren't directly spelled out.

Again, I hope only to provide you with some insight in how this weakens your position, instead of strengthening it.

God bless

Yes, it is true. What we are doing here is an example of the logical fallacy "tu quoqum" (or some latin phrase like that) which is basically "well, you do it too."

The truth is, when someone says the word "Pope" is not in the Bible, all we can say is "You are correct," and then explain why that does not bother us.

As a separate issue, we can point out that other commonly accepted terms are not in the Bible either. We are not necessarily saying that to prove that the Pope is correct, we are merely saying that the fact that the word "Pope" is not found in the Bible is not relevant to the issue.

Reformationist · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 01:55 PM Miss Shelby said this in Post #14

I don't think it weakens the position. Just because the word 'pope' isn't found in the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach it.

Michelle

I didn't say the Bible didn't teach it.  What I said was, using the premise of "the Bible doesn't specifically say the word such and such" is a poor basis for establishing a point of view.  There are a ton of things that the Bible doesn't talk about but that doesn't mean they are to be viewed as biblical.  For that matter, all I was trying to relay was that while you may believe that the office of the Pope is biblically grounded, and you have that right of course, to say, "It's a perfectly okay view because the Bible doesn't say that it's not true" is a bit presumptuous.  Not wrong, presumptuous.

God bless

Reformationist · Feb 16, 2003

Today at 02:03 PM kern said this in Post #15

Yes, it is true. What we are doing here is an example of the logical fallacy "tu quoqum" (or some latin phrase like that) which is basically "well, you do it too."

The truth is, when someone says the word "Pope" is not in the Bible, all we can say is "You are correct," and then explain why that does not bother us.

As a separate issue, we can point out that other commonly accepted terms are not in the Bible either. We are not necessarily saying that to prove that the Pope is correct, we are merely saying that the fact that the word "Pope" is not found in the Bible is not relevant to the issue.

Now this, I agree with.  Well said.

God bless

chelcb · Feb 16, 2003

Half the stuff that is not worded in the bible does not keep me up at night worried. It simply is a non issue, at least for me because I know that we base our beliefs on the tradtions of the early first century Christians that were closest to Jesus and his apostles, just as much as we base our beliefs on the bible.

isshinwhat · Feb 16, 2003

isshinwhat: what is the source of the this quotation? From what collection does it come? The trouble with some of the writings of the church fathers is that many things are said to have been written or said by them which are spurious creations of the Middle ages. During this time in history it was not unheard of to create a document to support the claims of some one to legitimacy when the were making exaggerate claims. One example would be the Donation of Constantine, an other the false Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore. Sadly, the latter was used by Aquinas to support His claims for papal primacy in the Summa.

The quote from Cyprian is authentic, and is referenced at the bottom of my original post. You should have no trouble finding it in most any collection of the Early Fathers. There were two versions put forth.  This is the earliest version which Cyprian, being Eastern, caught some heat for, thus he rewrote this section for an Eastern audience some time later. That section as written in the secondary text is:

4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"

In this text, he still mentions the unity proceeding from one, but no longer mentions Peter by name, thus avoiding any East/West strain while still making his point.

God Bless,

Neal

Axion · Feb 16, 2003

The Witness of Some Early Church Fathers

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189,
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

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

"The blessed apostles, having founded and built up the church, they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us."

St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8,

"You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and
Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

ORIGEN:
"Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail, left only one epistle of acknowledged genuinity. Let us concede also a second, which however is doubtful." (Commentaries on John 5,3)
"Look upon the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church! And what does the Lord say to him? 'O you of little faith,' He says, 'why did you doubt!'" (Homilies on Exodus 5,4)

Comments on the pope

Catholic Preterist

Beaucoup-Diên-Cai-Dāu

Priest of the holy smackrament

Pro Deo et Patria

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Are you Rapture Ready?

Miserere Nobis

Catholic Preterist

Priest of the holy smackrament

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Priest of the holy smackrament

'Totus tuus'

Legend

Miserere Nobis

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

Non nobis domine sed tuo nomine da gloriam

'Totus tuus'

Pro Deo et Patria

Senior Veteran

Similar threads