Matthew 16:13-20
Peter’s Declaration about Jesus
Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, ‘Who do people say that the Son of Man is?’ And they said, ‘Some say John the Baptist, but others Elijah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.’ He said to them, ‘But who do you say that I am?’ Simon Peter answered, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ And Jesus answered him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.’ Then he sternly ordered the disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah.
Here is the scriptural warrant used by
@Mountainmike above to argue for the doctrine of Papal Infallibility as belonging to the category of scriptural warrant rather than Holy Tradition.
To do so requires a particular reading of the passage. Indeed it requires a reading of the passage with a deal of material beyond the passage. It requires us to assess that the meaning of this passage is separate and distinct from the reading of John 20:19-23. It requires us to understand that this reading is a matter that belongs to the person of Peter, and a role for Peter not yet established and that such authority might be transmitted to his successors. It the setting of today with the Papal conclave to elect after much prayer, that might make sense, however it requires us to assent to that power having been transmitted through the sacrum obscurum period when the Holy Office was traded in a far more secular way.
John 20: 19-23
Jesus Appears to the Disciples
When it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and the doors of the house where the disciples had met were locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, ‘Peace be with you.’ After he said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples rejoiced when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, ‘Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.’ When he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, ‘Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.’
When look at the passages together it might be seen that the authority was committed to the Church that confesses Jesus Christ as Lord, rather than specifically on a particular person.
Acts 15:13-21
The Council in Jerusalem
After they finished speaking, James replied, ‘My brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first looked favourably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,
“After this I will return, and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it, and I will set it up, so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—
even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.
Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things known from long ago.”
Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.’
Scripture again in Acts seems to suggest that at the first Council in Jerusalem (AD 42) it was James who acted as the first among equals and spokesperson for the Church.
The matter of Roman Primacy was a matter of discussion at the 1st Council of Constantinople (AD 381), when the order of primacy was discussed (Constantinople being the seat of empire having been founded as Nova Romanum), and it was agreed that Constantinople was first in order only after Rome, which was justified on the basis of the Matthew passage quoted above. The authority of the Church, as against the primacy was with the Council, and they looked for a consensus among the Patriarchs (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, Ephesus), which still appears to carry the weight of first among equals. At this stage the Bishop of Rome was understood to be Patriarch of the West.
The authority over others was a matter of historical development and conflict, as seen in areas such as the Photian Schism (AD C880), The Coronation of Henry II leading to the Great Schism (AD 1014-1054), The Council of Florence, and Vatican 1 (AD 1870) which declared the doctrine of Papal Infallibility.
I do maintain a great respect for my sisters and brother in communion with the Bishop of Rome, and intend a healthy respect for the holder of the office, (indeed I might even be a fan of the current Pope) and I recognise the primacy of the office, as first among equals, and a strong moral authority, however I have too much history to place the Office above Scripture, or the Office above the Councils.
This was going to be short, and I apologise, however I was trying to make the point that to argue that Papal Infallibility is simply scripture and not tradition is an argument I think can be questioned.
