Tell me, is the Pope a thief?

[steveh_131]

There you go again with the "we". Mouse in your pocket and who else?

??? We = you and I. You and I do not agree on the premise.

Whether Paul has authority is a matter of personal belief on my part. So what?

If Paul has no authority then neither do his writings, which make up a large portion of the New Testament. My beliefs about the New Testament church are largely based upon his writings.

Fargo said that his arguments were based in the new testament. I asked him to expand on them. You chiming in with WHO CARES WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS in large text is ok I guess, but it has no meaning to me or relevance to my questions to Fargo.

 

[Mark 1911]

Please do.

1. Is the pope infallible? Or is his position somehow infallible? If so, can you provide the Biblical source for this?

First of all, for most of the responses below, I have copied them from mainly from two sources. Radio Replies by Humble and Carty, and the Catholic Answers website - Catholic Answers, with some of my own words thrown in. I assume you want the official teaching on this, so I presumed to go to trusted sources.

The simple answer is yes, but only under very specific conditions. The infallibility of the Pope simply means that in his official teachings or definitions, provided he speaks as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals and with the intention of binding all the faithful, God would not allow him to define erroneous doctrine. The Pope, as successor of St Peter, is Vicar of Christ, and the final court of appeal in the Church. But all these conditions must be present for an infallible teaching. The Pope's word is not infallible whenever he speaks, though his decisions are always to be received with respect. But if he speaks merely as a private theologian, expressing his own views his opinions could be mistaken. Infallibility attaches to his decisions only when he speaks in his supreme and official capacity as supreme teacher of all the faithful.
Will get to the biblical and other references in #4.

2. You mentioned church hierarchy. Are you arguing that in the NT, Peter was the central and highest leader of all of these churches?
Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the Church. More on this below.

3. What 'power' does the Pope have? Can he provide forgiveness, or is he the decider of who may be forgiven and for which sins? Are you allowed to disagree with the Pope?

The pope, as an ordained priest, has the power to forgive sins bestowed on him by Christ. It is not the priest who forgives sins, but Christ who forgives sins through the priest.

As far as disagreeing with the pope, yes, people disagree with the pope all the time. The pope has his own opinions on things that are not matters of faith and morals. Climate change is one such example. The only areas where I may not disagree is in regards to official teachings related to faith and morals.

Back to the topic of forgiveness of sins. It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why does this man speak thus? he blasphemes. Who can forgive sins, but God only?" But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: "Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark, ii, 5-11; Matt., ix, 2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive sins and that this power could be exerted not only in heaven but also on earth. This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xvi, 19). Later He says to all the Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xviii, 18). As to the meaning of these texts, it should be noted: (a) that the "binding" and "loosing" refers not to physical but to spiritual or moral bonds among which sin is certainly included; the more so because (b) the power here granted is unlimited—"whatsoever you shall bind,... whatsoever you shall loose"; (c) the power is judicial, i.e., the Apostles are authorized to bind and to loose; (d) whether they bind or loose, their action is ratified in heaven. In healing the palsied man Christ declared that "the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins"; here He promises that what these men, the Apostles, bind or loose on earth, God in heaven will likewise bind or loose.

But as the Council of Trent declares, Christ principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance after His Resurrection, a miracle greater than that of healing the sick. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (John, xx, 21-23). While the sense of these words is quite obvious, the following points are to be considered: (a) Christ here reiterates in the plainest terms—"sins", "forgive", "retain"—what He had previously stated in figurative language, "bind" and "loose", so that this text specifies and distinctly applies to sin the power of loosing and binding. (b) He prefaces this grant of power by declaring that the mission of the Apostles is similar to that which He had received from the Father and which He had fulfilled: "As the Father hath sent me". Now it is beyond doubt that He came into the world to destroy sin and that on various occasions He explicitly forgave sin (Matt., ix, 2-8; Luke, v, 20; vii, 47; Apoc., i, 5), hence the forgiving of sin is to be included in the mission of the Apostles. (c) Christ not only declared that sins were forgiven, but really and actually forgave them; hence, the Apostles are empowered not merely to announce to the sinner that his sins are forgiven but to grant him forgiveness—"whose sins you shall forgive". If their power were limited to the declaration "God pardons you", they would need a special revelation in each case to make the declaration valid. (d) The power is twofold—to forgive or to retain, i.e., the Apostles are not told to grant or withhold forgiveness indiscriminately; they must act judicially, forgiving or retaining according as the sinner deserves. (e) The exercise of this power in either form (forgiving or retaining) is not restricted: no distinction is made or even suggested between one kind of sin and another, or between one class of sinners and all the rest: Christ simply says "whose sins". (f) The sentence pronounced by the Apostles (remission or retention) is also God's sentence—"they are forgiven ... they are retained".

It is therefore clear from the words of Christ that the Apostles had power to forgive sins. But this was not a personal prerogative that was to cease at their death; it was granted to them in their official capacity and hence as a permanent institution in the Church—no less permanent than the mission to teach and baptize all nations. Christ foresaw that even those who received faith and baptism, whether during the lifetime of the Apostles or later, would fall into sin and therefore would need forgiveness in order to be saved. He must, then, have intended that the power to forgive should be transmitted from the Apostles to their successors and be used as long as there would be sinners in the Church, and that means to the end of time. It is true that in baptism also sins are forgiven, but this does not warrant the view that the power to forgive is simply the power to baptize. In the first place, as appears from the texts cited above, the power to forgive is also the power to retain; its exercise involves a judicial action. But no such action is implied in the commission to baptize (Matt., xxviii, 18-20); in fact, as the Council of Trent affirms, the Church does not pass judgment on those who are not yet members of the Church, and membership is obtained through baptism. Furthermore, baptism, because it is a new birth, cannot be repeated, whereas the power to forgive sins (penance) is to be used as often as the sinner may need it. Hence the condemnation, by the same Council, of any one "who, confounding the sacraments, should say that baptism itself is the Sacrament of Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct and as though penance were not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck".

These pronouncements were directed against the Protestant teaching which held that penance was merely a sort of repeated baptism; and as baptism effected no real forgiveness of sin but only an external covering over of sin through faith alone, the same, it was alleged, must be the case with penance. This, then, as a sacrament is superfluous; absolution is only a declaration that sin is forgiven through faith, and satisfaction is needless because Christ has satisfied once for all men. This was the first sweeping and radical denial of the Sacrament of Penance. Some of the earlier sects had claimed that only priests in the state of grace could validly absolve, but they had not denied the existence of the power to forgive. During all the preceding centuries, Catholic belief in this power had been so clear and strong that in order to set it aside Protestantism was obliged to strike at the very constitution of the Church and reject the whole content of Tradition.

4. What other Biblical references can you provide that indicate that Peter was the first pope, other than the single controversial line that is followed by Jesus comparing Peter to Satan?

I will provide some biblical references as well as quotes from the early fathers of the church.

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

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]).

The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies
"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian
"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

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

Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

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

Council of Ephesus
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Sechnall of Ireland
"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

Council of Chalcedon
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

That was my lunch hour. Now, back to work!

 

[JettaKnight]

You keep saying "we" when you mean "I". I don't see a lot of responders gathered with you pounding your tom-toms. If you want to pivot the discussion to meet your personal needs, why don't you start your own thread?

As to yelling, you never seem to get the fine print, so in case you missed it, I printed it larger.

We.

I hear you too. Frankly, I haven't said anything about because it seems pointless. If you can't accept scripture as true then the chasm is too great to discuss Theology.

 

[mbills2223]

I'm just hear to read Mark's posts.

 

[Dead Duck]

1. Is the pope infallible? Or is his position somehow infallible? If so, can you provide the Biblical source for this?

First of all, for most of the responses below, I have copied them from mainly from two sources. Radio Replies by Humble and Carty, and the Catholic Answers website - Catholic Answers, with some of my own words thrown in. I assume you want the official teaching on this, so I presumed to go to trusted sources.

The simple answer is yes, but only under very specific conditions. The infallibility of the Pope simply means that in his official teachings or definitions, provided he speaks as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals and with the intention of binding all the faithful, God would not allow him to define erroneous doctrine. The Pope, as successor of St Peter, is Vicar of Christ, and the final court of appeal in the Church. But all these conditions must be present for an infallible teaching. The Pope's word is not infallible whenever he speaks, though his decisions are always to be received with respect. But if he speaks merely as a private theologian, expressing his own views his opinions could be mistaken. Infallibility attaches to his decisions only when he speaks in his supreme and official capacity as supreme teacher of all the faithful.
Will get to the biblical and other references in #4.

2. You mentioned church hierarchy. Are you arguing that in the NT, Peter was the central and highest leader of all of these churches?
Jesus appointed Peter as the head of the Church. More on this below.

3. What 'power' does the Pope have? Can he provide forgiveness, or is he the decider of who may be forgiven and for which sins? Are you allowed to disagree with the Pope?

The pope, as an ordained priest, has the power to forgive sins bestowed on him by Christ. It is not the priest who forgives sins, but Christ who forgives sins through the priest.

As far as disagreeing with the pope, yes, people disagree with the pope all the time. The pope has his own opinions on things that are not matters of faith and morals. Climate change is one such example. The only areas where I may not disagree is in regards to official teachings related to faith and morals.

Back to the topic of forgiveness of sins. It is noteworthy that the fundamental objection so often urged against the Sacrament of Penance was first thought of by the Scribes when Christ said to the sick man of the palsy: "Thy sins are forgiven thee." "And there were some of the scribes sitting there, and thinking in their hearts: Why does this man speak thus? he blasphemes. Who can forgive sins, but God only?" But Jesus seeing their thoughts, said to them: "Which is easier to say to the sick of the palsy: Thy sins are forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, take up thy bed and walk? But that you may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (he saith to the sick of the palsy,) I say to thee: Arise, take up thy bed, and go into thy house" (Mark, ii, 5-11; Matt., ix, 2-7). Christ wrought a miracle to show that He had power to forgive sins and that this power could be exerted not only in heaven but also on earth. This power, moreover, He transmitted to Peter and the other Apostles. To Peter He says: "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xvi, 19). Later He says to all the Apostles: "Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven" (Matt., xviii, 18). As to the meaning of these texts, it should be noted: (a) that the "binding" and "loosing" refers not to physical but to spiritual or moral bonds among which sin is certainly included; the more so because (b) the power here granted is unlimited—"whatsoever you shall bind,... whatsoever you shall loose"; (c) the power is judicial, i.e., the Apostles are authorized to bind and to loose; (d) whether they bind or loose, their action is ratified in heaven. In healing the palsied man Christ declared that "the Son of man has power on earth to forgive sins"; here He promises that what these men, the Apostles, bind or loose on earth, God in heaven will likewise bind or loose.

But as the Council of Trent declares, Christ principally instituted the Sacrament of Penance after His Resurrection, a miracle greater than that of healing the sick. "As the Father hath sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained" (John, xx, 21-23). While the sense of these words is quite obvious, the following points are to be considered: (a) Christ here reiterates in the plainest terms—"sins", "forgive", "retain"—what He had previously stated in figurative language, "bind" and "loose", so that this text specifies and distinctly applies to sin the power of loosing and binding. (b) He prefaces this grant of power by declaring that the mission of the Apostles is similar to that which He had received from the Father and which He had fulfilled: "As the Father hath sent me". Now it is beyond doubt that He came into the world to destroy sin and that on various occasions He explicitly forgave sin (Matt., ix, 2-8; Luke, v, 20; vii, 47; Apoc., i, 5), hence the forgiving of sin is to be included in the mission of the Apostles. (c) Christ not only declared that sins were forgiven, but really and actually forgave them; hence, the Apostles are empowered not merely to announce to the sinner that his sins are forgiven but to grant him forgiveness—"whose sins you shall forgive". If their power were limited to the declaration "God pardons you", they would need a special revelation in each case to make the declaration valid. (d) The power is twofold—to forgive or to retain, i.e., the Apostles are not told to grant or withhold forgiveness indiscriminately; they must act judicially, forgiving or retaining according as the sinner deserves. (e) The exercise of this power in either form (forgiving or retaining) is not restricted: no distinction is made or even suggested between one kind of sin and another, or between one class of sinners and all the rest: Christ simply says "whose sins". (f) The sentence pronounced by the Apostles (remission or retention) is also God's sentence—"they are forgiven ... they are retained".

It is therefore clear from the words of Christ that the Apostles had power to forgive sins. But this was not a personal prerogative that was to cease at their death; it was granted to them in their official capacity and hence as a permanent institution in the Church—no less permanent than the mission to teach and baptize all nations. Christ foresaw that even those who received faith and baptism, whether during the lifetime of the Apostles or later, would fall into sin and therefore would need forgiveness in order to be saved. He must, then, have intended that the power to forgive should be transmitted from the Apostles to their successors and be used as long as there would be sinners in the Church, and that means to the end of time. It is true that in baptism also sins are forgiven, but this does not warrant the view that the power to forgive is simply the power to baptize. In the first place, as appears from the texts cited above, the power to forgive is also the power to retain; its exercise involves a judicial action. But no such action is implied in the commission to baptize (Matt., xxviii, 18-20); in fact, as the Council of Trent affirms, the Church does not pass judgment on those who are not yet members of the Church, and membership is obtained through baptism. Furthermore, baptism, because it is a new birth, cannot be repeated, whereas the power to forgive sins (penance) is to be used as often as the sinner may need it. Hence the condemnation, by the same Council, of any one "who, confounding the sacraments, should say that baptism itself is the Sacrament of Penance, as though these two sacraments were not distinct and as though penance were not rightly called the second plank after shipwreck".

These pronouncements were directed against the Protestant teaching which held that penance was merely a sort of repeated baptism; and as baptism effected no real forgiveness of sin but only an external covering over of sin through faith alone, the same, it was alleged, must be the case with penance. This, then, as a sacrament is superfluous; absolution is only a declaration that sin is forgiven through faith, and satisfaction is needless because Christ has satisfied once for all men. This was the first sweeping and radical denial of the Sacrament of Penance. Some of the earlier sects had claimed that only priests in the state of grace could validly absolve, but they had not denied the existence of the power to forgive. During all the preceding centuries, Catholic belief in this power had been so clear and strong that in order to set it aside Protestantism was obliged to strike at the very constitution of the Church and reject the whole content of Tradition.

4. What other Biblical references can you provide that indicate that Peter was the first pope, other than the single controversial line that is followed by Jesus comparing Peter to Satan?

I will provide some biblical references as well as quotes from the early fathers of the church.

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

Some have tried to argue that Jesus did not mean that his Church would be built on Peter but on something else.

Some argue that in this passage there is a minor difference between the Greek term for Peter (Petros) and the term for rock (petra), yet they ignore the obvious explanation: petra, a feminine noun, has simply been modifed to have a masculine ending, since one would not refer to a man (Peter) as feminine. The change in the gender is purely for stylistic reasons.

These critics also neglect the fact that Jesus spoke Aramaic, and, as John 1:42 tells us, in everyday life he actually referred to Peter as Kepha or Cephas (depending on how it is transliterated). It is that term which is then translated into Greek as petros. Thus, what Jesus actually said to Peter in Aramaic was: "You are Kepha and on this very kepha I will build my Church."

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

Tatian the Syrian
"Simon Cephas answered and said, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus answered and said unto him, ‘Blessed are you, Simon, son of Jonah: flesh and blood has not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say unto thee also, that you are Cephas, and on this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hades shall not prevail against it" (The Diatesseron 23 [A.D. 170]).

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]).

The Letter of Clement to James
"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

The Clementine Homilies
"[Simon Peter said to Simon Magus in Rome:] ‘For you now stand in direct opposition to me, who am a firm rock, the foundation of the Church’ [Matt. 16:18]" (Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]).

Origen
"Look at [Peter], the great foundation of the Church, that most solid of rocks, upon whom Christ built the Church [Matt. 16:18]. And what does our Lord say to him? ‘Oh you of little faith,’ he says, ‘why do you doubt?’ [Matt. 14:31]" (Homilies on Exodus 5:4 [A.D. 248]).

Cyprian of Carthage
"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. . . . If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

"There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering" (Letters 43[40]:5 [A.D. 253]).

"There [John 6:68–69] speaks Peter, upon whom the Church would be built, teaching in the name of the Church and showing that even if a stubborn and proud multitude withdraws because it does not wish to obey, yet the Church does not withdraw from Christ. The people joined to the priest and the flock clinging to their shepherd are the Church. You ought to know, then, that the bishop is in the Church and the Church in the bishop, and if someone is not with the bishop, he is not in the Church. They vainly flatter themselves who creep up, not having peace with the priests of God, believing that they are secretly [i.e., invisibly] in communion with certain individuals. For the Church, which is one and Catholic, is not split nor divided, but it is indeed united and joined by the cement of priests who adhere one to another" (ibid., 66[69]:8).

Firmilian
"But what is his error . . . who does not remain on the foundation of the one Church which was founded upon the rock by Christ [Matt. 16:18], can be learned from this, which Christ said to Peter alone: ‘Whatever things you shall bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]" (collected in Cyprian’s Letters74[75]:16 [A.D. 253]).

"[Pope] Stephen . . . boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18]. . . . [Pope] Stephen . . . announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter" (ibid., 74[75]:17).

Ephraim the Syrian
"[Jesus said:] ‘Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples’" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

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

Ambrose of Milan
"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . . ’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

"It is to Peter that he says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18]. Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal" (Commentary on Twelve Psalms of David 40:30 [A.D. 389]).

Pope Damasus I
"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has not been placed at the forefront [of the churches] by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

Jerome
"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

"I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails" (Letters 15:2 [A.D. 396]).

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

Council of Ephesus
"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome], said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).

Sechnall of Ireland
"Steadfast in the fear of God, and in faith immovable, upon [Patrick] as upon Peter the [Irish] church is built; and he has been allotted his apostleship by God; against him the gates of hell prevail not" (Hymn in Praise of St. Patrick 3 [A.D. 444]).

Pope Leo I
"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles. . . . He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445]).

Council of Chalcedon
"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod, together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, has stripped him [Dioscorus] of the episcopate" (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 451]).

That was my lunch hour. Now, back to work!

We have a Runner!

***REPORTED***

 

[JettaKnight]

4. What other Biblical references can you provide that indicate that Peter was the first pope, other than the single controversial line that is followed by Jesus comparing Peter to Satan?

I will provide some biblical references as well as quotes from the early fathers of the church.

The New Testament contains five different metaphors for the foundation of the Church (Matt. 16:18, 1 Cor. 3:11, Eph. 2:20, 1 Pet. 2:5–6, Rev. 21:14). One metaphor that has been disputed is Jesus Christ’s calling the apostle Peter "rock": "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).

...

The Church Fathers, those Christians closest to the apostles in time, culture, and theological background, clearly understood that Jesus promised to build the Church on Peter, as the following passages show.

Almost all of those quoted use Mt 16:18-19. There's really no other scripture supporting this, is there?

Now let's assume that the Church is built on Peter. What does that mean? It's a bit of stretch to say, "Peter was the rock on which the Church was built, Peter was the bishop of Rome, therefore all bishops of Rome are the absolute leaders of the Church." There's nothing in scripture promoting the idea of Apostolic Succession. In fact, I don't even see succession of any sort promoted as a good thing in the Bible. Am I wrong?


Now, maybe it's time I go re-read this...

 

[steveh_131]

Mark, that was a long and interesting read. A few more followup questions.

Everything still seems to hinge upon the one verse in Matthew. Every other metaphor for the church seems to refer to Christ himself as the foundation or all 12 apostles as the foundation. I appreciate the quotes from the early church, but I struggle to find them convincing. The church began making wrong turns the instant it was created. I'm mostly interested in scripture.

1. If Peter and his individual successors were meant to be the central leaders over the entirety of the New Testament church, why is it only given a single vague verse to support it? This seems like a pretty big issue. All sorts of minute details are provided in various letters in the New Testament about how a church is to be run. Why no mention of a single central leader, or a process for selecting one?

2. If Paul recognized Peter as the central, infallible source of doctrine, how could he consider it his place to sharply rebuke him?

3. Let's say for the sake of argument that your interpretation of the verse in Matthew is correct, and Jesus was saying that Peter was the foundation of the church. What scripture indicates that there should be a successor? Is the church that he led and his own writings not enough to continue to serve as that foundation as the church lives on after his death?

4. What scripture supports the argument that the powers granted to the original apostles extended to human-selected successors?

 

[jamil]

I haven't read the entire thread and I'll just say this. You don't get to say it's charity when the government takes other people's money and gives it away. It might make you feel all charitably bubbling inside that you voted for your government taking other people's money to give to other people, but that's not charity.

Charity is when YOU.

V-o-l-u-n-t-a-r-i-l-y.

Give.

What is yours.

To someone in need.

And it feels a damn sight better for me to give voluntarily from my own resources than when the government takes my resources and gives them to people who may or may not really need it all that much. I'd have more to give if they'd take less.

So for the Pope's social advocacy, I'm not impressed. I like that he is interested in charity. But I'd like to see him advocate more for personal giving and zero governmental giving. You can't hide behind bible verses that preach charity and then feel absolved of that moral obligation by voting for your government to do it for you. There's no such thing as charity by proxy. It's either from you by your choice, or it's not really charity.

That's all I have to say about it.

 

[Alpo]

Mark, that was a long and interesting read. A few more followup questions.

Everything still seems to hinge upon the one verse in Matthew. Every other metaphor for the church seems to refer to Christ himself as the foundation or all 12 apostles as the foundation. I appreciate the quotes from the early church, but I struggle to find them convincing. The church began making wrong turns the instant it was created. I'm mostly interested in scripture.

1. If Peter and his individual successors were meant to be the central leaders over the entirety of the New Testament church, why is it only given a single vague verse to support it? This seems like a pretty big issue. All sorts of minute details are provided in various letters in the New Testament about how a church is to be run. Why no mention of a single central leader, or a process for selecting one?

2. If Paul recognized Peter as the central, infallible source of doctrine, how could he consider it his place to sharply rebuke him?

3. Let's say for the sake of argument that your interpretation of the verse in Matthew is correct, and Jesus was saying that Peter was the foundation of the church. What scripture indicates that there should be a successor? Is the church that he led and his own writings not enough to continue to serve as that foundation as the church lives on after his death?

4. What scripture supports the argument that the powers granted to the original apostles extended to human-selected successors?

1) Very little in the way of worship detail is provided in the NT. Depending on the time period observed, there was significant variation in the form of worship services.

How many sentences are required of Jesus to establish Peter? One seems enough and it wasn't until the 11th century that ecclesiastic differences increased to such a degree that the east/west schism occurred.

2) The concept of infallibility is associated with the middle ages, not the early days of the church. The jews have always had a culture of lively debate and it would be incumbent upon two former jews (Paul and Peter) to argue the merits of their position. In the most significant case noted by Paul, it is a process issue, not a question of spiritual dogma.

 

[JettaKnight]

1) Very little in the way of worship detail is provided in the NT. Depending on the time period observed, there was significant variation in the form of worship services.

How many sentences are required of Jesus to establish Peter? One seems enough and it wasn't until the 11th century that ecclesiastic differences increased to such a degree that the east/west schism occurred.

There's plenty of details about elders & deacons - their qualifications, their roles, etc. There's also plenty of discussion about church discipline, yet nothing about Peter or apostolic succession. Strange...

 

[steveh_131]

How many sentences are required of Jesus to establish Peter? One seems enough and it wasn't until the 11th century that ecclesiastic differences increased to such a degree that the east/west schism occurred.

Establish him as what, exactly? A metaphorical foundation? Meaning what? That he helped establish the first church? Ok, maybe.

It would take a lot more sentences to start proving infallibility, human-selected succession, authority over ALL churches, etc.

 

[Alpo]

It isn't until the end of the second century that the bishop of Rome appears to take on what we would consider papal authority over the church (quartodecimanism controversy). The nature of church worship varied in many ways, according to the culture of the worshipers. Certainly, there was an heirarchy, but worship varied widely. I mention Marcion in a prior post. There was also Montanism, Gnosticism, Docetism, etc. etc. Some of those sects carry on today, but many of their tenets were either absorbed into the canon or ruled heretical.

Is there any dispute on this site as to INGO's founder/owner and who has the final say so, even though there is controversy from time to time as to what are acceptable topics and what shouldn't be?

I don't see the controversy here with Cephus. He was chosen by Jesus. What more is necessary? I also see that Paul believed his role to be larger than Peters and he did much in the way of travel, writing and ministry to show his superiority, even to the point where Marcionism became a very dominant sect in the early church. But it still came back to who Jesus anointed, and that was Peter.

 

[Alpo]

Establish him as what, exactly? A metaphorical foundation? Meaning what? That he helped establish the first church? Ok, maybe.

It would take a lot more sentences to start proving infallibility, human-selected succession, authority over ALL churches, etc.

I don't see the controversy. The history of the church shows the way it developed along with the major schisms that occurred in the 11th century (east/west) and the Reformation in the 16th Century. I wouldn't expect a protestant not to see flaws in the decisions made, but it is hard to argue that the popes did assume a central role on canon and orthodoxy at least as of the 3rd century.

 

[JettaKnight]

It isn't until the end of the second century that the bishop of Rome appears to take on what we would consider papal authority over the church (quartodecimanism controversy). The nature of church worship varied in many ways, according to the culture of the worshipers. Certainly, there was an heirarchy, but worship varied widely. I mention Marcion in a prior post. There was also Montanism, Gnosticism, Docetism, etc. etc. Some of those sects carry on today, but many of their tenets were either absorbed into the canon or ruled heretical.

More so the latter.

Is there any dispute on this site as to INGO's founder/owner and who has the final say so, even though there is controversy from time to time as to what are acceptable topics and what shouldn't be?

Are you seriously comparing the church to INGO? Here's why we don't need a pope: we have the Holy Spirit. INGO doesn't have God as a central cornerstone. The church does. Are you so warpped up in Papal authority that you've forgotten that Christ is the cornerstone? Are you so wrapped up in teachings and commentary that you can't just accept the Bible as the Word and open yourself to the Holy Spirit?

I don't see the controversy here with Cephus. He was chosen by Jesus. What more is necessary? I also see that Paul believed his role to be larger than Peters and he did much in the way of travel, writing and ministry to show his superiority, even to the point where Marcionism became a very dominant sect in the early church. But it still came back to who Jesus anointed, and that was Peter.

OK, let's run with the assumption that Peter was chosen. Now explain all the rest that is this giant inverted pyramid of Papal dogma (succession, infallibility, etc.) that's teetering on these two verses.

 

[Mark 1911]

Mark, that was a long and interesting read. A few more followup questions.

Everything still seems to hinge upon the one verse in Matthew. Every other metaphor for the church seems to refer to Christ himself as the foundation or all 12 apostles as the foundation. I appreciate the quotes from the early church, but I struggle to find them convincing. The church began making wrong turns the instant it was created. I'm mostly interested in scripture.

1. If Peter and his individual successors were meant to be the central leaders over the entirety of the New Testament church, why is it only given a single vague verse to support it? This seems like a pretty big issue. All sorts of minute details are provided in various letters in the New Testament about how a church is to be run. Why no mention of a single central leader, or a process for selecting one?

2. If Paul recognized Peter as the central, infallible source of doctrine, how could he consider it his place to sharply rebuke him?

3. Let's say for the sake of argument that your interpretation of the verse in Matthew is correct, and Jesus was saying that Peter was the foundation of the church. What scripture indicates that there should be a successor? Is the church that he led and his own writings not enough to continue to serve as that foundation as the church lives on after his death?

4. What scripture supports the argument that the powers granted to the original apostles extended to human-selected successors?

1. I am no biblical expert, so I can give only partial explanations at best. But there is a biblical significance to the handing on of keys, it has signigicance in the bible which goes back to the old testament. Here's a good link on the topic of the handing on of keys:
Keys In Isaiah 22

2. Also, there is great significance in "naming" in the old and new testaments. Until Jesus named Peter, Scripture only referred to God as “rock,” in the sense of an unfailing bulwark against the powers of evil. By making Peter the “rock” of His Church, Christ grants him divine authority over the Church on earth as His universal Vicar. He gives Peter divine power to fulfill his mission. The name “Rock” identifies Peter’s mission with the authority of Christ.

3. The handing of keys is a handing down of authority, it has its basis in the old testament. So Jesus wasn't starting something new, the keys are a biblical symbol of power that predates Jesus by several thousand years. Because the keys are handed down, they are not just a one time deal, but perpetual.

There is an excellent book on the topic called Jesus, Peter and the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess. I found a transcript of it online at this link: Jesus, Peter and Keys - A Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy - Scott Butler

4. I think this is covered in the items 1-3.

 

[Alpo]

More so the latter.


Are you seriously comparing the church to INGO? Here's why we don't need a pope: we have the Holy Spirit. INGO doesn't have God as a central cornerstone. The church does. Are you so warpped up in Papal authority that you've forgotten that Christ is the cornerstone? Are you so wrapped up in teachings and commentary that you can't just accept the Bible as the Word and open yourself to the Holy Spirit?


OK, let's run with the assumption that Peter was chosen. Now explain all the rest that is this giant inverted pyramid of Papal dogma (succession, infallibility, etc.) that's teetering on these two verses.

For me to successfully argue those tenets, it would be useful for me to believe in infallibility, which I don't. As to the nature of succession, you have 2000 years of historical precedent. Whether it is "authorized" in the NT or not is no longer the point. It is what it is. Either you're a RC or you are not. If not, why is it necessary to tear down someone else's belief system in order to make yours relevant? I never understood that.

 

[steveh_131]

But there is a biblical significance to the handing on of keys, it has signigicance in the bible which goes back to the old testament.

Until Jesus named Peter, Scripture only referred to God as “rock,” in the sense of an unfailing bulwark against the powers of evil. By making Peter the “rock” of His Church, Christ grants him divine authority over the Church on earth as His universal Vicar. He gives Peter divine power to fulfill his mission. The name “Rock” identifies Peter’s mission with the authority of Christ.

This is helpful, thank you for providing it. I'm starting to see where you're coming from on this.

That said, Catholics seem to be hanging their collective hat on an awful lot of assumptions surrounding a variety of metaphors. Keys and rocks? Metaphors are certainly important, but if we trace them around the bible it gets quickly confusing. Ephesians describes ALL of the apostles and prophets as the foundation, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Why wasn't Peter singled out in some place of authority among the apostles and prophets?

The rest of the New Testament describes methods and practices for electing leaders of each local church. Nowhere does it describe any such methods for a 'pope', or a central leadership figure. Why? As the church grew, is it possible that these 'keys' were meant to be passed along to local church leaders, not to one central leader above them all?

ETA: Also, you didn't answer #2. How could Paul rebuke Peter, the infallible authority on matters of doctrine?

 

[rhino]

I'm just hear to read Mark's posts.

They are pretty darned good, as are some of the others like fozoe's.

 

[Mark 1911]

This is helpful, thank you for providing it. I'm starting to see where you're coming from on this.

That said, Catholics seem to be hanging their collective hat on an awful lot of assumptions surrounding a variety of metaphors. Keys and rocks? Metaphors are certainly important, but if we trace them around the bible it gets quickly confusing. Ephesians describes ALL of the apostles and prophets as the foundation, with Christ as the chief cornerstone. Why wasn't Peter singled out in some place of authority among the apostles and prophets?

The rest of the New Testament describes methods and practices for electing leaders of each local church. Nowhere does it describe any such methods for a 'pope', or a central leadership figure. Why? As the church grew, is it possible that these 'keys' were meant to be passed along to local church leaders, not to one central leader above them all?

ETA: Also, you didn't answer #2. How could Paul rebuke Peter, the infallible authority on matters of doctrine?

So I know I am just touching on the topic from the 10,000 foot level. On the topic of handing authority to Peter, take a look at the link I send for Jesus, Peter, and the Keys. It will take some time to read it, its a book. But it is an excellent resource, the best on the topic I have ever seen.

As for the rebuke of Peter by Paul, Paul was not contradicting any set doctrine, nor was Peter exercising infallibility, far from it. A common objection against Peter's primacy is based on Gal. 2:11-14 where St. Paul rebukes St. Peter (Cephas) for acting insincerely. This rebuke from St. Paul does not undermine St. Peter's teaching authority, since St. Paul did not rebuke him for false teaching but for setting a bad example. (As an aside, St. Paul also set a bad example in Acts 16:3.) It must be remembered that St. Peter was a sinner like the rest of us (Luke 5:8,10). Likewise Nathan's condemnation of King David in 2 Sam. 12 did not undermine David's ruling authority but brought him to repentance. Finally, if St. Paul did not recognize St. Peter's teaching authority, then why did he spend fifteen days with Peter (Cephas) during his early ministry (Gal. 1:18)? Paul sees Peter as not living out in his teaching in his actions. Paul rebukes Peter for the bad example he is giving. Popes are not perfect in everything they do. Infallibility does not cover who they eat dinner with! James may have spoken last but Peter announced the decision. This is what we (the Church) and the Holy Spirit have decided. It is a tribute to Peter's humility and thus his leadership that he accepted the rebuke.

 

[Fargo]

I've got some questions for you, Fargo. I don't know how to respond because I don't fully understand where you're coming from in your beliefs about the pope.

1. Is the pope infallible? Or is his position somehow infallible? If so, can you provide the Biblical source for this?

On matters of faith and morals, yes I believe that his teachings from the chair of Peter are infallible. Mathew 16:19 is one of many biblical cites. Keep in mind also that Catholicism has capital "T" Tradition as well.

2. You mentioned church hierarchy. Are you arguing that in the NT, Peter was the central and highest leader of all of these churches?

That was not the point I was making. If you want to discuss the point, we need to distinguish between scriptural and historical argument, as well as between gospel references and epistle reference.

3. What 'power' does the Pope have? Can he provide forgiveness, or is he the decider of who may be forgiven and for which sins? Are you allowed to disagree with the Pope?

He has all the powers delegated to him by Christ. Among those is the power to forgive sins via the sacrament of Confession. This power is also enjoyed by bishops and priests etc. As to who may be forgiven and of what sins, that gets into the issue of "faculties" through the local ordinary as well certain sins which carry the penalty of excommunication. Priests must have the consent of their local ordinary in order to perform a valid absolution as well as there are certain sins which the absolution of is reserved to the local ordinary. I do not know of any which absolution is reserved solely to the pope but there may be a historical precedent. Some excommunications have historically only been able to be lifted by the pope, but isn't really an issue of forgiveness.

4. What other Biblical references can you provide that indicate that Peter was the first pope, other than the single controversial line that is followed by Jesus comparing Peter to Satan?

Well, Matthew 16:18 is followed by 16:19.... It is only controversial because people don't like it. Kinda like the alot of disciples in this passage:

[SUP]54 [/SUP]Then Jesus said to them: Amen, amen I say unto you: Except you eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, you shall not have life in you.
[SUP]55 [/SUP]He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath everlasting life: and I will raise him up in the last day.
[SUP]56 [/SUP]For my flesh is meat indeed: and my blood is drink indeed.
[SUP]57 [/SUP]He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, abideth in me, and I in him.
[SUP]58 [/SUP]As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth me, the same also shall live by me.
[SUP]59 [/SUP]This is the bread that came down from heaven. Not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead. He that eateth this bread, shall live for ever.
[SUP]60 [/SUP]These things he said, teaching in the synagogue, in Capharnaum.
[SUP]61 [/SUP]Many therefore of his disciples, hearing it, said: This saying is hard, and who can hear it?
[SUP]62 [/SUP]But Jesus, knowing in himself, that his disciples murmured at this, said to them: Doth this scandalize you?
[SUP]63 [/SUP]If then you shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
[SUP]64 [/SUP]It is the spirit that quickeneth: the flesh profiteth nothing. The words that I have spoken to you, are spirit and life.
[SUP]65 [/SUP]But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning, who they were that did not believe, and who he was, that would betray him.
[SUP]66 [/SUP]And he said: Therefore did I say to you, that no man can come to me, unless it be given him by my Father.
[SUP]67 [/SUP]After this many of his disciples went back; and walked no more with him.
[SUP]68 [/SUP]Then Jesus said to the twelve: Will you also go away?
[SUP]69 [/SUP]And Simon Peter answered him: Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
[SUP]70 [/SUP]And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Christ, the Son of God.

John 21:15-17 is one of many other examples of Christ making it clear that Peter is not just another Apostle.