Catholics & Catholicism

Question:

NT debunks Peter Terry.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." – Acts 17:11 The Roman Catholic Church claims that a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed since the time of Peter, and that it was recognized as such by the Christian church at that time. The First Vatican Council claimed in chapter 1 of session 4 (emphasis mine): We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord…. At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister. These claims of the Roman Catholic Church leave no room for "development". If a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed since the time of Peter and has been "ever understood" as such by the Catholic Church, then development isn’t a possibility. And if the First Vatican Council is wrong about this subject, then why should we trust the other claims of the First Vatican Council? Or the Second Vatican Council? Or the Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc.? While Peter is mentioned a lot in the gospels and in the earliest chapters of Acts, often this is because he’s the most outspoken and rash of the disciples (Matthew 16:16, Matthew 16:22, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 26:33, Mark 9:5, John 18:10). This is why Peter received so much attention from Jesus (Matthew 16:23, Luke 22:31-34, John 18:11, John 21:15-17). From the second half of Acts forward, however, Paul is mentioned much more than Peter. Paul ends up writing much more of the New Testament than Peter does, and the earliest church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) speak more of Paul than they do of Peter, and they make statements about Paul that are more exalted than what they say about Peter. Paul, by far, receives the most attention early on, even though Peter became more popular among many of the church fathers who wrote from the third century onward. Did the apostles have any concept of Peter being their ruler? No (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, 2 Corinthians 12:11). Did Jesus think that Peter was a "shepherd" in the sense that he would oversee the other apostles? No. To the contrary, He tells Peter that John’s future is none of his (Peter’s) concern (John 21:21-22). The apostles are repeatedly portrayed as being at the same level of authority (Matthew 19:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). During the doctrinal dispute in Acts 15, Peter’s testimony is heard (Acts 15:7-11), but doesn’t settle the dispute. James has the last word (Acts 15:13-21), and his terminology is incorporated into the letter that’s sent out (Acts 15:23-29). The letter mentions "the apostles and the brethren who are elders", but says nothing of papal authority. Did the apostles view the Roman church as some sort of "Mother Church" that had supreme authority? No. To the contrary, Paul writes a letter of doctrinal and moral instruction to the Roman church. In his letter to the Romans and in his letters written from prison in Rome, Paul never mentions a papacy, nor does he even mention Peter in association with the Roman church. Paul refers to himself instructing and caring for all of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28), something he surely couldn’t have done if he didn’t have authority over the Roman church. Paul writes about church government over and over again (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-12, etc.), but never mentions a papacy. To the contrary, he refers to "apostles" as the highest authority (1 Corinthians 12:28), with no mention of a Pope who is above the authority of an apostle. Peter himself also had no concept of a papacy. He refers to his authority as an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1) and an eyewitness to Christ’s earthly ministry (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), but never as a Pope. Although he had just as much apostolic authority as the other apostles, Peter referred to his governmental authority as nothing more than that of a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). When Peter was nearing death, he said that he was leaving behind written documents in order for people to be able to remember, after he died, what he had taught (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). He doesn’t say anything about leaving behind a successor, much less a Roman bishop with papal authority. Obviously, there was no papacy during the time of the apostles, contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. And it isn’t a matter of a papacy not being mentioned just because there was never any occasion for it to be mentioned. If there was a papacy during the time of the apostles, there would have been many contexts in which mentioning it would have been appropriate (Luke 22:24, John 21:22, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2, etc.). Yet, a papacy is never mentioned. It’s even contradicted by Paul’s repeated references to his equality with and his independence from the other apostles, for example (Galatians 1-2, etc.). Even if the doctrine of the papacy wasn’t contradicted by the New Testament, its absence would be enough to make the claims of the Catholic Church untenable. The Catholic apologist is left trying to either dismiss or distort most of what I’ve mentioned above, in addition to reading a papacy into passages like Matthew 16 and John 21. As I’ve already mentioned, verses 21-22 of John 21 refute the Catholic interpretation of verses 15-17. And Paul uses much the same language in speaking to the bishops of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:28). Obviously, Paul wasn’t establishing the Ephesian bishops as rulers of a worldwide denomination. Neither was Jesus establishing Peter as such a ruler in John 21:15-17. More likely, as the church father Cyril of Alexandria suggested, Jesus was allowing Peter to affirm his love for Christ three times to make up for his earlier triple denial of Christ (Mark 14:66-72). Peter was a shepherd, not a Pope, just as other Christian leaders were shepherds without being Popes (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). As far as Matthew 16:18-19 is concerned, the passage seems to be referring to a theme we see elsewhere in scripture. Peter is one of many rocks built upon the larger rock of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11, 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4-8, Revelation 21:14). Consider the assumptions that must be read into the text in order to arrive at the Roman Catholic interpretation: 1.) That Peter is the "rock" of Matthew 16:18. 2.) That nobody else would be a "rock" at the same time, meaning that nobody else would fill the same role. 3.) That being the "rock" is equivalent to having universal jurisdiction over a worldwide denomination. 4.) That Peter would have "successors" in this role. 5.) That the "successors" would exclusively be bishops of Rome, with "antipopes" exempted. The first of those five assumptions can’t be proven, much less all five of them. The Greek differentiates between Peter (petros) and rock (petra). If the statement was originally made in Aramaic, the terms kepha and minrah could have been used to make a distinction. Even if kepha had been used twice, which can’t be proven, that still wouldn’t prove that the two are referring to the same object. The same word can be used to refer to two different objects, obviously. A Catholic may respond, though, by arguing that at least the keys of Matthew 16:19 are unique to Peter, even if being "this rock" doesn’t have any papal implications. But are the keys separate from the power of binding and loosing, which all of the disciples had (Matthew 18:18)? Throughout scripture, keys and opening/shutting, binding/loosing are repeatedly associated with one another (Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7). They’re all part of the same imagery. If you have a key, it goes without saying that you can open and shut the door. And if you can open and shut the door, it goes without saying that you have the key. In Matthew 23:13, the religious leaders of Israel are condemned for abusing the power of opening and shutting. In Luke 11:52, they’re condemned for abusing the power of a key. Rather than the two passages representing two separate criticisms, they’re both part of the same imagery. Likewise, when Revelation 1:18 describes Jesus as having keys, but doesn’t say anything about opening/shutting, binding/loosing, would anybody conclude that Jesus didn’t have such power? Obviously not, since it goes without saying that if Jesus had the keys, He could open and shut and bind and loose. Some passages mention only the opening/shutting, binding/loosing (Matthew 23:13), some mention only a key or keys (Revelation 1:18), and some mention both (Revelation 20:1-3). To separate the keys from the binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19, in an attempt to make Peter appear to have been unique in some way, is contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. Even if the keys of Matthew 16:19 had been unique to Peter, would that prove that he was a

… read more »

Response:

Now these were more noble-minded than those in Thessalonica, for they received the word with great eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily, to see whether these things were so." – Acts 17:11 The Roman Catholic Church claims that a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed since the time of Peter, and that it was recognized as such by the Christian church at that time. The First Vatican Council claimed in chapter 1 of session 4 (emphasis mine): We therefore teach and declare that, according to the testimony of the Gospel, the primacy of jurisdiction over the universal Church of God was immediately and directly promised and given to blessed Peter the Apostle by Christ the Lord…. At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister. These claims of the Roman Catholic Church leave no room for "development". If a papacy with universal jurisdiction has existed since the time of Peter and has been "ever understood" as such by the Catholic Church, then development isn’t a possibility. And if the First Vatican Council is wrong about this subject, then why should we trust the other claims of the First Vatican Council? Or the Second Vatican Council? Or the Third, Fourth, Fifth, etc.? While Peter is mentioned a lot in the gospels and in the earliest chapters of Acts, often this is because he’s the most outspoken and rash of the disciples (Matthew 16:16, Matthew 16:22, Matthew 18:21, Matthew 26:33, Mark 9:5, John 18:10). This is why Peter received so much attention from Jesus (Matthew 16:23, Luke 22:31-34, John 18:11, John 21:15-17). From the second half of Acts forward, however, Paul is mentioned much more than Peter. Paul ends up writing much more of the New Testament than Peter does, and the earliest church fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, etc.) speak more of Paul than they do of Peter, and they make statements about Paul that are more exalted than what they say about Peter. Paul, by far, receives the most attention early on, even though Peter became more popular among many of the church fathers who wrote from the third century onward. Did the apostles have any concept of Peter being their ruler? No (Luke 9:46, Luke 22:24, 2 Corinthians 12:11). Did Jesus think that Peter was a "shepherd" in the sense that he would oversee the other apostles? No. To the contrary, He tells Peter that John’s future is none of his (Peter’s) concern (John 21:21-22). The apostles are repeatedly portrayed as being at the same level of authority (Matthew 19:28, Ephesians 2:20, Revelation 21:14). During the doctrinal dispute in Acts 15, Peter’s testimony is heard (Acts 15:7-11), but doesn’t settle the dispute. James has the last word (Acts 15:13-21), and his terminology is incorporated into the letter that’s sent out (Acts 15:23-29). The letter mentions "the apostles and the brethren who are elders", but says nothing of papal authority. Did the apostles view the Roman church as some sort of "Mother Church" that had supreme authority? No. To the contrary, Paul writes a letter of doctrinal and moral instruction to the Roman church. In his letter to the Romans and in his letters written from prison in Rome, Paul never mentions a papacy, nor does he even mention Peter in association with the Roman church. Paul refers to himself instructing and caring for all of the churches (1 Corinthians 7:17, 2 Corinthians 11:28), something he surely couldn’t have done if he didn’t have authority over the Roman church. Paul writes about church government over and over again (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 4:11-12, etc.), but never mentions a papacy. To the contrary, he refers to "apostles" as the highest authority (1 Corinthians 12:28), with no mention of a Pope who is above the authority of an apostle. Peter himself also had no concept of a papacy. He refers to his authority as an apostle (1 Peter 1:1, 2 Peter 1:1) and an eyewitness to Christ’s earthly ministry (1 Peter 5:1, 2 Peter 1:16), but never as a Pope. Although he had just as much apostolic authority as the other apostles, Peter referred to his governmental authority as nothing more than that of a "fellow elder" (1 Peter 5:1). When Peter was nearing death, he said that he was leaving behind written documents in order for people to be able to remember, after he died, what he had taught (2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2). He doesn’t say anything about leaving behind a successor, much less a Roman bishop with papal authority. Obviously, there was no papacy during the time of the apostles, contrary to the claims of the Roman Catholic Church. And it isn’t a matter of a papacy not being mentioned just because there was never any occasion for it to be mentioned. If there was a papacy during the time of the apostles, there would have been many contexts in which mentioning it would have been appropriate (Luke 22:24, John 21:22, 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus, 2 Peter 1:13-15, 3:1-2, etc.). Yet, a papacy is never mentioned. It’s even contradicted by Paul’s repeated references to his equality with and his independence from the other apostles, for example (Galatians 1-2, etc.). Even if the doctrine of the papacy wasn’t contradicted by the New Testament, its absence would be enough to make the claims of the Catholic Church untenable. The Catholic apologist is left trying to either dismiss or distort most of what I’ve mentioned above, in addition to reading a papacy into passages like Matthew 16 and John 21. As I’ve already mentioned, verses 21-22 of John 21 refute the Catholic interpretation of verses 15-17. And Paul uses much the same language in speaking to the bishops of the Ephesian church (Acts 20:28). Obviously, Paul wasn’t establishing the Ephesian bishops as rulers of a worldwide denomination. Neither was Jesus establishing Peter as such a ruler in John 21:15-17. More likely, as the church father Cyril of Alexandria suggested, Jesus was allowing Peter to affirm his love for Christ three times to make up for his earlier triple denial of Christ (Mark 14:66-72). Peter was a shepherd, not a Pope, just as other Christian leaders were shepherds without being Popes (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). As far as Matthew 16:18-19 is concerned, the passage seems to be referring to a theme we see elsewhere in scripture. Peter is one of many rocks built upon the larger rock of Christ (1 Corinthians 3:11, 10:4, Ephesians 2:20, 1 Peter 2:4-8, Revelation 21:14). Consider the assumptions that must be read into the text in order to arrive at the Roman Catholic interpretation: 1.) That Peter is the "rock" of Matthew 16:18. 2.) That nobody else would be a "rock" at the same time, meaning that nobody else would fill the same role. 3.) That being the "rock" is equivalent to having universal jurisdiction over a worldwide denomination. 4.) That Peter would have "successors" in this role. 5.) That the "successors" would exclusively be bishops of Rome, with "antipopes" exempted. The first of those five assumptions can’t be proven, much less all five of them. The Greek differentiates between Peter (petros) and rock (petra). If the statement was originally made in Aramaic, the terms kepha and minrah could have been used to make a distinction. Even if kepha had been used twice, which can’t be proven, that still wouldn’t prove that the two are referring to the same object. The same word can be used to refer to two different objects, obviously. A Catholic may respond, though, by arguing that at least the keys of Matthew 16:19 are unique to Peter, even if being "this rock" doesn’t have any papal implications. But are the keys separate from the power of binding and loosing, which all of the disciples had (Matthew 18:18)? Throughout scripture, keys and opening/shutting, binding/loosing are repeatedly associated with one another (Isaiah 22:22, Revelation 3:7). They’re all part of the same imagery. If you have a key, it goes without saying that you can open and shut the door. And if you can open and shut the door, it goes without saying that you have the key. In Matthew 23:13, the religious leaders of Israel are condemned for abusing the power of opening and shutting. In Luke 11:52, they’re condemned for abusing the power of a key. Rather than the two passages representing two separate criticisms, they’re both part of the same imagery. Likewise, when Revelation 1:18 describes Jesus as having keys, but doesn’t say anything about opening/shutting, binding/loosing, would anybody conclude that Jesus didn’t have such power? Obviously not, since it goes without saying that if Jesus had the keys, He could open and shut and bind and loose. Some passages mention only the opening/shutting, binding/loosing (Matthew 23:13), some mention only a key or keys (Revelation 1:18), and some mention both (Revelation 20:1-3). To separate the keys from the binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19, in an attempt to make Peter appear to have been unique in some way, is contrary to the context of the rest of scripture. Even if the keys of Matthew 16:19 had been unique to Peter, would that prove that he was a Pope? Obviously not, since uniqueness doesn’t prove papal authority. Peter could have uniquely used the keys of Matthew 16:19 in the book of Acts, when he "opened a door of faith" (Acts 14:27) with those keys by preaching to the Jews and Gentiles at Pentecost (Acts 15:7). Even if we assume that the keys were unique to Peter, uniqueness obviously doesn’t prove papal authority. John was uniquely called "the beloved … read more »

Response: