The Papacy Is Biblical

[Dave]

Five Simple Biblical Arguments That Prove Without a Doubt that St. Peter was the First Pope!

Peter and Paul Ministries

Protestants deny that St. Peter was the first pope and reject the papacy of the Holy Roman Catholic Church. It is quite obvious they forgot to open their Bibles and read how Christ while on earth instituted the papacy.

1)"And I say to 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 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)

2) Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles. (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the first,"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John." (Matt.10:2)

3) Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself, singularly by name, and over the universal Church. "When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?' 'Yes, Lord,' he said, 'you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs.' Again Jesus said, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love me?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Take care of my sheep.' The third time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, 'Do you love me?' He said, 'Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my sheep.'" (John 21:15-17)

4) Peter is regarded by the Jews as the leader and spokesman of Christianity. (Acts 4:1-13)

5) Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the gospel" in the in the Church era. (Acts 2:14-36)

[kdewolf2]

Yes, but what exactly is the connexion between Peter and the papacy? You've established the authority of Peter in the early church, but you haven't exactly made the case for the papacy per se.

[Dave]

Well, think of how, when Judas killed himself, the apostles chose Matthias to replace him. The apostles, Peter included, were the first bishops of the Church, and when they died, common sense would say it's necessary to have someone succeed them.

[kdewolf2]

Well, certainly, the apostles were the first bishops of the church and they chose Matthias to replace Judas. But how do you know they were bishops in the Catholic sense of the word? And how do you know that they had the Catholic hierarchy to succeed them? I mean, scholars tend to think the hierarchy came much later and that the early church was more, let's say, fluid. And how do you know that your common sense dictate that it would be necessary for the apostles to have someone succeed them is not just your common sense as a Catholic, if you know what I mean? All I'm saying is that although establishing the primacy of Peter is certainly helpful, a successful case for the papacy would seem to require much more than that. For instance, establishing that a successor was appointed to fill the office of Peter, and that the office of Peter was transmitted to the Bishop of Rome, and that the basic content of our present day understanding of the papacy can be found in the Bible. Am I making sense?

[Dave]

Well then, let's consider the topic of apostolic succession (source: Catholic Answers) . . .

Apostolic Succession

The first Christians had no doubts about how to determine which was the true Church and which doctrines the true teachings of Christ. The test was simple: Just trace the apostolic succession of the claimants.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops can have their lineage of predecessors traced back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops).

The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.

The Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, regularly appealed to apostolic succession as a test for whether Catholics or heretics had correct doctrine. This was necessary because heretics simply put their own interpretations, even bizarre ones, on Scripture. Clearly, something other than Scripture had to be used as an ultimate test of doctrine in these cases.

Thus the early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes, "[W]here in practice was [the] apostolic testimony or tradition to be found? . . . The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. . . . Unlike the alleged secret tradition of the Gnostics, it was entirely public and open, having been entrusted by the apostles to their successors, and by these in turn to those who followed them, and was visible in the Church for all who cared to look for it" (Early Christian Doctrines, 37).

For the early Fathers, "the identity of the oral tradition with the original revelation is guaranteed by the unbroken succession of bishops in the great sees going back lineally to the apostles. . . . [A]n additional safeguard is supplied by the Holy Spirit, for the message committed was to the Church, and the Church is the home of the Spirit. inDouche, the Church’s bishops are . . . Spirit-endowed men who have been vouchsafed ‘an infallible charism of truth’" (ibid.).

Thus on the basis of experience the Fathers could be "profoundly convinced of the futility of arguing with heretics merely on the basis of Scripture. The skill and success with which they twisted its plain meaning made it impossible to reach any decisive conclusion in that field" (ibid., 41).

Pope Clement I

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

Hegesippus

"When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord" (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 4:22 [A.D. 180]).

Irenaeus

"It is possible, then, for everyone in every church, who may wish to know the truth, to contemplate the tradition of the apostles which has been made known to us throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to enumerate those who were instituted bishops by the apostles and their successors down to our own times, men who neither knew nor taught anything like what these heretics rave about" (Against Heresies 3:3:1 [A.D. 189]).

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions 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 with which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all 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" (ibid., 3:3:2).

"Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time" (ibid., 3:3:4).

"Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth, so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. . . . For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient churches with which the apostles held constant conversation, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question?" (ibid., 3:4:1).

"t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But [it is also incumbent] to hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession, and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever, either as heretics of perverse minds, or as schismatics puffed up and self-pleasing, or again as hypocrites, acting thus for the sake of lucre and vainglory. For all these have fallen from the truth" (ibid., 4:26:2).

"The true knowledge is the doctrine of the apostles, and the ancient organization of the Church throughout the whole world, and the manifestation of the body of Christ according to the succession of bishops, by which succession the bishops have handed down the Church which is found everywhere" (ibid., 4:33:8).

Tertullian

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. inDouche, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).

"Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).

Cyprian of Carthage

"[T]he Church is one, and as she is one, cannot be both within and without. For if she is with [the heretic] Novatian, she was not with [Pope] Cornelius. But if she was with Cornelius, who succeeded the bishop [of Rome], Fabian, by lawful ordination, and whom, beside the honor of the priesthood the Lord glorified also with martyrdom, Novatian is not in the Church; nor can he be reckoned as a bishop, who, succeeding to no one, and despising the evangelical and apostolic tradition, sprang from himself. For he who has not been ordained in the Church can neither have nor hold to the Church in any way" (Letters 69[75]:3 [A.D. 253]).

Jerome

"Far be it from me to speak adversely of any of these clergy who, in succession from the apostles, confect by their sacred word the Body of Christ and through whose efforts also it is that we are Christians" (Letters 14:8 [A.D. 396]).

Augustine

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

[Aloysius]

http://www.phatmass.com/reading_room/popes/

as u can see, there is a direct line back 2 Peter

[kdewolf2]

In other words, the Bible alone is not sufficient to make the case for the papacy. Tradition, especially patristic writings, is also necessary. How will a die-hard Protestant accept this?

[cmotherofpirl]

Around the year 96 Clement Bishop of the Church of Rome, wrote a long letter to the Church in Corinth telling them to submit in obedience:

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.

Notice that this is not a request, but an order.

Edited September 1, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[cmotherofpirl]

In other words, the Bible alone is not sufficient to make the case for the papacy.  Tradition, especially patristic writings, is also necessary.  How will a die-hard Protestant  accept this?

Yes and no.

Remember the New Testament is not as old as the church. THere were many many writings, documents etc for the Church to choose from. By the time the New Testament became canon, there had been popes for over 300 years. It was simply a given.

Scripture is also quite clear.

1)"And I say to 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 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 upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:18-19)

2) Peter's name occurs first in all lists of apostles. (Mt 10:2; Mk 3:16; Lk 6:14; Acts 1:13). Matthew even calls him the first,"These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John." (Matt.10:2)

3) Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself, singularly by name, and over the universal Church. "When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?' 'Yes, Lord,' he said, 'you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my lambs.' Again Jesus said, 'Simon son of John, do you truly love me?' He answered, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Take care of my sheep.' The third time he said to him, 'Simon son of John, do you love me?' Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, 'Do you love me?' He said, 'Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.' Jesus said, 'Feed my sheep.'" (John 21:15-17)

4) Peter is regarded by the Jews as the leader and spokesman of Christianity. (Acts 4:1-13)

5) Peter is the first person to speak (and only one recorded) after Pentecost, so he was the first Christian to "preach the gospel" in the in the Church era. (Acts 2:14-36)

Remember for 1500 years nobody argued about this.

To ignor all the writings produced, that did not make it into scripture, is to ignor the history of christianity. It would be like reading genesis and exodus, and leaving out leviticus, deuterominy and numbers.

Edited September 1, 2003 by cmotherofpirl

[Mary's Knight, La]

I think that once the case is made that the office of pope is biblical, it now rests in the hands of those who would argue against it to prove that the office was somehow hijacked, but then you get into infallibility,etc...

[MC Just]

The Papacy goes back to the Old Law. Read Isaiah 22:20-25

The Papacy goes back to the Old Law. Read Isaiah 22:20-25 Protestants have this misconception that the Papacy is something that come from Roman Catholics, no on the contrary, The Papacy is the Ruling office of the Prime Minister, it was just fullfilled and all Authority was given to Peter. Notice in Isaiah "He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Father in Latin is Papa, where we get the word Pope from) If they were speaking Latin back then, Eliakim would have been called "Papa to the Inhabitants of Jerusalem" That office was taken from the Jews and Given to the First Roman Pontiff, "Peter the rock" and the other Bishops (Apostles) All authority was given to him, binding and loosing, feeding and tending the flock of God, when he opens no one shall shut, when he closes no one shall open. Peter was the Earthly Sheperd of the New Jerusalem and all that Authority was passed on to his Successors, St. Linus, St. Anacletus it was passed on to all of the Popes. Observe the way the Papacy ran in the Old LAw and compare it to the Papacy of the new Law.

Edited September 1, 2003 by Mc-Just†

[MC Just]

Bump

[mustbenothing]

No one should feel any serious compulsion to respond to an article copyrighted by another source, then cut 'n' pasted here; hence, I will not. However, I will cover the relevant arguments:

(cmotherofpirl) Around the year 96 Clement Bishop of the Church of Rome, wrote a long letter to the Church in Corinth telling them to submit in obedience:

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.

Notice that this is not a request, but an order.

(Me) Yes, the Church holds authority -- absolutely. But how do we move from there to infallibility?

(Mary's Knight, La) I think that once the case is made that the office of pope is biblical,

(Me) The problem is that the arguments presented above only show that Peter held some kind of position of primacy among the Apostles. Of course, any Protestant would readily grant that! inDouche, if there had been a Pope, I would definitely say it was Peter. The question, however, is whether or not there was a Pope at all. Are Roman Catholics simply importing modern conceptions of the papacy into the first century, or was there really the robust conception of a Pope then? Based on Acts 15, I see absolutely no reason to think that Peter was a Pope. Where, then, is the proof that Peter was a Pope, not just a leader?

(Mc-Just†) The Papacy goes back to the Old Law. Read Isaiah 22:20-25

(Me) Isaiah 22:20-25

20 In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah,

21 and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

22 And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

23 And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father's house.

24 And they will hang on him the whole honor of his father's house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons.

25 In that day, declares the Lord of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a secure place will give way, and it will be cut down and fall, and the load that was on it will be cut off, for the Lord has spoken."

Many commentators seem to think this refers to Christ, others to the entrusting of the Gospel to ministers, and/or Church authority. No matter the view taken, I have no idea how this requires a prophecy that there would be a person with infallibility restricted to ex cathedra declarations on faith and morals and a "kingship" of sorts (regarding Church discipline, administration, etc.) over the rest of the Church.

[MC Just]

Just as Eliakim was made a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, Peter was made Father to the inhabitants of the new Jerusalem, just as the prime minister menitoned in Isaiah had succesors, so does Peter. It's the same exact government but it was fullfuilled by Jesus in the making of his Church. Peter is an Authoritive figure in the Nt, Keys, feeding the sheep and lambs, he was the head apostle, the head bishop. Jesus created an Authoritive Church, with leaders in other words Peters authority didnt fall of the face of the earth when he died, it was passed on to St. Linus, Then to St.Anacletus, then to St. Clement and so on. It's the same with the other Apostles (Bishops) their authority was passed on by laying on of hands. Why do you think our Bishops wear those little round hats on their heads? The Apostles were all Jews. The Authority that the jews had was taken from them and given to Peter and the apostles thats what it was, the scriptures are clear on this. You remember how Jesus promised that the Gates of hell would not prevail agains his church and that the Church will be lead into all truth without error? That's papal Infallibility. Christ promised his church that it will be protected, and it is. Why is it so hard to believe? The Catholic church is the only church to proclaim it's infallibility and to proclaim that Christ is protecting his Church. Protestant come along bashing us saying their bible is infallible! Ha ha@! Christ didnt say he would be with the Bible he said he would be with the Church!

Pope Clement I (4th Pope)

"Then the reverence of the law is chanted, and the grace of the prophets is known, and the faith of the Gospels is established, and the tradition of the apostles is preserved, and the grace of the Church exults" (Letter to the Corinthians 11 [A.D. 80]).

Edited September 3, 2003 by Mc-Just†

[MC Just]

Bump