Did Christ Really Appoint Peter As The Pope?

[Aloysius]

in that artical Circle posted, i'd like to point one thing out. it assumes that arguing about who is greatest equals arguing who is the leader. not so, for our leader is not necessarily the greatest amoung us. we have had some unholy leaders, the only thing about them is that they were unable to take the office of the rock and do anything against the will of the rock no matter how much they may have been tempted to. the Pope is not the greatest amoung us (err... although JPII may be up there lol, but we are not the ones to judge such things) he's just the one who, after much prayer, can speak in the chair of the Rock, which is the authoritative Petrine office empowered to be Rock by Jesus intimitely connected with Peter is such a way that Peter is identified by it.

"Thou art Peter, and upon this peter i will build my Church" He speaks to a man who has spoken what was revealed to him by the Heavenly Father. That office of teaching what the Heavenly Father wishes the Church to believe is a rock, and it is a rock because it is empowered by Jesus, and Simon is so connected with it that he is identified by the office he holds, PETER. For he is rock because he uses the power of Christ's instituted office of the Rock.

[ironmonk]

I asked you to respond to the verses, not to start throwing in more. because if you cannot account for these, it is obvious that you are misinterpretating other ones. Please stay to the topic so I can get some criticism here and not flames like your last post.

It is obvious that you must leave verses out in attempt to get your point accross.

If you truly seek to understand, why would you look at verses on a individual basis instead of looking all verses that include Peter?

Harmony of Scripture... without conflict... the Catholic Church... the One Faith... the City on a Mountain which cannot be hidden... the salt of the Earth... the Disciples of Christ... the teachers of the Word... the protectors of the Gospels... The Pillar and Foundation of Truth...

Nothing is finer than standing on the vantage ground of Truth.

You appear to come to attack, why? Is it because you must attack to make your own personal religion look "right"...

much like a school yard bully attacks the smart child to make himself look better, so must anti-Catholics attack the Church...

God Bless, Your Servant in Christ,

ironmonk

[Laudate_Dominum]

Did Christ Really Appoint Peter as the Pope?

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

It seems perfectly legitimate that Christ could bestow a primacy on Simon, called Peter, and then the apostles would dispute among themselves about who is the greatest. After all James and John were given a title by Christ (sons of thunder) and were shown special privileges (e.g., they too were at the Transfiguration). Peter was certainly not the smartest or most educated of the Apostles and he was kind of a blunderer. Clearly the apostles did not understand fully the meaning of Peter's primacy until after the Resurrection but they understood it enough to be upset and quarrel amongst themselves. Perhaps Christ chose Peter to be his vicar partly because of the fact that he would not be the obvious choice by worldly standards, perhaps he would have been "the last" as it were. And to this day the Pope is called "the servant of the servants of God". The Papacy is primarily an office of service (if lived properly), I think our current Pope lives this out in a very profound way, he has given his whole life to the service of the Church and the world. I think Christ's words in these passages clarify that while a kind of primacy and authority was given to Peter, Christ's kingdom is not of this world and true shepherds of Christ's flock will be servants, not masters. The apostles often struggled with worldly mindedness and thinking Christ would establish a big earthly kingdom. Anyway, I think the first argument in that article is simplistic and is not solid. It assumes that the events of MT 16 were virtually meaningless when in fact I'd say it was those events that led to the dispute among the Apostles because it probably seemed unjust in their eyes that lowly Peter was being singled out in such a way.

The article also glosses over a lot of stuff and sets up a straw man of the Catholic position.

Matthew 16:15-18 “. . . ‘Who do you say I am?’ . . Simon Peter answered, ‘ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.. . .’ ‘And I tell you that you are Peter,[1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2] will not overcome it.’[3]

The clear bestowal of stewardship on Peter is not his new name, as this straw man argument would suggest, but the giving of the keys. Christ is the Messianic King; his is the fulfillment of the Davidic Kingdoms. The Davidic Kings (as most kings in the world) had stewards, or vicars to whom the king would delegate authority and entrust the governing of the kingdom if he was away or sick or something. In Isaiah 22 we see the deposing of a steward and the bestowal of this role by David onto Eliakim. He gives him the keys of the house of David, which are a symbol of authority that was well known back in biblical times. The symbol of keys as the authority of dominion is seen in other places such as in Revelation with regard to Christ’s supreme dominion over everything. Anyway, Christ's words in Mt 16 parallel the giving of the kingly stewardship in the Old Testament and so this insight leads one to properly interpret the primacy of Peter. I do not have time to give a full exposition of the biblical foundations of Peter's primacy (there are good books out there), but be assured that this small article you found is far from a refutation.

Peace.

[Winchester]

I'm going for the Saul opposition, since it touches not on our doctrines concernig infallibility: Peter was saying one thing and acting in a different way. No official teaching issued by Peter on that matter is shown. Popes are not protected from wrong behaviour, only wrong official teaching.

Circle, are we going to get into a my scholars beat your scholars fusillade? Cephas, the Aramaic word for 'rock' is how Peter was adressed. Your source makes undocumented proclamations. What are the telltale signs of translation? Why would he "certainly" have stuck to the Hebrew rather that the Septuagint texts? For the "examples", could we have some "woodenly literal" translations of idioms common to Christ's message that would have "woodenly" appeared in the text? Were any idioms applicable to said passage? Lastly, let us look (as you so ask us) at the scholarly quote at the end:

"It remains linguistically improbable that the whole of Matthew was originally in Aramaic" (15).

the whole, Circle, the whole. In the Bibles I've read, Cephas is the word used by Christ. Christ, being apparently multilingual, could quite easily use one word and continue in another. That last quote itself derails the argument. "whole of Matthew"

Also, did the distinction between petra and petros exist in Christ's time? Would it have been proper for Christ to adress a male with a female word? "a" being a feminine ending in Greek? Doe this article really presume to tell us that we base our whole understanding of the primacy of Peter on one verse?

[Jake Huether]

Circle, you've got it backwards. The words from Mt 16:18 are not the basis for the Catholic belief that Peter was chosen by Christ as the head of the Church. Those words CONFIRM it, but the reality of the event -- Christ's action in appointing Peter to be his successor -- came first. Christ delegated His authority to Peter a long time before a single word of the New Testament was written.

And the Church founded by Christ upon Peter is the "household of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth," 1 Tim 3:15.

The Catholic Church is not based on the New Testament. Rather, the New Testament is based on the dynamic, living, teaching Church which Christ founded --the Catholic Church. That church you read about in the New Testament is not invisible -- it still exists. It was first called "Catholic" in or before 107 A.D. (see the full quote in my signature below).

The NT is the "family album" of the Catholic Church. It's a record of the spiritual journey of the Church at a particular time in its history -- when it was newly born.

Original Christianity was not based on the New Testament but on the teaching of the Catholic Church, which had been instructed by the Apostles. This Church is nearly 400 years older than the Bible. The idea that Christianity is based on the Bible dates only from the 16th century.

And, yes, Christ really did appoint Peter as the head of the Church. There is ample historical evidence apart from the NT.

JMJ Likos

Thanks Likos! I was going to respond with these exact words (well - not exact, you said it better).

You have to remember, Circle, that the Bible is a written record of Catholic History. Protestants got their hands on it and are trying to make ends meet on what they think it meant. Catholics know what it means because they LIVED that history!

Like Likos said, it confirms what the Catholics believed before! It doesn't define what Catholics believe. The Catholic's beliefs defined the NT.

[Norseman82]

This time, please read what I write before spitting off your prewritten, and prethought spiels on Peter. This is the argument I would like a response to, not your own interpretation of the passage. Show me how indirect context allows the passage to mean Peter is the Pope.

now please respond against THAT QUOTE and not whatever you think I may have said. And don't bother any 'Matthew was Aramaic first!' arguments. That is balony, and you were fed propaganda on that one. See --source-- if you want to read a bit about it. This isn't part of the debate anyway, so don't argue against this, show the flaws in the quote instead.

First of all, I will respond by saying that the Matthew 16:15-18 quote is incomplete!! It left out verse 19. You wanted a flaw in the quote, there it is.

Second:

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

One of the Pope's titles is "servant of the servants of God". See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13737a.htm

[Laudate_Dominum]

A reflection

Did Christ Really Appoint Peter as the Pope?

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

Let's try to imagine the scenario following the chronology that is presupposed based on Mark and Matthew.

In Matthew we have the scene of the apostles with Jesus in Caesarea Philippi, some stuff goes down and Jesus says that Simon is "Peter [rock] and on this rock I will build my Church...", he gives him the keys to the kingdom of Heaven etc. At some point later Peter, James and John go up and experience the Transfiguration. The following verses of Matthew's gospel give various accounts of interactions between Jesus and the Apostles but it is always Peter alone who addresses Christ. It is as if he were the spokesman of the Apostles, the chief as it were. Let's look at Mk 9. We have in Mark's account the Transfiguration similar to Matthew, not long after we have the event of the dispute among the apostles on the road. In light of the events prior to the Transfiguration, namely the giving of keys, etc. let's imagine what might have happened. The apostles, who were Jews that knew their Old Testament and were living in expectation of the restoration of the Davidic Kingdom by the Messiah no doubt comprehended what took place at Caesarea Philippi. Jesus bestowed an office of chief steward upon Simon, now Peter (compare Isa 22 & Mt 16, see also "Jesus, Peter and the Keys" - Queenship Publishing). Now as the apostles are walking on the road they are perhaps scandalized by Peter's new appointment. Jesus speaks many words in these chapters which were to help adjust their attitudes, the incident where he said "who is the greatest in the kingdom?" and had a child set in their midst. His statements about whoever is first shall be last, etc. He is trying to help them overcome their shortsightedness and egoism. So behind Christ's back (they would not contest with their master to his face), they dispute Peter's primacy. James and John, the beloved disciple by all means, they too were given a title, sons of thunder, they too were at the Transfiguration, and there is evidence of some social tie between their family with that of Christ (hence the account with the mother of James and John). Surely it is only just that they should have first place in the kingdom, why has Christ not singled them out to sit at his right and left? What about Andrew, Peter is his younger brother afterall, and he found Christ first! How can he submit to his younger brother, that is not decent by Jewish standards? And what of Matthew? An educated man, a higher class than Peter, surely he is more fit to be the steward of a kingdom than some brute fisherman! So they were scandalized and quarelled amonst themselves whilst their master's back was turned. But Christ knew their thoughts and calmly rebuked them, explicitly this time. They are worldly minded and egotistical, this is not the attitude of shepherds of Christ's flock. And later when James and John had the nerve to approach Christ behind the other's backs and try to advance their rank in the kingdom, they are told basically that it is not God's will for them and that they do not understand what they are asking. "Will you drink the chalice that I drink?" refering to his suffering and crucifixion. Also right after Christ gave Peter his appointed office in Caesarea Philippi he told the apostles that "whoever would come after me must take up his cross and follow me". He gives a warning of the suffering to come. And after the Resurrection, when Peter's unique office of steward was confirmed by the risen Christ in the "feed my sheep" incident Christ told Peter that "another will gird you and take you where you do not want to go" and John adds "this he said to show by what death he would glorify God." This is concluded by Christ saying to Peter "follow me". I see these events (prophecies really) as being confirmed by the fact that Peter was actually crucified, according to early Church history, and he asked to be crucified upside down because he said he was not worthy to die as Christ died. It would seem that his office was truly bound up with the chalice that Christ drank. It reminds me of times recently when I've seen the successor to St. Peter, John Paul II on EWTN saying Mass or something. He is suffering so much I always think of Jesus on the cross when I see our Pope agonizing to pronounce every word of the Liturgy...

These are my reflections anyway. Thanks for the article Circle.

[willguy]

Circle,

First, insisting that we only use the verses you cite is a poor way to have a discussion. How can we work if we are not able to bring in other arguements.

Secondly, how does the disciples arguing who is greatest disprove Peter as pope? The disciples were human. Just because something has been previously ordained doesn't stop us from arguing about it. Also, the disciples were silent when Jesus asked them what they had been arguing about. Couldn't this silence prove that they knew that they were arguing about something that Christ had already taken care of?

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

First, James and John do not ask to be leaders. They ask to sit on both sides of Jesus in glory. Just because they want to be greatest in glory does not mean that they wanted to be leaders on earth. Secondly, if I remember correctly (with how sick I've been, I may not) this is when James and John first approach Jesus. Couldn't they have not known that Peter had already been given a position of honor.

Finally, in Galatians, Paul challenges Peter “to his face.” He would not have done this if Peter had been made the final authority in the church (the Pope).

Galatians 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Popes have been opposed by Christians throughout history. I believe St. Catherine of Sienna confronted the pope of her day on several issues.

Finally circle, I have a question for you. How can you gather that when Jesus was talking to Simon Peter and said "You are Peter(Rock), and upon this Rock I will build my church" that Jesus was calling Peter's profession the Rock and not Peter himself?

[Truth]

I just want to know how you respond to this argument. I found it in a file on my computer I saved a while ago. Here ya go....

Did Christ Really Appoint Peter as the Pope?

Looking at the chronology in Matthew and Mark, we find the following facts:

Matthew 16:15-18 “. . . ‘Who do you say I am?’ . . Simon Peter answered, ‘ You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.. . .’ ‘And I tell you that you are Peter,[1] and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades[2] will not overcome it.’[3]

1. [18] Peter means rock.

2. [18] Or hell

1. [18] Or not prove stronger than it

This is the verse that the Catholic Church says makes Peter the “rock,” or the foundation of the church. Protestants say that the “rock” is Peter’s “belief in Christ.” Christ is frequently referred to as the Rock or Cornerstone in the Bible. Protestants believe that this verse does not refer to Peter himself.

Mark 8:27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, "Who do people say I am?" 28 They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets." 29 "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?" Peter answered, "You are the Christ.[1] "

1. [29] Or Messiah. "The Christ" (Greek) and "the Messiah" (Hebrew) both mean "the Anointed One."

So we pick up in Mark’s account at the same point in time that supposedly made Peter the Pope in Matthew’s account. However let’s look at the following chronology in Mark as follows:

Mark 9:33 They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, "What were you arguing about on the road?" 34 But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35 Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all."

If Peter had been made the Pope, the disciples would not have been arguing over who was the greatest, or the leader of the group. This is further supported by the following verse:

Mark 10:35 Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came to him. "Teacher," they said, "we want you to do for us whatever we ask." 36"What do you want me to do for you?" he asked. 37 They replied, "Let one of us sit at your right and the other at your left in your glory."

For James and John to want to be the two top leaders and sit on both sides of Jesus in glory, it once again rules out the fact that Peter was number one, or the “Pope.”

Finally, in Galatians, Paul challenges Peter “to his face.” He would not have done this if Peter had been made the final authority in the church (the Pope).

Galatians 2:11 When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong.

Bible Verses: © Copyright 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society. All rights reserved.

I have to agree with you. Peter was not the leader or the pope. This is used to appoint the CC as the church of Christ. It is not true at all Peter was the stumbling block (Rock). His intention was to stop Christ from being taken and killed. His intentions was good but, it was in Christ path to the cross. In other words Christ was to fulfill his mission on the earth. Furhtermore, Christ was the cornerstone and the cap stone. Peter was not a notiable player in the building of the Church, unlike Paul and others. I know you are going to the Keys. As I have said before the same power was given to all of them the 12.

POWER OF THE KEYS (Gr. kleis, key). A phrase whose origin lies in the words of Jesus to Peter (Matt 16:19). It has also been connected with binding and loosing (18:18) and the authority to forgive or not to forgive (John 20:22-23). Moreover, Jesus is presented in Revelation 3:7 as having the key to open and shut the door into the church and kingdom of God. The possession of keys--not as a doorkeeper but as chief steward in a household--was a symbol of rule and authority conferred by the master. God conferred this authority on the Messiah, and the Messiah conferred it on Peter and the other apostles. They had authority to preach the gospel and perform its deeds of the gospel, and in so doing to admit into God's household those who responded in repentance and faith. They were not to be like the Pharisees whose word and example actually shut the kingdom of heaven (Matt 23:13). The "power of the keys" has also been understood as the authority to make binding rules for the young and developing church in the earliest period and or as the power to exercise discipline within the church through the use of the power of excommunication. Further, the words of Jesus to Peter (16:17-19) seem to establish a particular role for Peter in the creation and early growth of the church. To claim that this role is repeated in the bishops of Rome is hardly a legitimate deduction from the text.

---------------------------------------------------------

Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Bible NIV

Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996 SoftKey Multimedia Inc. All Rights Reserved

[willguy]

intention was to stop Christ from being taken and killed

Yeah, him and all the rest of the apostles. Why? Because they, nor anyone else, didn't understand what Christ had to do. Think about it, if your best friend wanted to do something that was going to get him killed, would you be like, "Hey, whatever you want, its your life" or would you try to stop him?

God conferred this authority on the Messiah, and the Messiah conferred it on Peter and the other apostles.

Where do the other apostles get this exactly?

BTW truth, next time you quote something, you may want to make sure it doesn't contradict with what you said.

You said:

Peter was not the leader or the pope.

Your source said:

Further, the words of Jesus to Peter (16:17-19) seem to establish a particular role for Peter in the creation and early growth of the church.

[Norseman82]

To claim that this role is repeated in the bishops of Rome is hardly a legitimate deduction from the text.

---------------------------------------------------------

Excerpted from Compton's Interactive Bible NIV

Copyright © 1994, 1995, 1996 SoftKey Multimedia Inc. All Rights Reserved

By what authority does Compton say this?

[phatcatholic]

To claim that this role is repeated in the bishops of Rome is hardly a legitimate deduction from the text.

Truth,

do u realize that ur source often makes outlandish claims w/o even trying to back them up? this isn't the only time i've seen ur source do this. this last sentence (that i quoted above) literaly comes out of nowhere. nothing written before this sentence substanitates that claim, and, sense its the end of ur entry, nothing after it does either. it looks like ur source has an agenda.....quite dangerous when ur commenting on the Word of God.

as for the "legitimate deduction from the text" that ur souce claims would hardly exist, i offer the following article (if you are interested in "truth" u will read it):

Apostles Can Become Bishops (Apostolic Succession)

I had the following exchange with an Orthodox member of my e-mail discussion list. His words are in red .

The office of Apostle was unique. Apostles did not become bishops

Wrong. I need only bring Eusebius to the stand to refute this assertion:

All that time most of the apostles and disciples, including James himself, the first Bishop of Jerusalem, known as the Lord's brother, were still alive . . .

(History of the Church, 7:19, tr. G.A. Williamson, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1965, p. 118)

James is called an Apostle by St. Paul in Gal 1:19 and 1 Cor 15:7. That James was the sole, "monarchical" bishop of Jerusalem is fairly apparent from Scripture also (Acts 12:17, 15:13,19, 21:18, Galatians 1:19, 2:12).

-- they appointed them to oversee the churches they had established. The episcopate is not an 'apostolic college'. 'Apostolic succession' is not a perpetuation of the Apostles. The Apostolic Age ended with the death of the Apostle and Evangelist Saint John the Theologian.

Of course we agree with this.

'Apostolic succession' refers to the overseers -- episkopos -- the office established by the Apostles to be their successors (but not their equals!) thereby ensuring the preservation of the Holy Catholic and Orthodox Faith -- 'the faith which was once delivered unto the saints' [Jude 1:3].

Well, as shown, bishops since the Apostles are obviously not Apostles, but on the other hand, Apostles may become bishops, as James and Peter did.

Since there is no perpetuation of the Apostles, 'the role of Peter' is not 'a part of the succeeding "college"'.

It is Church government by analogy. Jesus set His Church up a certain way, and we have a clear record of that. St. Peter was at the very least foremost of the disciples, or held a primacy of honor. Do Orthodox not want to follow the biblical model (not to mention that of the historical early Church)? Many Orthodox accept Petrine primacy (not supremacy, of course). Assuming that, who, then, is the analogous "foremost among equals" amongst Orthodox today? Or is that a matter of competing opinion also?

The following is an excerpt from my Treatise on the Church:

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), episkopos is used for overseer in various senses, for example: officers (Judges 9:28, Isaiah 60:17), supervisors of funds (2 Chronicles 34:12,17), overseers of priests and Levites (Nehemiah 11:9, 2 Kings 11:18), and of temple and tabernacle functions (Numbers 4:16). God is called episkopos at Job 20:29, referring to His role as Judge, and Christ is an episkopos in 1 Peter 2:25 (RSV: Shepherd and Guardian of your souls). The Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-29) bears witness to a definite hierarchical, episcopal structure of government in the early Church. St. Peter, the chief elder (the office of pope) of the entire Church (1 Peter 5:1; cf. John 21:15-17), presided and issued the authoritative pronouncement (15:7-11). Then James, bishop of Jerusalem (kind of like the host-mayor of a conference) gives a concurring (Acts 15:14), concluding statement (15:13-29) . . .

Much historical and patristic evidence also exists for the bishopric of St. Peter at Rome. No one disputes the fact that St. Clement (d.c.101) was the sole bishop of Rome a little later, or that St. Ignatius (d.c.110) was the bishop at Antioch, starting around 69 A.D. Thus, the "monarchical" bishop is both a biblical concept and an unarguable fact of the early Church. By the time we get to the mid-second century, virtually all historians hold that single bishops led each Christian community. This was to be the case in all Christendom, east and west, until Luther transferred this power to the secular princes in the 16th century, and the Anabaptist tradition eschewed ecclesiastical office either altogether or in large part. Today many denominations have no bishops whatsoever.

One may concede all the foregoing as true, yet deny apostolic succession, whereby these offices are passed down, or handed down, through the generations and centuries, much like Sacred Tradition. But this belief of the Catholic Church (along with Eastern Orthodoxy and Anglicanism) is also grounded in Scripture: St. Paul teaches us (Ephesians 2:20) that the Church is built on the foundation of the apostles, whom Christ Himself chose (John 6:70, Acts 1:2,13; cf. Matthew 16:18). In Mark 6:30 the twelve original disciples of Jesus are called apostles, and Matthew 10:1-5 and Revelation 21:14 speak of the twelve apostles. After Judas defected, the remaining eleven Apostles appointed his successor, Matthias (Acts 1:20-26). Since Judas is called a bishop (episkopos) in this passage (1:20), then by logical extension all the Apostles can be considered bishops (albeit of an extraordinary sort). If the Apostles are bishops, and one of them was replaced by another, after the death, Resurrection, and Ascension of Christ, then we have an explicit example of apostolic succession in the Bible, taking place before 35 A.D. In like fashion, St. Paul appears to be passing on his office to Timothy (2 Timothy 4:1-6), shortly before his death, around 65 A.D. This succession shows an authoritative equivalency between Apostles and bishops, who are the successors of the Apostles. As a corollary, we are also informed in Scripture that the Church itself is perpetual, infallible, and indefectible (Matthew 16:18, John 14:26, 16:18). Why should the early Church be set up in one form and the later Church in another? All of this biblical data is harmonious with the ecclesiological views of the Catholic Church. There has been some development over the centuries, but in all essentials, the biblical Church and clergy and the Catholic Church and clergy are one and the same.

from Biblical Evidence for Catholicism

[Archangel]

Hey all,

I found an article on the web that addresses the arguments posed against the authority of Peter:

http://www.cegguam.org/pacvoice/06PapalAuthority.htm

It is also interesting to note that in the first chapter of the Gospel of John, Nathanael (like Peter) told Jesus that He is the "Son of God":

49 Nathanael answered him, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the King of Israel."

Despite Nathanael's faith in proclaiming Jesus the "Son of God", Jesus does not respond in the same way to Nathanael that He does to Peter. Namely, He does not change Nathanael's name as He does for Peter; nor does He give any authority to Nathanael.

Earlier in the chapter, John the Baptist also proclaims that Jesus is the "Lamb of God" and the "Son of God":

29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world.

34 Now I have seen and testified that he is the Son of God."

36 and as he watched Jesus walk by, he said, "Behold, the Lamb of God."

Again, as with Nathanael, Jesus does not respond to John the Baptist as He does to Peter despite John the Baptist's great faith.

Even more telling, when Peter is first introduced to Jesus, Jesus proclaims that He will change his name from Simon to Kephas even though Peter says nothing to exhibit any faith or belief:

42 Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter).

John, Chapter 1, reveals much of how Jesus has already reserved the authoritative role for Simon Peter.