The Papacy in Scripture – More Than Matthew 16

Tim Staples' Blog ^ | March 26, 2014 | Tim Staples

[GonzoII]

The Papacy in Scripture – More Than Matthew 16

In an earlier blog post, I made the point that the role of St. Peter and his successors is made remarkably clear in Matthew 16:18-19 and its immediate context:

And I tell you, you are Peter (Gr.—petros—‘rock’), and on this rock (Gr.—petra—‘rock’) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Jesus here promises infallible authority to Peter that would empower him to speak in the place of Christ, or as his vicar on earth. Catholics believe just what the text says. When St. Peter (and his successors) “binds” something on earth, it is “bound” in heaven. That’s definitive authority–infallible authority–with the power of heaven to back it up!

A response I get fairly regularly in response to this is to claim the Church is using “this one text” to try and establish a dogma.

My first thought in response is always to say, ”How many times does God have to tell you something before you will believe and obey it?” After all, Jesus only gave us the proper form for baptism one time in Matthew 28:19, and yet all Christians believe it to be the proper form nonetheless.

Nevertheless, I do think this is a valid question that deserves an answer: Is Matthew 16 the only text that demonstrates the truth of Peter’s primacy and of the papacy in Scripture?

The answer is a resounding no!

The List Goes On and On

Below is a list of biblical texts all related to the primacy of St. Peter and the Papacy. Word count limitations prevent me from quoting all of them; you’ll have to do some homework and look up some of these texts yourself. But when you do, you’ll notice there is not a single “rock” to be found among them.

Mind you, this is not an exhaustive list. There are more biblical texts we could take a look at. Consider this my top 18 list:

1. Matt. 14:23-27: St. Peter is uniquely and miraculously empowered by Jesus to walk on water, and when his faith begins to falter, our Lord does not allow him to go under. This is a prelude to Jesus promising to communicate his authority that can never fail to Peter in Matt. 16. The gift of the papacy is here assured not to depend upon the person of St. Peter or of his successors, but on the promise and power of Christ.

2. Matt. 17:24-27: After receiving the promise of authority in Matt. 16, St. Peter is once again given supernatural power, and this time to provide for both himself and Jesus when the first-century equivalent of the I.R.S. comes calling. Peter acts as Christ’s “vicar,” or, in the place of Jesus, in miraculous fashion, once again, guaranteed by Jesus not to fail. He “pays the tax” for both Jesus and himself. If you don’t think this is miraculous, it’s almost April 15 right now. God ahead down to the closest fishin’ hole, cast a line in, catch a fish, and let’s see if there’s enough money in the fish’s mouth to pay your taxes, let alone yours and someone else’s.

3. Luke 5:1-10: The multitudes that gather to hear Jesus at the shore of Lake Gennesaret press in on him so that he has to step off shore into one of two boats that are there docked. The boat he steps into just happens to be Peter’s boat. Hmmmm. Jesus then proclaims the gospel from the barque of Peter (5:1-3)! Sound familiar? Then, Jesus tells Peter to put out into the deep and let down his nets for a catch. Can you imagine the people present? They must have been thinking that Jesus was nuts! Multitudes have to just stand there and watch St. Peter go fishing? St. Peter then says, “We have toiled all night and caught nothing” (vs. 5), yet he lets down the nets at the command of Jesus. When they catch so many fish they need to bring out the other boat to haul in the load, Peter realizes that Jesus is calling him to more than just catching catfish! These fish are metaphors for Christians. Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” (vs.8)! But Jesus responds, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.”

Thus, St. Peter receives a unique and singular calling from Christ to be the fisher of men. And once again, Peter receives supernatural power that cannot fail to fulfill his unique calling.

4. Luke 22:24-32: In this text, Jesus teaches the apostles the true nature of authority, especially in verses 24-28. True authority in the New Covenant is commanded to be servant of all. He will speak with infallible authority just as Christ did, but he must also wash the feet of his brothers just as Christ did. In this context, Jesus said to the apostles:

[A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.—humas, plural—“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.—plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.—sou, singular—Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.—singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.—singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

In the context of committing his kingdom authority to the apostles to govern the church (the “Israel of God”—see Gal. 6:16), Jesus especially prays for Peter so that he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles. If the apostles want to be protected from the devil’s attempts to divide and destroy them and the Church, they must be in communion with Peter. And notice, Jesus says specifically to Peter, that, literally from the Greek text, “the faith of you [Peter] will not fail.” This is precisely what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years!

5. John 10:16: Jesus prophesied:

And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd (emphasis added).

Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be “the good shepherd” (Gr.—poimein—“shepherd” or “pastor”) in John 10:14. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this “one flock” and “one shepherd,” Jesus says he must gather “other sheep” referring to the gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in our next two texts.

6. John 21:1-17: Here, we find another example of Jesus aiding the fishing of the apostles who “caught nothing” all night long (vs. 3). At the command of Jesus they let down their nets and catch an astonishing 153 “large fish” (vs. 11). When Jesus commands the net to be hauled ashore, St. Peter heaves the entire net of fish to shore by himself. No man can lift that size of a catch out of the water and on to the shore by himself. If you take these words literally to mean Peter actually did this, it seems Peter was given supernatural strength to do what no man could naturally accomplish. Fish are symbols representing the faithful (recall Luke 5:8-10). And the symbol of “the net” is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the Church (see Matt. 13:47). Not only is Peter’s ability to carry these “fish” (all the faithful) a miracle, but the fact that the “net” is not broken is also extraordinary. The message seems to be that the Church Jesus establishes containing all of God’s faithful with Peter packing the power will never be destroyed!

It is in this context that Jesus then asks St. Peter three times, “Do you love me… Do you love me… Do you love me?” When Peter responds in the affirmative the second time, Jesus responds by commanding Peter to “tend (Gr.–poimaine—’shepherd’) my sheep” (vs. 16). Jesus the shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God!

How do we know Peter was called to shepherd the entire flock? I would only ask this: How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? Answer? All of them. So how many of his sheep did Jesus entrust to St. Peter to shepherd? Answer? All of them.

7. Matt. 10:2: In the context of the calling and listing of the twelve apostles, Peter is referred to as “the first” apostle. We know he was not the “first apostle” chronologically. John 1:37-41 tells us Andrew believed Jesus was the Messiah first and told his brother Peter about him. Andrew would be the “first” chronologically. Peter was “first” in primacy.

Though the Greek word, protos (first), can certainly mean “first” chronologically, it can also denote “chief,” “superior” or “the first in rank.” In Acts 28:7, for example, protos is used to describe “the chief man of the Island, Publius.” In Matthew 20:27, we discover, “Whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” Luke 15:22 adds: “Bring forth the best robe…” And I Tim. 1:15 provides: “And I am the foremost of sinners.” All of these texts use protos in the sense of “chief” or “superior.”

Moreover, Christ is referred to as prototokos, or “first-begotten” in Col. 1:15. Here St. Paul uses protos in order to teach us about Christ’s eternal generation, which has been accomplished outside of time. He is; therefore, the creator and the one who has “preeminence” over all things, according to the text. Colossians 1:15-18 reads:

[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born (Gr.—prototokos) of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth…He is before all things…He is the head of the body, the church…that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Gr.—proteuon, a verb with the same root as protos and prototokos).

Thus, in a notably direct and overt manner, by referring to St. Peter as the “first” apostle, St. Matthew presents Peter (and his successors) just as we see him represented in the rest of the New Testament; he is revealed to be “chief” of the apostles, or to have a primacy of authority over all the apostles and, by extension, over the entire church.

8. Acts 1:15-26: 

During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place).  He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus … For it is written in the Book of Psalms:  “Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it” (citing Psalm 69:25).  And: “May another take his office” (citing Psalm 109:8). Therefore it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us … become with us a witness to his resurrection.  So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias.  Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two you have chosen …”  Then they gave lots … and the lots fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.

It is St. Peter who is clearly in charge in choosing and ordaining a new apostle to replace Judas. He stands in the midst of the apostles and gives an authoritative interpretation of Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. And mind you, these are not exactly obvious interpretations of these texts. Psalm 69:25 uses the plural, yet Peter applies it singularly to Peter. The context of Psalm 109:8 also uses the plural (see verse 20). This is not exactly self-evident. Yet, St. Peter then declares the apostles must choose a successor of Judas based upon these two texts. And there is nary a question from the rest of the apostles like, “Hey, Peter, that’s a pretty shaky interpretation of those two texts. What hermeneutical principles are you using, anyway?”

In the case of St. Peter, the old saying is true, “It is my (Peter’s) way or the highway.”

9. Acts 2:14-41:

It is St. Peter who is in charge at Pentecost and preaches the first sermon whereby 3,000 are baptized. And you’ll notice a theme we are going to often see in the Book of Acts (and in the Gospels as well). Peter is listed as a category all by himself. Acts 2 says, “But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them.” There’s Peter alone, and then there is “the eleven.”

10. Acts 3:1-10:

Peter and John are “about to go into the temple,” when a man who was “lame from birth” called out to them begging alms. We note that it is Peter who speaks and it is Peter who performs the first miracle in the Acts of the Apostles. Another “first” for St. Peter. We will see more.

11. Acts 4:3-12:

When St. Peter and St. John are arrested and called before the Sanhedrin, it is St. Peter in verse 8, who speaks for both and preaches boldly of Christ and the name of Jesus.

12. Acts 5:1-15: It is St. Peter who clearly depicted as in charge of the Church in collecting funds for world evangelism. And it is St. Peter who pronounces God’s judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, speaking for God in the process. And it is then, in verse 15, that after seeing “more than ever” numbers of converts flood into the Church, that the sick were brought to him in hope that even his shadow might pass over them so that they may be healed.

13. Acts 5:29: After the apostles were arrested and then miraculously set free by the angel of the Lord, they are before the Sanhedrin for the second time. St. Luke records:

Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather then men.”

Once again, St. Peter is set apart from the rest of the apostles. If he was just one of the apostles with no special position St. Luke would not set him apart like he does. Why does he do this? Because St. Peter has the keys of the kingdom (cf. Matthew 16:15-19). He is the Shepherd over the whole flock of God’s people (cf. John 10:11-16, 21:15-17).

In fact, every time St. Peter is mentioned in sacred Scripture with the other apostles, he is either listed first (see Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13, etc.), or given a special place apart from the other apostles (see I Cor. 9:5, Mark 1:36, Mark 16:7 and Luke 9:32) except for one example in Galatians 2:9. This one example is often used by non-Catholics to demonstrate absolute equality among the apostles or even to prove St. James to have been the true leader of the early Church rather than St. Peter.

And when they perceived the grace that was given to me (St. Paul), James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised.

A closer look at the context clears up this apparent difficulty. In Galatians 2, St. Paul is speaking in the context of the church at Jerusalem. We know from Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History …) that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem after the apostles dispersed throughout the world.  It would not be surprising to list James first in the context of the diocese (or city, as it were then) over which he presides. Even today, if there were a Council held in a diocese other than Rome, the local bishop would normally be given a special place of honor in some distinct manner. This, in fact, has been the case many times in the history of the Church. James should be given a place of honor because he is the head of local Church there in Jerusalem.

This is the context of Galatians 2. However, notice the difference between this second visit St. Paul made to Jerusalem and his first visit fourteen years earlier (cf. Galatians 2:1).

Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:18-19)… Then, after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas… and when they perceived the grace of God was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 1:18-2:9).

St. Paul originally went to Jerusalem not to see James, though he did see James. He went to confer with St. Peter. After receiving revelation from God, St. Peter is the first man St. Paul wants to see. This was not just a casual meeting. It lasted fifteen days. It was fourteen years later (cf. Gal. 2:1), after St. Peter had gone and established his see in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History), that St. Paul lists James first in the context of the Church of Jerusalem.

An interesting not: There are four lists of apostles given in Scripture. Matthew 10:2-4 (which we saw before), Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13. In every case St. Peter is first and Judas is last (except in Acts, Judas is not listed at all because he had committed suicide). In oriental culture, the listing of names is important. It connotes position and honor. Notice in all the lists the order is generally identical. There is a bit of juxtaposition in St. Mark’s list, but St. Peter’s place is always the same. This is reminiscient of the early Church. There was some juxtaposition in the early Church when it came to the second and third place of honor in the Church, but never a doubt who was at the helm:  The Bishop of Rome.

14. Acts 8:14-23:

In this text we see St. Peter leading when he and St. John confirm the new converts in Samaria because of the evangelistic efforts of St. Phillip. And once again it is St. Peter who takes the helm in pronouncing judgment on Simon the sorcerer who wanted to buy the power to confirm or convey the Holy Spirit (verses 18-23).

15. Acts 9:32:

Here we have an interesting little passage in verse 32 most pass over too quickly.

As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda (NAB).

Here we have St. Peter making his pastoral rounds. To what part of the Church?  All of it!  Why?  St. Peter is the shepherd of the whole world.  He then proceeds to do another first.  He raises Tabitha from the dead in Joppa (cf. 9:40-43).

16. Acts 10:1-48:

In this chapter from the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus personally sees to the fulfillment of the prophecy of John 10:16, which we saw above. He appears to St. Peter and commands him to bring the gospel to the gentiles by way of Cornelius, the centurion. When Peter then “commanded [Cornelius and his household] to be baptized” in Acts 10:48, the prophecy of John 10:16 was fulfilled. There was now one fold and one shepherd for Jews and Gentiles. That ministry has continued to this day in the successors of St. Peter, the bishops of Rome.

It would be easy to pass over this text and miss its importance. It is most significant that it is St. Peter to whom God gives a vision to allow the gentiles to be baptized and enjoy full membership in the Church. This was a radical move! If you think we have a problem with racism in the 21^st century, we have nothing on first century opinion of the gentiles!

If we read further, into Acts 11:18, after the other apostles and other disciples heard Peter declare what God had done, they say, in chapter 11:18:

When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”

They heard St. Peter speak and the question was settled. The question would continue to plague the Church with reference to how the gentiles and Jews were to harmonize in the Church. But the question of Gentiles being in the Church was settled by St. Peter and the question would not be raised again. Peter had spoken, the rest of the Church “held their peace.”  Would to God we today would do the same!

17. Acts 12: 3-11:

In this text, St. Peter is arrested again. Notice that the entire Church then goes to ‘round the clock prayer for him until he is released miraculously. This is not recorded to have been the case when St. James or any others were arrested. When the head of a fledgling Church struggling for its existence is put in jail, you better believe everyone is praying!

18. Acts 15: 1-12:

The ministry of St. Peter as “the shepherd” of the Universal Church continues. When there was a heresy spreading in the church at Antioch (and elsewhere) so widespread and problematic that Paul and Barnabas could not quell the resulting confusion, the church there decided to “go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (vss. 1-2). The question concerned salvation and the Old Covenant law in relation to the gospel. Some among “believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise…and…to keep the law of Moses’ (vs. 5) or else you ‘cannot be saved’” (vs. 1). In particular, they spoke of the gentiles who were converting to Christ, but the same would apply to all. The real question was: Are Christians saved by the grace of Christ in the New Covenant or must they obey the Old Covenant as well for salvation? The first Church Council (of Jerusalem) was convened and the theological question was put to rest by the pronouncement of St. Peter.

The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice…that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe…we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence… (Vs. 6-12, emphasis added)

Like we saw in Acts 11:18, when the Pope finally speaks on a matter, the rest are silent. And so it should be.

If you like this and you would like to learn more, click here.

[Jvette]

John 1:42

[Elsie]

Yes, Scripture is the Word of God and has authority but in not one of your quotations is there mentioned “Scripture alone”.

And you've posted ZERO about "Traditions; too".

[Elsie]

No Elsie - you just can’t pretend that if protestants could somehow go back in time and replace the Popes with protestant leaders that there would be this miraculous utopia of a church with sinless, perfect humans and no scandals.

Did you build this with 2 or 3 bales?

[Elsie]

But it’s only an act.

Mary is still dead an anyone who prays to dead people are wasting their breath.

[Elsie]

Yes, Scripture is the Word of God and has authority but in not one of your quotations is there mentioned “Scripture alone”.

Do not go beyond what is written...

[Elsie]

Perhaps your denominations does not but you personally, as many other Protestants, seem to do so.

So I SEEM to; eh?

Can you SHOW an example of this seeming?

[Elsie]

And if that authority comes from God himself?

And what if it don't?

Romans 11:4
I have left to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed knee to Baal.

Seems like there was someone else who thought HE was the only 'authorized spokesman' for GOD; too!

[Elsie]

No, I read the Bible and see that God has established a visible church with the authority to teach and guarded from error by the Holy Spirit.

That worked REALLY well with them 7 churches in Revelation.

[Elsie]

As to your comment in “bad theology”, you possess absolutely no teaching authority, none, to Challenge the Catholic Church’s Catechism.

Look, Motormouth...

I...if an ASS can send GOD's message, HE can surely use me in similar manner.

Show me just WHERE in your catechism that Mary goes to Heaven to be Jesus' executive secretary; and I'll perhaps reconsider the BAD THEOLOGY thingy.

[Elsie]

Tradition is the day to day teaching of the Church handed down from the Apostles.

Where'd all that EXTRA stuff come from then?

[Elsie]

Do you accept that what Jesus was doing when HE spoke those words was the yearly Passover meal of rememberance?

A yes/no answer would be greatly welcomed here.

[Elsie]

Yes; Mark DOES come after Matthew.

 

Mark 3:16-19

Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)

¹⁶ Simon whom he surnamed Peter; ¹⁷ James the son of Zeb′edee and John the brother of James, whom he surnamed Bo-aner′ges, that is, sons of thunder; ¹⁸ Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, ¹⁹ and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

---

---

"he surnamed" occurs in 2 verses in the KJV.
	Mar 3:16	And Simon he surnamed Peter;
	Mar 3:17	And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:

[Elsie]

John 1:42

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)

⁴² And he brought him to Jesus. And Jesus looking upon him, said: Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter.

 

 

O...K...

[motoman]

Elsie,

Balaam’s donkey was a humble beast. You words on this blog are not deserving of comparing you to the Ass in the O.T.

Your comments about Mary are vile. Try doing your own reading of the Catechism. Unlike the Ass, I assume you can read.

[Jvette]

Honestly, what is your point?

Jesus gave the name Kephas/Petros to Simon. The name means rock. Jesus called Simon, rock.

Simon was not known as Kephas/Petros until Jesus gave him that name and it is significant because until then, Rock was only attributed to God.

In Matthew 16, we learn WHY JESUS GAVE HIM THE NAME!

[daniel1212]

So it seems to me that the RC argument is that the use of fallible human reasoning cannot obtain valid assurance of Truth based upon Scriptural substantiation, and or that an infallible magisterium is necessary for this and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith. (Jn. 14:16; 16:13; Mt. 16:18) And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Does this fairly represent your argument?

• More or less. The only corrections that I would make is that the claims of the Catholic Church are not based on historical usage but on divine institution. Furthermore, this authority is not exercise solely by the see of Rome but by the entire Catholic Church. I think the disputes between Catholics and Protestants as well as those between Protestants themselves bear out the limits of human reasoning as a sure guide of the truth.

The latter is a given, while the claims of the Catholic Church as being based on divine institution are based on historical descent. As you see the history of Protestantism as testifying against Sola Scriptura, so Rome invokes her claimed unbroken succession and stewardship of Divine revelation as testifying to her being that Divinely instituted assuredly infallible magisterium.

Thus it remains that according to this premise assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium.

• Yes. Again I think the divisions in the church created after the introduction of sola Scriptura and the concept of private interpretation bear this out.

Thanks for making it clear what your argument is by your affirmations, which is what I see your church herself arguing, but by so doing you have effectively invalidated the NT church itself.

For, as per the Roman premise, if assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium, then it simply would have been impossible for anyone to have had assurance that Moses for instance, and his writings were of God, and that John the Baptist was as well, and ultimately the Lord Jesus. For there simply was no perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium to tell them that, and instead the church actually began in principled dissent from those who had historical descent, and sat in the seat of Moses over Israel, the instruments and stewards of Scripture, and inheritors of divine promises of God's presence and preservation. (Lv. 10:11; Dt. 4:31; 17:8-13; Num. 23:19,23; Is. 41:10, Ps. 89:33,34; Mal. 3:6; Rm. 3:2; 9:4)

And who rejected a holy man in the desert who ate insects and an itinerant Preacher, demanding “By what authority doest thou these things? and who gave thee this authority to do these thing?” (Mk. 11:27-33) But whom the people, using human reasoning, came to realize were of God, and followed the rejected Messiah who reproved the magisterium by Scripture, and established His truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the apostles and early church (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) - not the premise of a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, regardless of Rome defining herself as having such.

For Scripture alone is abundantly evidenced to be the supreme infallible transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims as the assured Word of God. Lacking that, it is necessary to have a man such as Moses, whose Abrahamic faith and authority was unmistakably supernaturally attested to by God, and penned the Laws which would be the standard for faith.

In addition, rather than an infallible magisterium being necessary to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, the fact is that both writings and men of God were recognized and established as being so without an infallible magisterium, and the Lord often preserved Truth by raising up “prophets, and wise men and scribes,” (cf. Mt. 23:34) from without the magisterium to reprove it. And thus the church began under rebels, the Lord and apostles and prophets, and thus it has continued, if not perfectly.

The limited unity of the NT church was under manifest apostles of God, who established their truth claims upon Scriptural substantiation, both in word and in power and virtue:

And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures, (Acts 17:2)

But have renounced the hidden things of dishonesty, not walking in craftiness, nor handling the word of God deceitfully; but by manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God. (2 Corinthians 4:2)

But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)

Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)

Every true evangelical would submit to such, but Rome is not even the running for with her “priests” (which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them) and critical or significant and irreconcilable distinctions between the NT church and that of Rome.

As for your unity argument, this criteria for authenticity also impugns Catholicism, since it exists in schism and sects, while what a church does and effects is what constitutes those what one believes, and those who hold most strongly to SS as Scripture literally being the authoritative Word of God testify to a far greater basic unity on core beliefs than the fruit of Rome.

A valid comparison would be between sola ecclesia churches and those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.

• I should have stipulated that this is what I mean when I use the term Protestant, those who hold to one of the classic Protestant schools of theology. These are the only ones who have the intellectual honesty with which to enter into a debate.

That is a rare but welcome reasonable statement by an RC, due to it weakening the unity polemic.

• That being said, I do think that the skepticism of these liberal "Protestants" can be traced to the introduction of the concept of private interpretation of Scripture. The idea of "nobody is going to tell me what Scripture means" has lead to "nobody is going to tell me what the truth is."

Yet any basis for determination and assurance of Truth can be misused, while the problem of sola ecclesia is that it takes the problem of SS to an institutional level, wherein a church says, "nobody is going to tell me what the truth is.” as she autocratically does so. Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares. And RCs argue they are right because they follow a church which is right. But which is not the means of Scriptural unity, which in whatever degree it is realized, is much harder as it must be supernatural. “Broad is the way and wide is the path that leadeth to destruction.”

However, RC position is not that the their teachings require actual Scriptural support, but only that they do not contradict it, nor is the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.

• Yes, there are some teachings that go beyond Scripture. This is clearly acknowledged but the vast majority of what Catholics believe is derived from Scripture.

It was not at all acknowledged in your unqualified statement “that Catholics do indeed derive their teaching from Scripture,” yet while Arians also claim to derive their teaching from Scripture, and while even without a single centralized magisterium, fundamental evangelicals have historically strongly contended for the many manifestly Scripturally established Truths we hold in common with Rome against cults who deny them, as well as against those Catholic teachings which are contrary to Scripture, and or are really channeled out of nebulous oral tradition.

We do not find Scripture teaching such things as formal justification being due to one's personal holiness by the act of sprinkling even a morally incognizant soul who cannot full the stated requirements for baptism, (Acts 2:38; 8:36-38) versus “purifying their hearts through faith,” the kind of faith that is normally expressed in baptism. (Acts 10:43,47; 15:7-9)

Or showing NT pastors distinctively being titled “priests,” which distinctive word the Holy Spirit never calls them by, while presbuteros (elder) and episkopos (overseer) denote the same office (Titus 1:5-7);

Or as interpretive of the last supper accounts and Jn. 6, showing NT pastors turning bread turned into human flesh and dispensing it in order that the recipients gain spiritual and eternal life, or physically eating ever being the means for gain spiritual and eternal life. Nor the Lord's supper being manifest as being the center, source and summit of faith in the NT church, nor the elements being the body of Christ , versus the church, in the only manifestly description of the Lord's supper. (1Cor. 13-34)

Nor any record of praying to angels or departed saints in Heaven, etc. among the approx. 200 prayers to Heaven the Holy Spirit records in Scripture, or in instruction on who to pray to in Heaven.

Nor a formal separate status between those called "brethren" versus brethren called "saints," with "non-saints" being in a mythical place called "purgatory" (of Rome), suffering to atone for sins and to become good enough to enter glory.

Yet it is really not even Tradition nor Scripture that is the basis for the veracity of RC teaching, but the premise of the assured veracity of Rome. For while RCs make a show of invoking Scripture to support Catholic traditions, they must compel them to support her (or steadfastly denied any contradictions), for as said, the only interpretation of Scripture tradition and history that is assuredly true and authoritative is that which the magisterium decrees. Thus the exhortations,

"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers."

“The reason of this stand of his is that, for him, there can be no two sides to a question which for him is settled; for him, there is no seeking after the truth: he possesses it in its fulness, as far as God and religion are concerned. His Church gives him all there is to be had; all else is counterfeit...— (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York ; http://www.gutenberg.org/files/18438/18438-h/18438-h.htm)

who can neither deceive nor be deceived....”

“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”

“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”

“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”

“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”

“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”

“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”

“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?" —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 ); http://www.catholictradition.org/Tradition/faith2-10.htm]

• To harp on those instances in which Catholics turn to Sacred Tradition and then imply that Catholics do not accept the authority of Scripture at all is dishonest.

Rather, this misses the point, as while Catholics can say they “accept the authority of Scripture” they does not mean they accept Scripture as the supreme infallible authority and thus Scriptural substantiation as being determinative of truth, as instead Scripture is a servant to support Rome, as it can only be and mean what she says, and never contradict her official teaching. To argue as if Catholics look to the weight of Scriptural substantiation as determinative of truth is dishonest. What Keating asserted regarding the Assumption applies to all teaching.

So only Rome can make an infallible statement, versus possessing the gift of assured (conditional) infallibility?

• If it is conditional then it is not infallible.

I assumed you would understand i am referring to the scope and subject-based criteria for infallible statements. But

• And who possess this gift? What assurance do you have that, as a Catholic, I do not have this gift rather than you?

No one possess the assured infallibility Rome presumes. Even a donkey or a pagan prophet can speak an infallible truth, as seen in Scripture, and as Caiaphas, but no person save for the Lord, or office has assured infallibility whenever they will speak universally defining a matter of faith and morals. That has not and is not necessary for the fulfillment of Divine promises of providence and preservation of Truth.

It is amazing that Catholics will rail against Protestants as if they were presuming the gift of personal infallibility, versus basing the veracity of their assertions on the weight of infallible Scripture, while RCs expresses their own understanding of Scripture and of their church if they were infallible interpretations.

• The difference is that Catholics look at the Church as being established by Jesus Christ and charged by him to be the teaching authority guarded by the Holy Spirit. All that a Protestant can assert is his own private judgment.

That is a distinction without a difference. A SS believer looks to Scripture as wholly inspired and established by the Lord Jesus Christ to be the supreme infallible standard for Truth, and the veracity of its truth claims rest upon that premise of Scripture being that assured infallible word of God, and thus his interpretive claims must rest upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation. “By manifestation of the truth commending ourselves to every man's conscience in the sight of God.” (2Cor. 4:2)

Catholics look at the Church as being established by Jesus Christ and charged by him to be the teaching authority guarded by the Holy Spirit, and the veracity of its truth claims rest upon the premise of assured infallibility. Thus their interpretive claims (and RCs can and do engage in such to varying degrees) must rest upon the weight of conformity with what is taught (i.e. whether Lumen Gentium means only invincibly ignorant Prots can be saved without repentance to believe in the Real Presence, etc.)

Both hold to an infallible teachers, but neither can claim to have or be an infallible interpreter. And while Scripture does not change though interpretations can, yet obedience to Rome can also, based upon (often erroneous) interpret of both Scripture and tradition, from having to exterminate “heretics” (us) by the use of the sword of men as fitting, and avoiding debates with them on matters of faith, to holding the torture is wrong and Prots are born again.

And it also remains that the EOs substantially disagree with Rome on what Tradition, Scripture and history teaches.

Thus your assertion that “all that a Protestant can assert is his own private judgment” is also true of RCs, who engage in judgment of what Rome teaches. But while both engage in judgment on what their respective supreme authority preaches, like a RC, the SS practitioner has much help by way of those who have the gift of teaching, and an even greater wealth in comprehensive analysis of Scripture due to classic commentaries. Certainly they will find some disparity of learned opinions, but so will the RC in understanding what she teaches, especially by the acts of the interpreters. From which we hear things such as that atheists could be in Heaven, but we cannot know if any particular person (as Judas) is in Hell, and that canon 915 does not mean the Ted Kennedy RCs are excommunicated, and cannot have ecclesiastical funerals, etc.

In the end, since the church began with souls engaging in what you disparage as “private interpretation,” which “noble” souls searching Scriptures to determine the veracity of truth claims example, and knew such things as that what David said was true, and that John was a prophet indeed, and “are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God,” (John 6:69) without an infallible magisterium and contrary to the one to whom general obedience was enjoined, then we see how Truth can be provided and preserved without an assuredly infallible magisterium, and assurance of Truth obtained, and thus the assuredly infallible magisterium is not needed, nor is it provided.

Division exists under both SS and SE, the difference being a matter of degrees, but unity by implicit assent based upon the premise of assured veracity is not Scriptural unity, nor is the organization church the One True Church.

[Elsie]

Simon was not known as Kephas/Petros until Jesus gave him that name and it is significant because until then, Rock was only attributed to God.

That catechism 'training' is sure hard to shake; isn't it!!!

---

Scripture seems to PROVE otherwise...

 

 

NIV Matthew 4:18-19
 18.  As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
 19.  "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."

 

NIV Matthew 8:14
  When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.

 

NIV Matthew 10:1-2
 1.  He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil  spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
 2.  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;

 

NIV Matthew 14:28-31
 28.  "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
 29.  "Come," he said.   Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
 30.  But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
 31.  Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"

 

NIV Matthew 15:13-16
 13.  He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
 14.  Leave them; they are blind guides.  If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
 15.  Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
 16.  "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.

 

---

As you can see, Simon was already known as 'Peter'

BEFORE the following verses came along.....

---

NIV Matthew 16:13-18
 13.  When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
 14.  They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
 15.  "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
 16.  Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ,  the Son of the living God."
 17.  Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
 18.  And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades  will not overcome it.

 19.  I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be  bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

[editor-surveyor]

>> Jesus gave the name Kephas/Petros to Simon. The name means rock. Jesus called Simon, rock. <<

.
Absolutely FALSE!

Petros is PEBBLE or throwing stone.

Petra is a great rock, bedrock, or foundational stone.

Peter is the pebble, Yeshua the foundation of his congregation. Yeshua is the only Rock of the entire scriptures.

[Elsie]

Your comments about Mary are vile.

What's vile about them?

They are actual and factual.

1. Mary is dead.
2. Rome claims that she is the one who can actually get Jesus to do something for the petitioner.

[editor-surveyor]

And Yeshua said that no man cometh unto the father but by him, not Mary.

(we all know how confused he was...)