The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives

[Marymog]

So let's address this statement.
1. To whom was is said? To the eleven apostles only (technically ten but Thomas would also be included later though we do not read of it). But not to the whole church.
2. Why was it said? Because Christ gave the apostles APOSTOLIC AUTHORITY over all the churches, and they also spoke and wrote by divine inspiration. This was limited to the apostles, not to the whole church.
3. How often did the apostles use this authority? As per the NT very infrequently. We have Peter dealing with Ananias & Sapphira and also with Simon the Sorcerer. Then we have Paul dealing with the person who committed incest in Corinth (and who was later forgiven and restored).
4. Is there any indication whatsoever that elders would be able to forgive sins? None whatsoever. In James we have the word paraptoma which is translated as "faults" in the KJV. It was corrupted to hamartia (sins) to go along with the Catholic concept, and so it is in the corrupt modern versions.
5. Was there ever a separate class of "priests" in any apostolic church? Absolutely not. All believers belong to a Royal Priesthood, and the Catholic priesthood was created out of thin air (just like the pope and the prelates).
6. Was Christ's power to forgive sins questioned by His enemies? Yes. Since they presumed that He was a mere man. and therefore said that only God had the power to forgive sins.

Well, I don't know what "statement" you are talking about. I thought we were going to discuss doctrine. None the less:

1. is correct

2. I agree. The whole church (every Christian) does not have the authority to forgive sins.

3. Agree..

4. Yes, Scripture and Christian history indicates that the elders, who are the authoritative successors to the apostles, continue to have the same authority as the apostles did:
1 Thess. 5:12-13 – Paul charges the members of the Church to respect those who have authority over them.
1 Tim. 5:17 – Paul charges the members of the Church to honor the appointed elders (“priests”) of the Church.
Titus 2:15 – Paul charges Timothy to exhort and reprove with all authority, which he received by the laying on of hands.
Heb. 13:7,17 – Paul charges the members of the Church to remember and obey their leaders who have authority over their souls.
1 Peter 2:18 – Peter charges the servants to be submissive to their masters whether kind and gentle or overbearing.
1 Peter 5:5; Jude 8 – Peter and Jude charge the members of the Church to be subject to their elders.
Where in scripture does it say that that authority will end enoch?

5. Scripture AND Christian history makes it clear that there is a "separate class of (what you call) priests". They are called elders, bishops and deacons.

6. I don't even know what that means or has to do with our discussion.

 

[Episkopos]

I don't see an answer to my "who" question.

You said; The Catholic institution has some things right and some things wrong. The protestant institutions have some things right and some things wrong.

Would you care to try again? Did YOU decide who got what right and who got what wrong? Are you the who? :cool:

Spiritual things are judged by those who know the way of the Spirit. Those who don't know the "Way" will forever quibble over who is right and who is wrong. People are a mixture of both good and bad...so it is to be expected that whatever is created by and approved by men will reflect that same duality.

But there is another way. There is the way of the cross whereby the outer man is taken out of the way so that the inner man can be empowered by the Spirit.

 

[Marymog]

Spiritual things are judged by those who know the way of the Spirit. Those who don't know the "Way" will forever quibble over who is right and who is wrong. People are a mixture of both good and bad...so it is to be expected that whatever is created by and approved by men will reflect that same duality.

But there is another way. There is the way of the cross whereby the outer man is taken out of the way so that the inner man can be empowered by the Spirit.

I don't see an answer to my "who" question.

You said; The Catholic institution has some things right and some things wrong. The protestant institutions have some things right and some things wrong.

Would you care to try again? Did YOU decide who got what right and who got what wrong? Are you the who? :cool:

Or is your goal simply to bloviate?

 

[Taken]

I don't see an answer to my "who" question.

You said; The Catholic institution has some things right and some things wrong. The protestant institutions have some things right and some things wrong.

Would you care to try again? Did YOU decide who got what right and who got what wrong? Are you the who? :cool:

Or is your goal simply to bloviate?

You try to express Spiritual things with a Carnal minded understanding, and it’s a fail. Your recourse is to call names and make snarky remarks.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Now you divide the context simply to make your own preferred meaning work-- The only thing that shows, is there is no limit to your folly.

It was ONE conversation (one context), contrasting "flesh and blood" with what comes from the Father--which is spirit. Jesus was speaking prophetically, and again, you all missed it. Indeed, it was a blessing, but it also included a curse...and you all fell for it--you chose flesh and blood. The curse and consequence is that of the evil servant. Take warning.

WRONG.

You're having to perform all sorts oof Scriptural acrobatic in order to arrive at your absurd conclusions - when the evidence in Scripture is CRYSTAL-clear. Just ask the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scjolars I presented in posts #231 & #232 who agree that the "Rock" is Peter.

YOUR nonsense doesn't explain away the fact that Jesus and His disciples spoke ARAMAIC - and not Greek - so "Kepha" is the ONLY possuble work used on BOTH places in Matt. 16:18.

It doesn't explain why Peter is called "Cephas" in Paul's letters.

It doesn't explain away the DIRECT correlation betweem Matt. 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:22-23.
And WHY is that? Because you've got it wrong.

Here is the passage of this THREEFOLD blassing:
Matt. 16:17-19
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are YOU, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, YOU are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now, here it is in plain English – no “decoder ring” or Scriptural acrobatics necessary . . .
YOU are bled, Simon because GOD told you this – not any man.
So, YOU are the Rock – and on this Rock I ill build my Church and it will never fall away into darkness.
I will give YOU supreme earthly authority – and whatever YOU declare on earth will also be declared in Heaven.

It's NOT that difficult to understand.
Just ask those SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scholars . . .

 

[ScottA]

WRONG.

You're having to perform all sorts oof Scriptural acrobatic in order to arrive at your absurd conclusions - when the evidence in Scripture is CRYSTAL-clear. Just ask the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scjolars I presented in posts #231 & #232 who agree that the "Rock" is Peter.

YOUR nonsense doesn't explain away the fact that Jesus and His disciples spoke ARAMAIC - and not Greek - so "Kepha" is the ONLY possuble work used on BOTH places in Matt. 16:18.

It doesn't explain why Peter is called "Cephas" in Paul's letters.

It doesn't explain away the DIRECT correlation betweem Matt. 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:22-23.
And WHY is that? Because you've got it wrong.

Here is the passage of this THREEFOLD blassing:
Matt. 16:17-19
Jesus said to him in reply, "Blessed are YOU, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, YOU are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give YOU the keys to the kingdom of heaven. WHATEVER YOU BIND on earth shall be bound in heaven; and WHATEVER YOU LOOSE on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Now, here it is in plain English – no “decoder ring” or Scriptural acrobatics necessary . . .
YOU are bled, Simon because GOD told you this – not any man.
So, YOU are the Rock – and on this Rock I ill build my Church and it will never fall away into darkness.
I will give YOU supreme earthly authority – and whatever YOU declare on earth will also be declared in Heaven.

It's NOT that difficult to understand.
Just ask those SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scholars . . .

Strike 3+...you're out.

This will be my last comment [to you] on this. You have made your position clear, and it is obvious that Jesus has already appointed you your portion with the hypocrites and cut you your chosen piece. You now will have to wait until you see Him coming with the clouds of heaven.

Above, with "Scriptural acrobatic in order to arrive at your absurd conclusions" you are projecting. But you do not know that being presented with "flesh and blood" verses what comes from "the Father"-- the only correct response is to choose God, to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." Nor do you all even know that this is what you have done. Even so, your portion has been allotted to you according to your own will and measure. And anyone who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says, knows that these are not my words, but His.

As for Peter, he did receive the keys to the kingdom-- the error falls to the church fathers. If they too had chosen the Father over flesh and blood, as it is written: "all these things shall be added to you." But they did not, but did evil in the sight of the Lord.

As for your SIXTY-FIVE collaborators, they are your fellows, not mine.

So be it.

 

[Berserk]

I doubt than any fundamentalist here have experienced or even heard of someone they know being healed of congestive heart failure through prayer. Well, I'm acquainted with a Catholic who attracted such a miracle through a combination of embracing Catholic reverence for holy relics (e. g. bones of the saints) and going to the grave of an Italian saint to ask him to petition God to heal his wife of congestive heart failure and, as a result, his wife was gloriously healed! As
Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them."

Few fundamentalists are aware of this biblical text that offers precedent for God's use of holy relics:
"As soon as the (dead) man's body touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet (2 Kings 13:21)."

 

[Berserk]

[3] BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF PRAYING TO SAINTS

(1) Are the righteous dead aware of earthly events? Yes.
"There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous ones who need no repentance (Luke 15:7)."
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also set aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us (Hebrews 12:1)."
It is important to recognize what is not said--these deceased saints do not "precede" us; rather, they are alive and now surround us like spectators in a great arena, cheering us on in our race and sending us aid. in Hebrews the word for "witnesses" always means 'eyewitnesses." The interaction between deceased saints and struggling Christian athletes makes this text foundational biblical justification for praying to saints.

(2) Right before the decisive battle of the Maccabean revolt (175-163 BC) between the Jews and the Syrian Greeks, Judas Maccabaeus has a vision of the late high priest Onias III and the prophet Jeremiah in which Judas learns that these 2 saints hold up Israel in fervent intercessory prayer for victory. Jeremiah presents Judas with a "golden sword" as a symbol of imminent victory (2 Maccabees 15:11-16, in the Catholic Bible). Some of Jesus' followers think that Jesus is actually the prophet Jeremiah raised from the dead (Matthew 16:14). But, you say, that incident is not in my Protestant Bible. So what? It's history--and it attests the intercessory power of the prayers of deceased saints.

(3) Thus, we learn from Rev. 6:9-10 that deceased martyrs are well aware of what is transpiring back on Earth and engage in a intercessory prayer for vindication of the persecuted church.

 

[PinSeeker]

The antecedent of 'this' ("on this rock") in Matthew 16:18 is the same as that of 'this' ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven") in Matthew 16:17. Both occurrences of 'this' refer to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:16, that "(Jesus) is the Christ, the Son of the living God." So the Rock is Jesus Himself, as He is the subject and the object of Peter's confession. Christ Jesus is the Rock of our salvation, the Rock of offense/stumbling, and the chief Cornerstone in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in Whom we also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. This is proclaimed throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament alike:

ROCK

David's confession as documented in 2 Samuel 22:3, 2 Samuel 22:47, Psalm 18:2, Psalm 18:46, and Psalm 89:26
Matthew 7:24-25
Matthew 16:18
Luke 6:48​

ROCK OF OFFENSE

Isaiah 8:14
Romans 9:33
1 Peter 2:8​

CORNERSTONE

Job 38:6
Psalm 118:22
Isaiah 19:13, Isaiah 28:16
Zechariah 10:4
Matthew 21:42
Mark 12:10
Luke 20:17
Acts 4:11
Ephesians 2:20
1 Peter 2:6-7​

Even Peter himself acknowledges... proclaims... that it is Jesus the Rock of his (and our) salvation and not he.

Grace and peace to all!

 

[ScottA]

As expected, fundamentalists here feel the need to get this thread off track because they have no answer to Matthew 16:19, John 20:23, and James 5:16 as a biblical basis for the Catholic practice of confession and priestly absolution.

These things I have answered.

Apparently you did not hear--as you say, just "As expected." That is the measure by which you have also received.

 

[ScottA]

So it seems time to move on to the OP's next topic, "praying to saints." Fundamentalists like to falsely defame this practice by painting it as an end-run around Jesus' role as mediator, and so, they ignore the fact that Catholics are merely asking specific saints to pray for them. Fundamentalists forget that even deceased saints remain members of the Body of Christ who once lived and still live prayerful lives.

(3) PRAYING TO SAINTS
Before I make the biblical case for praying to saints, I invite you to ponder the thrilling possibilities raised by these 4 questions:
(1) Does God allow our deceased loved ones to monitor our progress here on earth?
(2) If so, do they still pray for us as they did during their earthly existence?
(3) If Christ's role as our heavenly Intercessor and Advocate does not eliminate our need to pray for each other, why would it eliminate the need to seek prayer support from deceased saints?
(4) Is it possible that great saints now in Christ's presence have a deep faith to effectively petition God on our behalf?

God is the god of the living...any who have died to the flesh but are alive to God--they are alive in Christ. Praying between the living is good and biblical.

As for praying for the dead...they lived and died in their times. But to be clear: this topic is not to included Israel, for they only are the dead in Christ.

To the contrary, those of the church [age] were given by Christ, though they were last to be born, that they should be first to live in Him--these are the first and the last of whom He spoke. Which leaves anyone now during these times, no good word on the fate of such who did not hear Jesus knocking during their lives in the world and answer. Still--I am hopeful! Hopeful, because these restrictions of times, though they are upon us--they are not upon God. And with that hope, I would encourage all to pray for the dead--for if they are dead, it is God who can raise them to life...at His will.

 

[ScottA]

I doubt than any fundamentalist here have experienced or even heard of someone they know being healed of congestive heart failure through prayer. Well, I'm acquainted with a Catholic who attracted such a miracle through a combination of embracing Catholic reverence for holy relics (e. g. bones of the saints) and going to the grave of an Italian saint to ask him to petition God to heal his wife of congestive heart failure and, as a result, his wife was gloriously healed! As
Jesus said, "By their fruits you will know them."

Few fundamentalists are aware of this biblical text that offers precedent for God's use of holy relics:
"As soon as the (dead) man's body touched the bones of Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet (2 Kings 13:21)."

You are lashing back--and what you have assumed of others is not true. They too know the scriptures. It is slanderous, the very thing you are saying is wrong.

If you want to come together...do not divide.

 

[ScottA]

[3] BIBLICAL FOUNDATION OF PRAYING TO SAINTS

(1) Are the righteous dead aware of earthly events? Yes.
"There will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over 99 righteous ones who need no repentance (Luke 15:7)."
"Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also set aside every weight and the sin that clings so closely, and let us run with perseverance the race that is set before us (Hebrews 12:1)."
It is important to recognize what is not said--these deceased saints do not "precede" us; rather, they are alive and now surround us like spectators in a great arena, cheering us on in our race and sending us aid. in Hebrews the word for "witnesses" always means 'eyewitnesses." The interaction between deceased saints and struggling Christian athletes makes this text foundational biblical justification for praying to saints.

(2) Right before the decisive battle of the Maccabean revolt (175-163 BC) between the Jews and the Syrian Greeks, Judas Maccabaeus has a vision of the late high priest Onias III and the prophet Jeremiah in which Judas learns that these 2 saints hold up Israel in fervent intercessory prayer for victory. Jeremiah presents Judas with a "golden sword" as a symbol of imminent victory (2 Maccabees 15:11-16, in the Catholic Bible). Some of Jesus' followers think that Jesus is actually the prophet Jeremiah raised from the dead (Matthew 16:14). But, you say, that incident is not in my Protestant Bible. So what? It's history--and it attests the intercessory power of the prayers of deceased saints.

(3) Thus, we learn from Rev. 6:9-10 that deceased martyrs are well aware of what is transpiring back on Earth and engage in a intercessory prayer for vindication of the persecuted church.

These things are mostly correct, with the exception of the timing.

It is true that we do not proceed Israel (the dead in Christ). That is a different matter. But regarding the deceased of the church, though each leaves this world "each in his own order", we all join Christ as one (together).

Nonetheless, even though we do not have a cloud of witnesses of those deceased in the church looking on--God is fully capable of delivering the one church including those of intercessory prayer, which Christ also does for us. Pray therefore, that they be included before the door is closed, that though they may be dead to the world, that they need not be dead if the Lord wills. And He does.

 

[Illuminator]

The antecedent of 'this' ("on this rock") in Matthew 16:18 is the same as that of 'this' ("flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven") in Matthew 16:17.

Matt. 16:18 –in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

Both occurrences of 'this' refer to Peter's confession in Matthew 16:16, that "(Jesus) is the Christ, the Son of the living God."

1 Cor. 3:11 – Jesus is called the only foundation of the Church, and yet in Eph. 2:20, the apostles are called the foundation of the Church. Similarly, in 1 Peter 2:25, Jesus is called the Shepherd of the flock, but in Acts 20:28, the apostles are called the shepherds of the flock. These verses show that there are multiple metaphors for the Church, and that words used by the inspired writers of Scripture can have various meanings. Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

So the Rock is Jesus Himself, as He is the subject and the object of Peter's confession.

Matt. 16:18-19 – in addition, to argue that Jesus first blesses Peter for having received divine revelation from the Father, then diminishes him by calling him a small pebble, and then builds him up again by giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven is entirely illogical, and a gross manipulation of the text to avoid the truth of Peter’s leadership in the Church. This is a three-fold blessing of Peter – you are blessed, you are the rock on which I will build my Church, and you will receive the keys to the kingdom of heaven (not you are blessed for receiving Revelation, but you are still an insignificant little pebble, and yet I am going to give you the keys to the kingdom).

Christ Jesus is the Rock of our salvation, the Rock of offense/stumbling, and the chief Cornerstone in Whom the whole structure, being joined together, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, grows into a holy temple in the Lord, in Whom we also are being built together into a dwelling place for God by the Spirit. This is proclaimed throughout the Bible, Old Testament and New Testament alike:

ROCK

David's confession as documented in 2 Samuel 22:3, 2 Samuel 22:47, Psalm 18:2, Psalm 18:46, and Psalm 89:26
Matthew 7:24-25
Matthew 16:18
Luke 6:48​

ROCK OF OFFENSE

Isaiah 8:14
Romans 9:33
1 Peter 2:8​

CORNERSTONE

Job 38:6
Psalm 118:22
Isaiah 19:13, Isaiah 28:16
Zechariah 10:4
Matthew 21:42
Mark 12:10
Luke 20:17
Acts 4:11
Ephesians 2:20
1 Peter 2:6-7​

Even Peter himself acknowledges... proclaims... that it is Jesus the Rock of his (and our) salvation and not he.

Peter never said "not he". Jesus renamed Himself "Rock"? Seriously???
You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!
There is a list of Protestant scholars and commentaries in post #231 and 232. How does your opinion trump their consensus? Do you honestly think key words in Scripture can have only one meaning?
Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

 

[ScottA]

You don’t even need Matt. 16:18 to prove Peter is the rock because Jesus renamed Simon “rock” in Mark 3:16 and John 1:42!
There is a list of Protestant scholars and commentaries in post #231 and 232. How does your opinion trump their consensus? Do you honestly think key words in Scripture can have only one meaning?

It is not anyone's opinion that trumps any consensus...but rather the Father that trumps Peter, and who is the "rock" and who is the "Rock", regarding the things Jesus said to Peter.

 

[PinSeeker]

There is a list of Protestant scholars and commentaries in post #231 and 232.

Yes, yes... "scholars." :) We can all find plenty of people, even "scholars," who say what we like to hear concerning just about anything. I can name just as many "scholars" who will refute those "scholars." Where are we then? Right back where we started, right?

How does your opinion trump their consensus?

Just because they may or may not be many does not make them right. Right? And again, I can find just as many "scholars," if not more, that constitute a very different consensus.

Beyond all that, God is His own arbiter. Most of the time, scriptural passages can be made clearer by other scriptural passages. And this is what I showed in the scriptures I pointed out. I can go further, but I believe what I said to be quite sufficient.

Do you honestly think key words in Scripture can have only one meaning?

Not necessarily, no; it depends on the context, as I'm sure you will agree. And the fact is that your "scholars" do just that concerning Jesus's statements in Matthew 16, they take it out of context... along with making a grammatical error in assigning a different antecedent (Peter) to 'this' than what the true antecedent (Peter's confession, and the subject and object of that confession is God Himself (the triune Jehovah) is in that passage.

Grace and peace to you.

 

[Enoch111]

Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Except that there is one little anomaly that Catholics love to ignore. If Peter had indeed been "THE bishop" of Rome (which would never have happened since all apostolic churches had a plurality of elder/bishops) then Paul would have at least mentioned him ONCE in his epistle to the Romans. The fact that Peter is missing from that epistle means that the Catholic church has MANUFACTURED their doctrine of the pope. But they did resort to the pagan popery of Pontifex Maximus to come up with "Il Papa".

 

[BreadOfLife]

Strike 3+...you're out.
This will be my last comment [to you] on this. You have made your position clear, and it is obvious that Jesus has already appointed you your portion with the hypocrites and cut you your chosen piece. You now will have to wait until you see Him coming with the clouds of heaven.

Above, with "Scriptural acrobatic in order to arrive at your absurd conclusions" you are projecting. But you do not know that being presented with "flesh and blood" verses what comes from "the Father"-- the only correct response is to choose God, to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." Nor do you all even know that this is what you have done. Even so, your portion has been allotted to you according to your own will and measure. And anyone who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says, knows that these are not my words, but His.

As for Peter, he did receive the keys to the kingdom-- the error falls to the church fathers. If they too had chosen the Father over flesh and blood, as it is written: "all these things shall be added to you." But they did not, but did evil in the sight of the Lord.

You're darn RIGHJT it's your last Comment.
The mountain of evidence against you is overwhelming.

Like I said before - it's interesting that you completely FAILED to address any of the SIXTY-FIVE Protestant scripture scholars who unanimously agree with the Cathoic posiion on Matt. 16:18.

As for your SIXTY-FIVE collaborators, they are your fellows, not mine. So be it.

Ummmmmm, they are PROTESTANT scholars - WHO, by the way share many of the same Protestant doctrines as YOU. They judt disagree with you on this point.

I am a Catholic - I belong to the Church from whoch YOU and the 65 others divorded yourselves, so they would be YOUR fewllow Protestants.
Let me know whwn you're prepared to address even ONE of them.

I'll be right here . . .

 

[BreadOfLife]

Except that there is one little anomaly that Catholics love to ignore. If Peter had indeed been "THE bishop" of Rome (which would never have happened since all apostolic churches had a plurality of elder/bishops) then Paul would have at least mentioned him ONCE in his epistle to the Romans. The fact that Peter is missing from that epistle means that the Catholic church has MANUFACTURED their doctrine of the pope. But they did resort to the pagan popery of Pontifex Maximus to come up with "Il Papa".

Soooo, THAT'S your "anomaly"??

Bercsuse YOU have decisded that since Pau doesn't mention Peter explicitly in his Epistle to the Romans - this somehow "proves" that Peter wasn't there as Bishop??
Paul doesn't mention John in Ephesians. Does that mean John WASN'T in Ehpesus?

As to your second idiotic claim iun RED - the term, "Papa" simply means "Father". Pontifex Maximus means "Great Bridge Builer".
The two terms have nothing to do with each other.

 

[Berserk]

Fundamentalists here are blissfully ignorant of Greek and Aramaic and so they understandably have no answer to the detailed biblcal exegesis provided in post for Peter's status as the Rock a status the gives him "the keys of "the kingdom of heaven" and the authority of priestly absolution.
So as I move on to other Catholic distinctives, I repost that exegesis before which our fundamentalists freeze like Bambi in the headlights:

"Notice how every time Catholics show them relevant portions of God's Word, these evangelicals respond with fundamentalist talking points that bypass God's Word? So let's keep the key points in Matthew 16:16-19 as simple as possible for them.
(1) Why does Jesus tell Peter his name: "You are Peter?" After all, Peter knows who he is.
(2) The simple answer is that Jesus has in mind the meaning of "Peter" (Aramaic: "Cephas") and uses this to set up His follow-up comment: "And on this rock I will build my church." The antecedent of "this" is obviously the meaning of Peter's name, "rock." That's why these 2 sentences are placed sequentially.
(3) So what does Jesus mean by saying He will build His church on Peter, the Rock? Obviously that Peter's ministry and authority will be the foundation of the Church. But, you say, doesn't Paul say that Christ is the foundation (1 Cor. 3:11)? Yes, Paul does and in a sense Christ is the foundation. But we are talking about what Jesus (not Paul) says and we must let Jesus speak for Himself.
(4) But, you say, Peter could never be the foundational "rock" in such a lofty sense, could he? Well, that's up to Jesus, isn't it? And Jesus declares that Peter's role as foundational rock will be so lofty the Peter will be given "the keys to the kingdom of heaven," and that means the right to determine who does and does not enter the kingdom.
(5) But, you say, only God has the authority to forgiven sins; so Jesus must mean that Peter will know the conditions of divine forgiveness, right?
Nope! Jesus tells Peter, "Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven." Jesus' sentence implies that Peter's verdict precedes and is ratified by God's verdict! To see this consider the fact that the text does not say what you'd expect: "whatever is bound in heaven, you will bind on earth, and whatever is loosed in heaven, you will loose on earth." No, Jesus says just the opposite! Read it!
(6) Jesus clarifies this point in John 20:23: "Receive the Holy Spirit. If YOU forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them, and if YOU retain the sins of any, they are retained." Thus, Jesus clearly shoots down the fundamentalist claim that only God can forgive sins. But how can this be? Well, Jesus gives the answer, "Receive the Holy Spirit." In other words, Christian leaders can forgive sins only if they possess the Holy Spirit, so that their discernment will echo God's discernment.
(7) But direct forgiveness of specific sins by apostles first requires confession and this confession of sins must be directed to God, right? Nope!" The confession must be made "to each other" (James 5:16--hence precedemt for the priestly role. Whether the word for sin is "harmaria" or the bogus "paraptoma," both words refer to sins against God (see e. g. Romans 5:15, 17f.)."

And I take it from the deafening silence to the cited texts that fundamentalists have no answer to the informed Catholic biblical justification for prayer to the saints. These prayers have produced miracles the like of which fundamentalists have never seen or even heard of in their churches. So absent further comment, I guess it's time to move on to another Catholic distinctive.