Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Jude Thaddeus]

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter (“Simon”), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).

36. Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John – Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”

41. Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

50 New Testament Proofs For Peter's Primacy & The Papacy

The papacy is derived from Peter's primacy among the apostles. It's essential components are revealed in the apostolic leadership of St. Peter.

www.patheos.com

 

[Titus]

Inferences aren't admissible? Like the story recounted in John 20:3-8?

Where's your concrete evidence? This is more assumption

 

[Titus]

26. Peter is the first person after Christ to raise the dead (Acts 9:40).

27. Cornelius is told by an angel to seek out Peter for instruction in Christianity (Acts 10:1-6).

28. Peter is the first to receive the Gentiles, after a revelation from God (Acts 10:9-48).

29. Peter instructs the other apostles on the catholicity (universality) of the Church (Acts 11:5-17).

30. Peter is the object of the first divine interposition on behalf of an individual in the Church Age (an angel delivers him from prison – Acts 12:1-17).

31. The whole Church (strongly implied) offers “earnest prayer” for Peter when he is imprisoned (Acts 12:5).

32. Peter presides over and opens the first Council of Christianity, and lays down principles afterwards accepted by it (Acts 15:7-11).

33. Paul distinguishes the Lord’s post-Resurrection appearances to Peter from those to other apostles (1 Cor 15:4-8). The two disciples on the road to Emmaus make the same distinction (Lk 24:34), in this instance mentioning only Peter (“Simon”), even though they themselves had just seen the risen Jesus within the previous hour (Lk 24:33).

34. Peter is often spoken of as distinct among apostles (Mk 1:36; Lk 9:28,32; Acts 2:37; 5:29; 1 Cor 9:5).

35. Peter is often spokesman for the other apostles, especially at climactic moments (Mk 8:29; Mt 18:21; Lk 9:5; 12:41; Jn 6:67 ff.).

36. Peter’s name is always the first listed of the “inner circle” of the disciples (Peter, James and John – Mt 17:1; 26:37,40; Mk 5:37; 14:37).

37. Peter is often the central figure relating to Jesus in dramatic gospel scenes such as walking on the water (Mt 14:28-32; Lk 5:1 ff., Mk 10:28; Mt 17:24 ff.).

38. Peter is the first to recognize and refute heresy, in Simon Magus (Acts 8:14-24).

39. Peter’s name is mentioned more often than all the other disciples put together: 191 times (162 as Peter or Simon Peter, 23 as Simon, and 6 as Cephas). John is next in frequency with only 48 appearances, and Peter is present 50% of the time we find John in the Bible! Archbishop Fulton Sheen reckoned that all the other disciples combined were mentioned 130 times. If this is correct, Peter is named a remarkable 60% of the time any disciple is referred to!

40. Peter’s proclamation at Pentecost (Acts 2:14-41) contains a fully authoritative interpretation of Scripture, a doctrinal decision and a disciplinary decree concerning members of the “House of Israel” (2:36) – an example of “binding and loosing.”

41. Peter was the first “charismatic”, having judged authoritatively the first instance of the gift of tongues as genuine (Acts 2:14-21).

42. Peter is the first to preach Christian repentance and baptism (Acts 2:38).

43. Peter (presumably) takes the lead in the first recorded mass baptism (Acts 2:41).

44. Peter commanded the first Gentile Christians to be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

45. Peter was the first traveling missionary, and first exercised what would now be called “visitation of the churches” (Acts 9:32-38,43). Paul preached at Damascus immediately after his conversion (Acts 9:20), but hadn’t traveled there for that purpose (God changed his plans!). His missionary journeys begin in Acts 13:2.

46. Paul went to Jerusalem specifically to see Peter for fifteen days in the beginning of his ministry (Gal 1:18), and was commissioned by Peter, James and John (Gal 2:9) to preach to the Gentiles.

47. Peter acts, by strong implication, as the chief bishop/shepherd of the Church (1 Pet 5:1), since he exhorts all the other bishops, or “elders.”

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

50. Peter wrote his first epistle from Rome, according to most scholars, as its bishop, and as the universal bishop (or, pope) of the early Church. “Babylon” (1 Pet 5:13) is regarded as code for Rome.

In conclusion, it strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

Good, I love it when you quote Scripture.
I can respect that you tried to use Bible to prove Bible.

Now I want it straight from you and Redfan since he claims Peter was over the other apostles.
Simple question is Peter chief of the apostles?

I need to know if this is what you believe by posting all these passages.

 

[RedFan]

Where's your concrete evidence? This is more assumption

Sometimes inferences are proper tools for understanding an author's point. That's all I'm saying. If there is another point to John's story about the beloved apostle outrunning Peter to the tomb, then waiting until Peter went in first, then following, I haven't been able to figure it out. His recognizing Peter's primacy is the best explanation for the passage I can come up with.

 

[Titus]

Sometimes inferences are proper tools for understanding an author's point. That's all I'm saying. If there is another point to John's story about the beloved apostle outrunning Peter to the tomb, then waiting until Peter went in first, then following, I haven't been able to figure it out. His recognizing Peter's primacy is the best explanation for the passage I can come up with.

Ok, I don't want to misrepresent you or Jude Thaddeus.
Do you agree with my statement that you believe Peter is the chief apostle?

 

[RedFan]

Ok, I don't want to misrepresent you or Jude Thaddeus.
Do you agree with my statement that you believe Peter is the chief apostle?

I think it's a fair inference that he was the leader of the Eleven. But I am not definitive on the point. (You'll have to ask a Catholic for that.) And you'll recall I did mention that James, not Peter, became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. So I'm confining my comment to Peter as the leader of the Eleven. He certainly was portrayed in Acts as their spokesperson.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Ok, I don't want to misrepresent you or Jude Thaddeus.
Do you agree with my statement that you believe Peter is the chief apostle?

It should be obvious by now. It strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

 

[RedFan]

There is another point to be considered here before you bank on the absence of an express statement in Scripture that Peter was the leader of the pack. We should not expect a gospel author to hit his audience over the head with an express statement confirming something if it was already common knowledge. And Peter's leadership role may have been common knowledge at the time these writings were penned. 1 Cor. 15:5 paints a bit of a primacy picture for Peter in being appeared to before the rest, and portrays it as already the tradition! The word had already gotten around.

 

[RedFan]

48. Peter interprets prophecy (2 Pet 1:16-21).

49. Peter corrects those who misuse Paul’s writings (2 Pet 3:15-16).

Can I push back a bit on these two? It's the general consensus of scholarship that 2 Peter was pseudographical.

 

[Titus]

It should be obvious by now. It strains credulity to think that God would present St. Peter with such prominence in the Bible, without some meaning and import for later Christian history; in particular, Church government. The papacy is the most plausible (we believe actual) fulfillment of this.

I think it's a fair inference that he was the leader of the Eleven. But I am not definitive on the point. (You'll have to ask a Catholic for that.) And you'll recall I did mention that James, not Peter, became the leader of the Church in Jerusalem. So I'm confining my comment to Peter as the leader of the Eleven. He certainly was portrayed in Acts as their spokesperson.

It should be noted Peter NEVER referred to himself as the Head or chief apostle.

But the Bible does clearly teach who the chief, head Apostle is,


Hebrews 3:1,
- Wherefore holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling consider the APOSTLE AND HIGH PRIEST of our profession, Christ Jesus

Hebrews 4:15,
- For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin

Ephesians 1:22-23,
- and hath put all things under His feet and gave Jesus to be Head over ALL things to the church, which is His body the fulness of Him that filleth all in all

 

[RedFan]

It should be noted Peter NEVER referred to himself as the Head or chief apostle.

But the Bible does clearly teach who the chief, head Apostle is,


Hebrews 3:1,
- Wherefore holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling consider the APOSTLE AND HIGH PRIEST of our profession, Christ Jesus

Hebrews 4:15,
- For we have not a High Priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities, but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin

Ephesians 1:22-23,
- and hath put all things under His feet and gave Jesus to be Head over ALL things to the church, which is His body the fulness of Him that filleth all in all

Fair point (although the reference in Heb. 3:1 to Christ as an "apostle" is a little weird). And I suspect Catholics would agree with you that Christ is the head of the Church. They just think He has ordained a vicar.

 

[BreadOfLife]

What you did was create a strawman by making it appear as if I didn't believe Jesus spoke in Aramaic.

YOU KNOW I ALREADY TOLD YOU HE WAS TRILINGUAL.
That's why you are a liar for "educating me about Jesus speaking Aramaic"
I already said He was trilingual.

Your original argument was the use of "Petros" vs. "Petra".
I educated you about the fact that there is NO distinction in the Aramaic language that Jesus used in Matt. 16:18. Kepha means "Rock".

It was recorded in Greek - but it was spokem in Aramaic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

Just what I said is what I mean.
The oldest COPIES of the new testament are KOINE greek
So all Aramaic translations that we currently have must be translated from Greek manuscripts.

It is speculation that the orginal gospel of Matthew was written in Aramaic

And oit;s equally-specuative to assume that Matthew was origially written in Greek.

I gave you the testimonies of 4 Early Church Fathers who differ with you.

PS - for the record - I don't care which version came first because iir is irrelevant to this debate.
Jesus SOKE to Peter in Aramaic.

 

[BreadOfLife]

All this is about is catholics tryng to deceive folks into thinking Jesus did not use the Greek words
Petra and petros in Matthew 16:18-19.
Those are the words of Jesus.
Catholic doctrine is refuted with the Greek so you lie and say Matthew was translated in Aramaic.
NO ONE COMES TO TRUTH WITH OUTSIDE SOURCES LIKE SCHOLARS OR 2ND CENTURY LETTERS.
We get to the bottom of what's God BREATHED BY BOOK CHAPTER AND VERSE.

It's easy for me to prove Matthew 16:18-19 in Greek is sound because of what is taught by Paul in his letters.

I already refuted you guys. Y'all just pretend it didn't hapoen.

This is what you wish Jesus said,
Matthew 16:18-19,
- and thou art Peter(Kephas) and on this rock( Kephas) I will build My church

That's too vague,
More specifically what He said was,

- and thou art Peter(petros) and on this rock(petra) I will build My church.

Then WHY have you dodged my earlier question about Paul referring to Peter as “Cephas” in his letters??

Explain that one, Einstein . . .

Catholics claim this verse proves Jesus built His church on Peter.
So that they can claim Peter was the Head of the church on earth not Jesus.

Paul evidently was not catholic for he disagreed with their interpretation of who the Head of the church is.

Colossians 1:18,
- and Jesus is the  HEAD of the body the church who is the beginning the firstborn from the dead so that He Himself may have the PREEMINENCE

Paul refutes catholic doctrine.

As I already explained to you – which you keep dodging – Jesus IS the Head of His Church. Peter was appointed as earthly leader (Matt. 16:19, John 21:15-19).

They claim on earth Peter had authority.
Jesus Himself says He has ALL AUTHORITY ON EARTH,

Matthew 28:18,
- and Jesus came and spoke to them saying ALL AUTHORITY HAS BEEN GIVEN ME IN HEAVEN and ON EARTH.


This is the book of Matthew!!!! Jesus says He is the Head of the church for He has ALL authority on earth.

Jesus DOES have ALL Authority.
And He transferred that Authority onto His CHURCH, Einstein:

Matt 16:16-19
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."

John 16:12-15
“I have much more to tell you, but you cannot bear it now.
But when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to ALL truth. He will not speak on his own, but he will speak what he hears, and will declare to YOU the things that are coming.
He will glorify me, because he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.
Everything that the Father has is MINE; for this reason I told you that he will TAKE from what is MINE and declare it to YOU.

John 20:21-23
Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent ME, so I send YOU.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the holy Spirit. Whose sins YOU FORGIVE are forgiven them, and whose sins YOU RETAIN are retained.”

Luke 10:16
Whoever listens to YOU listens to ME. Whoever rejects YOU rejects ME. And whoever rejects ME rejects the ONE who sent ME."

That is SUPREME earthy Authority . . .

This proves Matthew 16:18-19 cannot be interpreted the way Catholics interpret Matthew.
The Catholics cause the book of Matthew to CONTRADICT ITSELF!!!!!

Did you know the first pope came in 606 A.D. ?
When Boniface lll was crowned as the first pope?

That’s funny because in 180 AD, Irenaeus wrote down the list of Popes from Peter to his own day 100 years later in his treatise Against Heresies..

Is Irenaeus lying – or is it YOU again?

THR LORDS CHURCH HAD ALREADY BEEN IN EXISTENCE SOME 573 YEARS WHEN THIS OCCURRED.

Supposedly Peter was the first pope. That's just made up.
Even if he was(he's not)
Where did all the popes go from Peter to Boniface lll ?

Some 573 years and no new pope all that time.
If the scriptures really teach the church has popes.
Why is that long history quiet?

Now the catholics will make stuff up.

Yes it was.
In fact FIRST century Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius wrote the following about the FIRST century Church:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

OUCH!! That's gotta hurt . . .

 

[Titus]

It was recorded in Greek - but it was spokem in Aramaic

You are making stuff up.
Nowhere in Scripture does it teach Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic.
The real evidence is the earliest manuscripts we do have of Matthew are written in greek.

I never said that Jesus didn't speak Greek. I said the following:

You most certainly did,
You are the liar,

Time for a Bibe Lesson and a Linguistics Lesson . . .

First of all, you need to remember that Jesus and the Apostles didn’t speak Greek to each other

Next you have admitted without realizing you deny the manuscripts of Matthew.
You deny the written copies of Matthew as being the word Jesus spoke.

Ihe t was recorded in Greek - but it was spokem in Aramaic.

You reject the greek!!!
Which you admit is the written word.
You only hold to oral tradition.
And your claim that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic in the book of Matthew, specifically in Matthew 16:18-19 CANNOT BE PROVEN WITH SCRIPTURE.

You Catholics want to claim that Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic but,
WHAT DID GOD PRESERVE FOR US IN THE WRITTEN WORD OF THE BOOK OF MATTHEW?

Answer: Greek

You are denying the word of God.

Since God did not preserve for us a manuscript first written in Aramaic.
In fact all the Aramaic is translated from the Greek manuscripts.

You are trying to deceive folks by claiming it was the spoken in Aramaic,
Therefore the written manuscripts in Greek are NOT THE WORDS OF JESUS.

Its obvious you are wrong because God preserved the Greek manuscripts.
Since God preserved Matthew in the Greek.
That's exactly what God wants us to read when we read Matthew.

But you say NO, it must be read in Aramaic to be understood.

Well on judgment day you can tell God why He was wrong for preserving the written word of
Jesus to Peter in Greek not in Aramaic.

Again all written Aramaic of Matthew is copied from the Greek manuscripts.

 

[RedFan]

Nowhere in Scripture does it teach Jesus spoke to Peter in Aramaic.

Does that make it false?

 

[RedFan]

In fact FIRST century Bishop of Antioch, Ignatius wrote the following about the FIRST century Church:

Ignatius of Antioch
Follow your bishop, every one of you, as obediently as Jesus Christ followed the Father. Obey your clergy too as you would the apostles; give your deacons the same reverence that you would to a command of God. Make sure that no step affecting the Church is ever taken by anyone without the bishop’s sanction. The sole Eucharist you should consider valid is one that is celebrated by the bishop himself, or by some person authorized by him. Where the bishop is to be seen, there let all his people be; just as, wherever Jesus Christ is present, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 107]).

OUCH!! That's gotta hurt . . .

You've lost me, BOL. What has this quote got to do with the Papacy? An admonishment to Smyrnean Christians to follow their bishop and their clergy tells us nothing about the status of the Bishop of Rome in A.D. 107. (By the way, A.D. 107 is the Second century, not the First.)

 

[Marymog]

Give historical evidence outside of catholic sources of a pope pre-dating Boniface lll

Lol....Got it. You have no historical evidence. So what you wrote was your opinion, not historical fact.

Thank you for your opinion.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

Give historical evidence outside of catholic sources of a pope pre-dating Boniface lll

Titus,

Your suggestion makes no sense. When historical scholars are researching the history of an organization they don't ignore the evidence from the organization they are researching. They take the evidence they have, see if it is real AND look for outside sources to verify that evidence if they can't verify the evidence or are questioning the evidence from the source.

Hope that advise helps you in your research of the history of the Popes.

 

[Marymog]

Can I push back a bit on these two? It's the general consensus of scholarship that 2 Peter was pseudographical.

Can I push back?

Pseudo graphical or not, it is accepted as Scripture therefore it must be treated as such. Even if it wasn't written by Peter, it very well could be a historical record of what Peter said/did etc. Written by a close acquaintance, a student of Peter or historian writing down what they witnessed, heard from others etc.