The Role and Authority of The Pope

[JLB]

Incarnation and Trinity are not in scripture either.
Your point is irrelevanrt.


A reminder of TOS 1.4: Do not misquote or misrepresent another member. Do not state a negative opinion about a member's denomination, leaders, founders, or the veracity of a member's faith. (Exodus 20:16)

My point is extremely relevant to me and those who follow Jesus Christ and His teachings.

Don’t demean or misquote my statement.

I never mentioned nor do I use the words “Trinity” or “Incarnation” so as to avoid disputes or negative statements such as yours.

Just because you follow a certain sect, doesn’t allow you to degrade or demean me or the Doctrine of Christ that I promote.

No such title as “Pope” in scripture.


It’s a man made title to promote a man made religion based on man made doctrines.


Please refer to actual scripture.


He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter answered and said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.
Matthew 16:15-18

No mention of Pope.

No mention of Catholicism.



Let’s stick to what the scripture says, please.


Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. 2 John 9


Those who transgress and do not remain steadfast within the teaching of Jesus Christ does not have God!




JLB

 

[Simons]

Having returned from vacation it is time to move on to the last two issues which are described as:

4. If Peter possessed an office that made him THE leader of the apostles and of the Church, did that office of authority pass on to any successor(s) after Peter’s death? And

5. If so, are the successors to Peter’s authority the bishops of Rome?

As mentioned earlier the clerical positions named in the NT are: apostles, overseers (interchangeably with elders/presbyters) and deacons. There simply isn’t any mention of a Papal office or a “leader of the Church” office. As such, it is no surprise that the NT is entirely silent on these last two issues. When one turns to the writings of the early church in search for any evidence that addresses these two issues, two things become apparent:

1. A consensus among early church experts is that:
a. there wasn’t a single monarchical bishop of Rome until well after the time of Peter; and
b. Peter was never the bishop of Rome.

As such there was no single line of bishops in Rome to serve as the Pope for about 100 years after Peter’s death and therefore, the right successors (for the Catholic claim) were unavailable.

2. The interpretations of Matthew 16:16-19 by the early church fathers are quite varied, and therefore, it is very unlikely that the apostles started any oral Tradition that taught that Matthew 16 recorded the appointment of Peter to an office of leadership of either the apostles or of the whole Church.
What follows is some stuff from Historians and early church fathers regarding those two things.

Absence of monarchical Bishops at Rome until 150 AD.

“It seems that (with respect to the situation at the time of 1st Clement) there is a "general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that in Corinth: with a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge." (Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops p 100)​

To early writers like Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he (Peter) worked and died in Rome. Nothing is known of the length of his residence: the story that it lasted twenty-five years is a 3rd-cent. legend. Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all of Peter's as presumed leader of the community….In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J.N.D.Kelly)​

Note: Kelly does acknowledge that the papacy traced its authority back to Peter (and therefore the papacy considers Peter as the 1st Pope). From there Kelly made these findings that undermine the claim that Peter was the 1st pope:

a. Peter’s leadership in Rome is presumed and not known;

b. The tradition that Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome arises approx. 150 years after the alleged fact;

c. That tradition was developed (as opposed to handed down orally from the time in question); and

d. The Roman Church wasn’t governed by a single bishop until about 100 years after Peter died.

Here are some other (Catholic) sources that back up that consensus that Sullivan(above) referred to:

1. Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners pp 1-2 and 7-8

2. Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes pp. 25, 29-30

3. Garry Wills, Papal Sin Structures of Deceit p 158 (Wills provides quote from Raymond Brown and D.W. O’Connor in support)

4. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church pp 9-12.

 

[Simons]

Re: 1st Clement … Catholic apologists have pointed to this epistle as an example of an early exercise of Roman/Papal teaching authority

Here are scholarly assessments of such a claim:

From Edward Siecienski's book "The Papacy and the Orthodox" :

Many details about the Church of Rome in the decades after Peter's martyrdom remain subject to speculation, including its size, structure, and importance vis-à-vis other churches in the region. Although we have some hints about the community from those New Testament books thought to have been written to/from Rome (e.g., Mark), among the first significant pieces of evidence we possess is the First Epistle of Clement, which most scholars date to 96 AD. The difficulty, of course, is that the letter poses more questions than it answers, including the identity and office of the author and whether this was, as Catholic apologists have for centuries claimed, an early exercise of Roman teaching authority.

The nature of Clement's ecclesiastical office remains a vexing question, especially given the later tradition that he succeeded Peter as Bishop of Rome. Irenaeus claimed that Clement was "in third place from the apostles" after Linus and Anacletus, while Tertullian spoke of Clement's ordination "by Peter" in Rome. Both of these traditions, of course, assume that Rome had a monarchical episcopate in the first century, an assumption that almost all modern scholars - Catholic or Orthodox - now reject. Today there is general agreement "that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that of Corinth, which a group of presbyters sharing leadership . . . [and] no one bishop in charge." It is instead "likely that the single bishop structure did not come to Rome until c. 140-150" and that later lists of Roman bishops were the products of authors who simply assumed "that a structure known in their own time was functional at an earlier period." Recent studies have suggested that a far less centralized house-church arrangement existed, and that while "ad extra, with reference to relations with the Christian communities of other cities, there was a united face . . . ad intra there was no united and coordinated church leadership." It is for this reason that most today identify Clement as a presbyter acting as the church's "president" or "corresponding secretary" who is writing in the name of the Roman Church, and not necessarily as "the Bishop of Rome."

That the Church of Rome wrote to the Corinthians to offer guidance has long raised the question of its presumed right to interfere in the internal workings of another community and whether this is the first known exercise of Roman teaching authority. Much of the historical context for the letter remains a mystery, making these questions almost impossible to answer with any certainty. Interestingly, Clement himself "makes no claims to Roman primacy and neither refers nor appeals to the Petrine text [Matt. 16:13-20]," mentioning "the greatest and holiest pillars" Peter and Paul only to illustrate the evils brought about by dissention. Yet this was apparently not the only time Rome had written to advise churches, Ignatius testifying that Rome had "taught others" and Dionysius mentioning at least one other letter written to the Corinthians by Soter.

What was the basis for this continued epistolary activity? In the past, non-Catholic authors tried to attribute Rome's interventions solely to a sense of fraternal concern. While this remains an option, "Rome seems to have exercised this right more frequently than any other church . . . and seems to have felt that such an exercise was expected." Some have speculated that Rome wrote to others because it felt a special responsibility for other churches based on its political importance, or its "spiritual preeminence," or even a "priority of receptio" due to the authority of its witness. Perhaps Rome intervened based on its "assumed responsibility for . . . the Pauline churches . . . because it regarded itself as heir to the pastoral care of Peter and Paul." All of these explanations remain possibilities given what little evidence we possess. However, almost all agree that it would be anachronistic to read First Clement as "a categorical assertion" of Roman primacy, which is why "no serious Catholic scholar since [Berthold] Altaner (d. 1964) has claimed it" as such. At the same time, it would also be wrong to discount its significance completely, as it provides an important "first hint" in the development of Rome's "awakening" sense of mission.​

BTW I copied and pasted this from a forum page….on a quick read it looked accurate. You can access the book itself at Google books.

Other scholars (of all stripes) are even less inclined to see 1st Clement as an exercise of Roman primacy. For example James Jeffers states: First Clement was written not as an affirmation of Roman primacy, but as the action of one sister church helping another restore peace and unity. The author states in 63.4 that the letter is directed “to your speedy attainment of peace.” He never asserts the authority of the Roman church, nor does he appeal to it as an example. Rather he writes as an interested friend who appeals to commonly held beliefs. (Conflict at Rome p. 95)

As to author Clement being the first pope or a Pope. It is now understood that Clement probably served as a sort of secretary for the Roman church. See the Shepherd of Hermas (8.3 = vis. 2.4.3) There a Clement is mentioned who has the job of a secretary. When the Church of Rome sent an Epistle (1st Clement) to Corinth, that letter described that Corinth was governed by a group of presbyters. There is no suggestion at all that Rome was any different. As such, Clement wasn’t a pope, but was one of several presbyters who acted as the leaders of that church. The author of the epistle never claims anything approaching papal authority….but then again, why would he?...there simply wasn’t a pope at that time.

Further, it should be noted that the author (Clement) urged obedience because he believed that the words of the Roman church reflected the will of God. He never claimed any special authority….never urged obedience on the basis that the Vicar of Christ had spoken.

 

[Simons]

As to the epistle of Ignatius ascribing to the Roman Church a status that only the home of a Pope could justify (as claimed by some Catholic apologists).

In his epistles, Ignatius praises Rome more than he does the other Churches that he addresses. Catholic apologists like to translate one passage as:

…to the Church which also holds the presidency in the place of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and because you hold the presidency of love, named after Christ and named after the Father;​

I think Catholics think “presidency” makes it sound more prestigious. Here is how a more modern wording by Cyril Richardson reads: “the church that is in charge of affairs in Roman quarters”. The presidency is limited to “the place of the region of the Romans”. Now that would be an odd qualification if Rome, in fact, presided over the entire catholic Church (as would be the case if the office of the papacy truly existed). Also, the presidency is credited to the entire church at Rome and not to any office associated with that church or to the hierarchy of that church. Further, Ignatius never addressed a bishop for the Roman church (in contrast to what he did in the other letters). This coupled with the evidence from 1st Clement and from the Shepherd of Hermas indicates that at the time of Ignatius, the Roman church was not governed by a single bishop (aka the pope) but was instead governed by a group of overseers/presbyters.

Further, it should be noted that Ignatius was very concerned about stressing the importance of obedience to the bishop. Two things regarding that: First, Ignatius never once urges obedience on the basis that the bishop was the successor of the apostles, even though such a basis would be extremely useful for his purpose. Second, he never stresses obedience to the bishop in the letter to the Romans even though obedience to the bishop of Rome would be of even greater importance, if that bishop was, in fact, also the pope.

 

[Simons]

Regarding Irenaeus as quoted by Mungo in this forum:

Here is what Mungo posted:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere. (Against Heresies, Bk 3, Chap 3 [AD 180]​

Yes, Ireneaus claimed that the Roman church was founded by both Peter and Paul. Obviously, he was wrong, as Paul wrote to an existing Roman church before he travelled to it….and in the salutation portion of that letter (Romans), Paul never mentioned Peter.

One should also note what Irenaeus said and didn’t say about why he considered Rome of special importance:

1. He did NOT say that Rome was special because Peter was its first bishop (he never claims that either Paul or Peter was a bishop of Rome) …instead Irenaeus indicated that Linus was appointed as bishop by the 2 apostles.

2. He did NOT say that Rome was special because it possessed the office of the Pope…. instead Irenaeus indicated that it was special because the true faith was preserved through the succession of bishops. Please note that it is the life-giving faith that he names as being preserved by succession and not some Papal office.

3. He did NOT say that Rome was special because it possessed the keys given to Peter…instead Irenaeus stated that it was special because the 2 most glorious apostles founded it and then gave the greatest possible witness (martyrdom) at Rome.

Even though the opportunity presented itself again and again, Irenaeus never gave any indication that Rome had any papal office.

Further, Irenaeus indicated that both Paul and Peter appointed Linus. Peter and Paul are categorized as apostles (not bishops) making Linus the first bishop of Rome in Irenaeus’ mind. On this point Irenaeus disagreed with what is reported by both Tertullian and Jerome; in that the Latins (at their respective times) viewed Clement as the first person appointed by the apostles. It seems that the ancient traditions (regarding who occupied the bishopric of Rome) are confused…. which makes sense if a monarchial bishop wasn’t in place in Rome until the middle of the 2nd century.



Here is how Bart Erhman sums up the evidence regarding the alleged first Bishops/Popes:

But who was the first bishop of Rome? According to the second-century Irenaeus, it was a man named Linus, who was appointed to the office by Peter and Paul (Against Heresies 3, 3, 3). In one place the father of church history, Eusebius, appears to agree with this, to some extent, when he says that “the first to be called bishop after the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul was Linus” (Church History, 3, 2); but here Linus is appointed not by Peter, but by someone else, after Peter’s death. And to confuse things even further, just a few paragraphs later Eusebius phrases the matter differently, saying that “Linus … was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome….” This makes it appear that Peter was the first bishop, Linus the second, and Clement the third. And the tradition becomes yet more confused when we consider the writings of Tertullian from the early third century, who seems to indicate that Clement was not the third bishop of Rome, but the first – appointed by Peter himself (Prescription of the Heretics 32)​

Now you might not like Erhman’s theology, but here he is just talking history. The confusion and inconsistency of the early church fathers does not suggest that they were presenting anything approaching solid evidence.

In summary, my position on the early lists for the bishopric of Rome is:

a. The lists were not produced until well after the fact;

b. The lists that we possess disagree on vital details;

c. As such, this evidence is far from being rock solid; and

d. The problems with that evidence are so substantial that the scholarly consensus is properly aligned against accepting that evidence (as the consensus holds that Rome did not have a monarchical bishop until about 150AD)…and again, please note (that at this time in the history of the church) it is about lists for the bishopric of Rome (without envisioning a Papal office founded on that bishopric).

 

[Simons]

Regarding Tertullian as quoted by Mungo in this thread:

Here is what Mungo posted with two parts that Mungo omitted restored to the text and emboldened:

"Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church would be built’ [Matt. 16:18] with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’ [Matt. 16:19]?" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 22 [A.D. 200]).

“But, you say, the Church has the power of forgiving sins…I now inquire into your opinion, (to see) from what source you usurp this right to the Church.”

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19] you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, What kind of man are you, subverting and changing what was the manifest intent of the Lord when he conferred this personally upon Peter? Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).​

As one can see above, in his work entitled “On Modesty” Tertullian dismisses claims made by “Pontifex Maximus” Calixtus. It would seem that Mungo (and Catholic apologists like him) think that in Tertullian’s words one can discern that Calixtus is claiming primacy for the church of Rome. From the restored emboldened bits, however, one can see that Tertullian is really saying:

• The Roman church is claiming to possess the power to forgive sins (note: not claiming primacy for itself); and
• The claim to have the authority to forgive sins was not for the church of Rome alone, but for every) church “akin to Peter” (presumably every church possessing the faith of Peter).

So…with Tertullian we are at the start of the 3rd century AD and we still have no record of anyone using Matthew 16 to support a claim of Primacy for the church of Rome. As an aside, Mungo would do well to understand that when someone with the credentials of Richard P. McBrien takes a position different from his own on a matter, then McBrien’s position shouldn’t be simply dismissed as being “not serious” without offering more than incomplete citations.

 

[Simons]

Re: The interpretations of Matthew 16:16-19 by the early church fathers being quite varied (and therefore indicating that the apostles DID NOT pass on any oral Tradition that taught that Matthew 16 recorded the appointment of Peter to an office of leadership of either the apostles or of the whole Church).

There are plenty of sites available detailing the various interpretations (of Matthew 16) possessed by the early church fathers….all one has to do is preform a simple search. A claim reported by a number of these sites is as follows:

Roman Catholic Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick prepared a paper to be delivered at Vatican I (1870), in which he noted that five interpretations of the word “rock” were held in antiquity:

(1) The first declared that the church was built on Peter, endorsed by seventeen fathers.

(2) The second understood the words as referring to all the apostles, Peter being simply the Primate, the opinion of eight fathers.

(3) The third asserted that the words applied to the faith that Peter professed, espoused by forty-four fathers, some of whom are the most important and representative.

(4) The fourth declared that the words were to be understood of Jesus Christ, the church being built upon him, the view of sixteen fathers.

(5) The fifth understood the term “rock” to apply to the faithful themselves who, by believing in Christ, were made the living stones in the temple of his body, an opinion held by only very few (107-108).​

From: https://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=133

Some Catholic apologists attempt to downplay the lack of a solid Tradition (that favours the Vatican interpretation of Matthew 16) by claiming that it is possible that an early church father held multiple views regarding that key passage. That is a possibility, but rather than merely making that claim, those apologists should demonstrate that Kenrick erred by not listing early church fathers that held multiple views….and provide citations showing that a father held two or more views (otherwise those apologists are just blowing smoke). Until that is done, it appears that the Vatican’s preferred interpretation was held by about 20% of the early church fathers….hardly indicative of a Tradition stemming from the apostles that supported the existence of a Roman papacy.

 

[Simons]

In conclusion, I would sum up how one should answer the five questions/issues as follows:


1. Was Peter appointed (by Christ) as the leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole?

This seems to be an actual possibility, though I wouldn’t categorize it as possessing even a 50% probability. In favour of an affirmative answer, we have: 1. Actual words from Jesus (from which one could infer such an appointment); 2. Peter actually fulfills the role of leader at the start; and 3. Since this question only needs the appointment to be temporary, the fact that the appointment is never expressly stated in scripture isn’t as significant as it would be if the appointment was one to a permanent office. Still the arguing apostles give no indication that they understood that such an appointment had occurred.

2. If so, was there an office to which that position of leadership/authority attached?

Although this is a possibility, I would not describe it as likely. To find an appointment to an office one must infer it from the reference to “keys”. That such a significant office is never expressly mentioned in scripture makes the existence of such an office rather unlikely. This is especially the case since other clerical positions (for the church) are expressly mentioned and God’s practice in the Old Testament was to go into great detail in describing and naming the various offices.


3. If so, did that office of authority remain with Peter until his death?

So now we've come to the point where we are assessing whether an appointment (which is never mentioned) to an office (which is never named) lasts for the alleged appointee’s lifetime (and of course, the duration of the never-expressed appointment to the never-described office is not mentioned either). Scripture’s silence is just making an affirmative answer to all of these questions just so much more unlikely. What we do know is that Peter’s significance relative to James and Paul fades.

4. If so, did that office of authority pass on to any successor(s) after Peter’s death?

Regarding a never-mentioned appointment to a never-named office for a never-described duration, it isn’t surprising that the idea of successors is also never hinted at in scripture. Here is a good time to look at the mathematics of likelihood. Let me be generous and say that there is a 50% chance of a “yes” answer to question one and a 25% chance of a “yes” answer to question two. Further, let me be ridiculously generous and say that there is a 50% chance of a “yes” answer to question three and a 50% chance of a “yes” answer to question four. With those percentages we are at a 3% chance of Rome being in a position to even ask the fifth question.

5. If so, are the successors to Peter’s authority the bishops of Rome?

So having been very generous, we go in with a 3% percentage possibility before we get to question 5 and then we find that there isn’t even a monarchical bishop in Rome (to accept the succession of such authority) for the first 100 years and there is no Tradition for the existence of such a Papal office. That Tradition develops more than 150 years after the fact. Given those two situations (for the mathematical fun of it) I would peg the likelihood of getting an affirmative answer to all 5 questions as being at less than 1%....Rome, however, absolutely must have affirmative answers to those 5 questions and so asking the Vatican to acknowledge the weakness of its position is a non-starter.

 

[GodsGrace]

In conclusion, I would sum up how one should answer the five questions/issues as follows:


1. Was Peter appointed (by Christ) as the leader of the apostles and of the Church as a whole?

This seems to be an actual possibility, though I wouldn’t categorize it as possessing even a 50% probability. In favour of an affirmative answer, we have: 1. Actual words from Jesus (from which one could infer such an appointment); 2. Peter actually fulfills the role of leader at the start; and 3. Since this question only needs the appointment to be temporary, the fact that the appointment is never expressly stated in scripture isn’t as significant as it would be if the appointment was one to a permanent office. Still the arguing apostles give no indication that they understood that such an appointment had occurred.

2. If so, was there an office to which that position of leadership/authority attached?

Although this is a possibility, I would not describe it as likely. To find an appointment to an office one must infer it from the reference to “keys”. That such a significant office is never expressly mentioned in scripture makes the existence of such an office rather unlikely. This is especially the case since other clerical positions (for the church) are expressly mentioned and God’s practice in the Old Testament was to go into great detail in describing and naming the various offices.


3. If so, did that office of authority remain with Peter until his death?

So now we've come to the point where we are assessing whether an appointment (which is never mentioned) to an office (which is never named) lasts for the alleged appointee’s lifetime (and of course, the duration of the never-expressed appointment to the never-described office is not mentioned either). Scripture’s silence is just making an affirmative answer to all of these questions just so much more unlikely. What we do know is that Peter’s significance relative to James and Paul fades.

4. If so, did that office of authority pass on to any successor(s) after Peter’s death?

Regarding a never-mentioned appointment to a never-named office for a never-described duration, it isn’t surprising that the idea of successors is also never hinted at in scripture. Here is a good time to look at the mathematics of likelihood. Let me be generous and say that there is a 50% chance of a “yes” answer to question one and a 25% chance of a “yes” answer to question two. Further, let me be ridiculously generous and say that there is a 50% chance of a “yes” answer to question three and a 50% chance of a “yes” answer to question four. With those percentages we are at a 3% chance of Rome being in a position to even ask the fifth question.

5. If so, are the successors to Peter’s authority the bishops of Rome?

So having been very generous, we go in with a 3% percentage possibility before we get to question 5 and then we find that there isn’t even a monarchical bishop in Rome (to accept the succession of such authority) for the first 100 years and there is no Tradition for the existence of such a Papal office. That Tradition develops more than 150 years after the fact. Given those two situations (for the mathematical fun of it) I would peg the likelihood of getting an affirmative answer to all 5 questions as being at less than 1%....Rome, however, absolutely must have affirmative answers to those 5 questions and so asking the Vatican to acknowledge the weakness of its position is a non-starter.

I wanted to speak about this, but you've posted a book!

How about taking one issue/idea at a time??
You'd get better responses to.

(long posts are almost impossible to deal with).

 

[GodsGrace]

Having returned from vacation it is time to move on to the last two issues which are described as:

Hope you had a nice vacation. You sound very rested!

4. If Peter possessed an office that made him THE leader of the apostles and of the Church, did that office of authority pass on to any successor(s) after Peter’s death? And

This is not going to be scholarly....No footnotes, sorry.

Peter did not have an official office in the church after Jesus died.
However, Jesus did choose Peter to give him the keys.
This should be kept in consideration...or did who Jesus chose have no importance at all?

James was the head at Jerusalem and Peter was the head in Rome.
The head, at that time, of any area, was called a Bishop.
So James was a Bishop and Peter was a Bishop and there were other Bishops that were the head of the church in different parts of the Roman Empire.

But who was the head of the Bishops?
Each of the 5 important areas of Christianity chose one Bishop to be the leader of his region.
They lovingly called him Papa, which became the English word: Pope.
There were 5 Popes in the different regions:
Rome
Jerusalem
Alexandria
Antioch
Constantinople

Rome did become the most important of these governing cities.
Peter did become the Papa the others would defer to or question regarding any teaching.
I would suppose that it's because he spent time with Jesus and must surely have been a gruf person but one
that was strong and not afraid to get done what he wanted to do.

Eventually, Rome became the capital of Christianity, and it was decided that the Bishop, or Papa (Pope) of Rome, would be the head of the church in about 700AD.

...papacy, the office and jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome, the pope (Latin papa, from Greek pappas, “father”), who presides over the Holy See (the central government) of the Roman Catholic Church. The term pope was originally applied to all the bishops in the West and also used to describe the patriarch of Alexandria, who still retains the title. In 1073, however, Pope Gregory VII restricted its use to the bishop of Rome, confirming a practice that had existed since the 9th century.

source: https://www.britannica.com/topic/papacy/The-medieval-papacy

5. If so, are the successors to Peter’s authority the bishops of Rome?

As mentioned earlier the clerical positions named in the NT are: apostles, overseers (interchangeably with elders/presbyters) and deacons. There simply isn’t any mention of a Papal office or a “leader of the Church” office. As such, it is no surprise that the NT is entirely silent on these last two issues. When one turns to the writings of the early church in search for any evidence that addresses these two issues, two things become apparent:

Correct of course.
No such person as THE Pope in early church history, except as described above.

The leaders of the church were called overseers...this would be the same office as the Bishops...it's just a title.
They did come to be known as Bishops after the church began to organize.

J.B. Lightfoot, who may be regarded as an authoritative representative of the Anglican Church, holds a less radical system. The Primitive Church, he says, had no organization, but was very soon conscious of the necessity of organizing. At first the apostles appointed deacons; later, in imitation of the organization of the synagogue, they appointed presbyters, sometimes called bishops in the Gentile churches. The duties of the presbyters were twofold: they were both rulers and instructors of the congregation.

source: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02...appointed,and instructors of the congregation.

1. A consensus among early church experts is that:
a. there wasn’t a single monarchical bishop of Rome until well after the time of Peter; and
b. Peter was never the bishop of Rome.

This is very interesting since the other "popes" turned to Peter for advise when a question arose.
Peter was the Bishop of Rome and was retroactively called the first Pope.

(there was no office of Pope when Peter was the bishop of Rome, as explained above).

As such there was no single line of bishops in Rome to serve as the Pope for about 100 years after Peter’s death and therefore, the right successors (for the Catholic claim) were unavailable.

2. The interpretations of Matthew 16:16-19 by the early church fathers are quite varied, and therefore, it is very unlikely that the apostles started any oral Tradition that taught that Matthew 16 recorded the appointment of Peter to an office of leadership of either the apostles or of the whole Church.
What follows is some stuff from Historians and early church fathers regarding those two things.

Absence of monarchical Bishops at Rome until 150 AD.

What was the leader at Rome called (by title)?

Whatever it was at the time (and it was Bishop) that title referred to BISHOP.


part 1 of 2

 

[GodsGrace]

Simons

part 2 of 2

“It seems that (with respect to the situation at the time of 1st Clement) there is a "general agreement among scholars that the structure of ministry in the church of Rome at this time would have resembled that in Corinth: with a group of presbyters sharing leadership, perhaps with a differentiation of roles among them, but with no one bishop in charge." (Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops p 100)​

To early writers like Clement of Rome (c.95), Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. 107), and Irenaeus (c. 180) it was common knowledge that he (Peter) worked and died in Rome. Nothing is known of the length of his residence: the story that it lasted twenty-five years is a 3rd-cent. legend. Ignatius assumed that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman church, while Irenaeus claimed that they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all of Peter's as presumed leader of the community….In the late 2nd or early 3rd cent. the tradition identified Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This was a natural development once the monarchical episcopate, i.e., government of the local church by a single bishop as distinct from a group of presbyter bishops, finally emerged in Rome in the mid-2nd cent. (Oxford Dictionary of Popes by J.N.D.Kelly)​

Note: Kelly does acknowledge that the papacy traced its authority back to Peter (and therefore the papacy considers Peter as the 1st Pope). From there Kelly made these findings that undermine the claim that Peter was the 1st pope:

a. Peter’s leadership in Rome is presumed and not known;

b. The tradition that Peter was the 1st bishop of Rome arises approx. 150 years after the alleged fact;

c. That tradition was developed (as opposed to handed down orally from the time in question); and

d. The Roman Church wasn’t governed by a single bishop until about 100 years after Peter died.

Here are some other (Catholic) sources that back up that consensus that Sullivan(above) referred to:

1. Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinners pp 1-2 and 7-8

2. Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes pp. 25, 29-30

3. Garry Wills, Papal Sin Structures of Deceit p 158 (Wills provides quote from Raymond Brown and D.W. O’Connor in support)

4. Hans Kung, The Catholic Church pp 9-12.

Yes. Every scholar has his point of view.

What the ECFs believed:

In other tracts we have shown that the Fathers recognized Peter as the rock on which Jesus declared he would build his Church; that this gave Peter a special primacy; and that Peter traveled to Rome, where he was martyred. In this tract we will show that the Fathers also recognized that the bishop of Rome—the pope—continued to serve in Peter’s role in subsequent generations of the Church.
Here are examples of what early Christian writers had to say on the subject of the Peter’s successors:

Irenaeus​

“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

The Little Labyrinth​

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-successors

Eusebius of Caesarea​

“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

source: as above


In another tract, Origins of Peter as Pope, we showed that the early Church Fathers recognized that Peter is the rock of whom Christ spoke when he said, “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my Church.” This tract highlights some of the implications of that fact.
Because Peter was made the foundation of the Church, there were practical implications: it gave him a special place or primacy among the apostles. As the passages below demonstrate, the early Church Fathers clearly recognized this.

Clement of Alexandria​

“[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? ‘Behold, we have left all and have followed you’ [Matt. 19:27; Mark 10:28]” (Who Is the Rich Man That Is Saved? 21:3–5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian​

“For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]” (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).
“[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church” (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James​

“Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed” (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

source: https://www.catholic.com/tract/peters-primacy

 

[Simons]

I wanted to speak about this, but you've posted a book!

How about taking one issue/idea at a time??
You'd get better responses to.

(long posts are almost impossible to deal with).

I am happy to discuss it in any way that works for you...I had told Mungo that I would deal with all 5 issues (and he had seemed to walk away from the thread) so I thought that I would just post it all at once so that I actually could say that I did what I said I would.

Hope you had a nice vacation. You sound very rested!

thanks....it was nice, but not very restful, and posting the "book" tired me out. ;) so I will gather myself and respond to the substance of your post(s) within a few days.
Nice to meet you...Cheers

 

[Simons]

Peter did not have an official office in the church after Jesus died.
However, Jesus did choose Peter to give him the keys.
This should be kept in consideration...or did who Jesus chose have no importance at all?

Of course, it had some importance. Here is how I responded to Mungo previously when considering the importance of that passage: I note that Peter’s confession of Jesus as Messiah makes it into all three synoptic gospels, but the granting of the keys is only mentioned by Matthew. I would think that if the granting of the keys is as important as the Catholic Church would like to think, then it should have received a bit more coverage. Here is how Luke starts out his gospel:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you,...​

So Luke is aware of many accounts/gospels, has carefully investigated everything and yet, Peter being granted the keys doesn’t make it into his gospel….nor does it manage to get mentioned ever again in scripture. Catholics want the granting of the keys to be the start of the papacy…an office that they claim has existed for almost 2000 years – an office first given to Peter and then passed on through the bishopric of Rome such that the holder of that office is the head of the Church, and no salvation is available apart from that Church ruled by the Pope. Can the granting of the keys really be that significant for the governance of the Church?

So Wondering why do you think that Luke failed to include the “keys” story? What is that:

1. He hadn’t heard of it (even after he investigated everything). That would be odd if it was as important as Catholics think.

2. He had heard about it but didn’t think it was important enough to be included. That would be odd if it was as important as Catholics think.

3. He had heard about it but didn’t think he needed to include it because the Gospel of Matthew had already included the passage. That would be odd given how Luke again and again and again included other stuff that had already been included in Matthew. The synoptic gospel authors simply did not operate on the basis that something need not be include because some other author had already included it.

So Wondering why did Luke fail to include this passage that is so terribly important to Catholics?

 

[Mr. G Lee]

He is the successor of King David whom God promised would look after his sheep (Ez 34:23)

David was a earthly king used in parables to signify our heavenly Holy Father. the Kings of kings Lord of earthly lords.

It was never God's intention to have "Kings in Israel" (abomination of desolation) dying flesh in the place of the invisible things of God who is not a man.

Our father King of earthly kings (1 Samuel 8) gave over to the faithless jew in there jealousy of all the sounding pagan nations to do what they should not. . . . until the time of the first century reformation (Hebrew 9) The master of the 15th. . a carbon copy. All things written in the law and prophets (sola scriptura)" the reforming power in any generation.

its the armor we put on and keep on it protects us from false apostles, sent with false prophecy (oral traditons of dying mankind called a law of the fathers )