A
Sorry you weren't personally treated well by everyone here. Personally, I have Catholic friends and family whom I love and view Catholics in general as beloved cousins who strayed from the pure nectar of truth to follow the traditions and error of men (no offense intended whatsoever).
But it is important to understand the historical record behind the false doctrine of papal supremacy as it clearly shows the false doctrine was fabricated.
First, I beg you forgive me for dismissing your argument ad populum out of hand as it is a documented fallacy in argumentation theory and even if it were not your assertion with respect to it is false. But to state it explicitly: the RCC doctrine of papal supremacy is not true because it is not true. The false doctrine is a fabrication constructed of forgeries and erroneous exegesis and the historical record clearly demonstrates that, as non-Catholic and even some Catholic scholars attest.
And lest you forget, all Catholic theologians admit that papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church until 1870 (Vatican I) and even then it was done under questionable circumstance with significant opposition.
Now I just shared in my last post that church fathers did challenge the "relevance of papal authority." To be in agreement with the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, a Catholic would have to reject the dogma that Peter was the first pope, that he was infallible, and that he passed his authority on to successors. As Catholic historian Von Dollinger reminds you:
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess-Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas-has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together."
Contrary to what the average Catholic has been told, the so-called Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church stood unanimously against the current Catholic interpretation. And I have here the publications of many other devout Catholic historians who say the same thing.
When Christ gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16: 19), He explained what that meant:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, as it was in John 20:23, with the special application there to forgiveness of sins.
Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all, not just to Peter. Therefore it is unwarranted to claim that Peter had special power and authority over the other apostles. Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament and was unknown even in the Roman Catholic Church until centuries later.
Peter was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews (Acts 2: 14-41) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48), but no special authority.
Catholic apologists claim that Christ's words to Peter in John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs... my sheep") gave him unique authority. On the contrary, Peter himself applied that command to all elders (1 Peter 52) and so did Paul (Acts 20:28). Again von Dollinger informs us:
"None of the ancient confessions of faith, no catechism, none of the patristic writings composed for the instruction of the people, contain a syllable about the Pope, still less any hint that all certainty of faith and doctrine depends on him. The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as-what is obvious to any one at first sight they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as any thing peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing. The power of the keys, or of binding and loosing, was universally held to belong to the other bishops just as much as to the bishop of Rome."
While there was a plurality of elders and apostles, no one apostle had authority over other apostles. Peter used the "keys" to open the door of God's spiritual kingdom to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10) and though he was one of the chief (Gal. 2:9), his prominence gradually waned in significance after Paul's conversion (Acts 9) and commission to the Gentiles (Acts 13). Initially mentioned over fifty times in Luke's record, Peter vanishes entirely after a role in the gathering of apostles and elders to Jerusalem.
That Peter had no unique enduring authority is clear from several factors. First, again, Jesus gave the same authority to bind and loose to all the apostles (Matt. 16:19; cf. 18:18). Second, Peter was not even in charge of the Acts 15 gathering; James summed up the proceedings. Third, Peter was only one of the church's "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). Fourth, he was only one of the "apostles" on whom the church was built (Eph. 2:20). Fijh, he was rebuked by the apostle Paul, an action hardly befitting another of lesser status (Gal. 2:ll). Sixth, Peter introduces himself as only an "apostle" in his writings (1 Peter 1:l; 2 Peter 1:2), even though they are called General Epistles. If he alone had authority over the church, he should have asserted this in a general epistle. Seventh, he acknowledged Paul's special role in the church (Gal. 1-2). Eighth, and finally, even Paul's commission to missionary service was not done by Peter but by "the [local] church that was at Antioch" (Acts 13:l-3 NKJV) . Hence, the Roman Catholic view that makes Peter primary and infallible in official teaching on faith and practice is without New Testament foundation. The early local churches were independent selfgoverning bodies under the headship of Christ, with the leadership of their own elders as approved by their congregation." Etc...
As Jerome (340-420 AD) stated, "...and they all [the apostles] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike." (TAJ 1.26)
Just because Isaiah 22:22 mentions opening and shutting (which appears similar to “binding and loosing” in Matthew 16:19) this does not prove they are the same set of keys. There are many different sets of keys in the Bible and they all require binding and loosing or opening and shutting doors with them. It is not necessary to infer from the mere similarity between opening and shutting in Isaiah 22:22 and binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 that they are the same keys.
One proof the sets of keys are not the same is this: In Isaiah 22:22 Eliakim is given the “key” (singular) of the house of David. Peter on the other hand is given keys (plural) of the kingdom of heaven. The key (singular) of the house of David which was given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22 is not given to Peter much less the Bishops of Rome.
In fact this singular key of the house of David remained with Jesus Christ himself and is messianic in nature. Revelation 3:7 affirms that Christ holds the key of the house of David:
“... The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens” (Revelation 3:7).
But it is important to understand the historical record behind the false doctrine of papal supremacy as it clearly shows the false doctrine was fabricated.
First, I beg you forgive me for dismissing your argument ad populum out of hand as it is a documented fallacy in argumentation theory and even if it were not your assertion with respect to it is false. But to state it explicitly: the RCC doctrine of papal supremacy is not true because it is not true. The false doctrine is a fabrication constructed of forgeries and erroneous exegesis and the historical record clearly demonstrates that, as non-Catholic and even some Catholic scholars attest.
And lest you forget, all Catholic theologians admit that papal infallibility was not officially proclaimed as dogma by the Roman Catholic Church until 1870 (Vatican I) and even then it was done under questionable circumstance with significant opposition.
Now I just shared in my last post that church fathers did challenge the "relevance of papal authority." To be in agreement with the unanimous teaching of the Church Fathers, a Catholic would have to reject the dogma that Peter was the first pope, that he was infallible, and that he passed his authority on to successors. As Catholic historian Von Dollinger reminds you:
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Matthew 16:18; John 21:17), not a single one applies them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we possess-Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in catenas-has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation on which Christ would build His Church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, but they understood by it either Christ Himself, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together."
Contrary to what the average Catholic has been told, the so-called Fathers of the Roman Catholic Church stood unanimously against the current Catholic interpretation. And I have here the publications of many other devout Catholic historians who say the same thing.
When Christ gave Peter "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matthew 16: 19), He explained what that meant:
"Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." That same promise was renewed to all of the disciples in Matthew 18:18, as it was in John 20:23, with the special application there to forgiveness of sins.
Clearly the keys of binding and loosing and remitting or retaining sins were given to all, not just to Peter. Therefore it is unwarranted to claim that Peter had special power and authority over the other apostles. Such a concept cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament and was unknown even in the Roman Catholic Church until centuries later.
Peter was given the special privilege of presenting the gospel first to the Jews (Acts 2: 14-41) and then to the Gentiles (Acts 10:34-48), but no special authority.
Catholic apologists claim that Christ's words to Peter in John 21:15-17 ("Feed my lambs... my sheep") gave him unique authority. On the contrary, Peter himself applied that command to all elders (1 Peter 52) and so did Paul (Acts 20:28). Again von Dollinger informs us:
"None of the ancient confessions of faith, no catechism, none of the patristic writings composed for the instruction of the people, contain a syllable about the Pope, still less any hint that all certainty of faith and doctrine depends on him. The Fathers could the less recognize in the power of the keys, and the power of binding and loosing, any special prerogative or lordship of the Roman bishop, inasmuch as-what is obvious to any one at first sight they did not regard a power first given to Peter, and afterwards conferred in precisely the same words on all the Apostles, as any thing peculiar to him, or hereditary in the line of Roman bishops, and they held the symbol of the keys as meaning just the same as the figurative expression of binding and loosing. The power of the keys, or of binding and loosing, was universally held to belong to the other bishops just as much as to the bishop of Rome."
While there was a plurality of elders and apostles, no one apostle had authority over other apostles. Peter used the "keys" to open the door of God's spiritual kingdom to both Jews (Acts 2) and Gentiles (Acts 10) and though he was one of the chief (Gal. 2:9), his prominence gradually waned in significance after Paul's conversion (Acts 9) and commission to the Gentiles (Acts 13). Initially mentioned over fifty times in Luke's record, Peter vanishes entirely after a role in the gathering of apostles and elders to Jerusalem.
That Peter had no unique enduring authority is clear from several factors. First, again, Jesus gave the same authority to bind and loose to all the apostles (Matt. 16:19; cf. 18:18). Second, Peter was not even in charge of the Acts 15 gathering; James summed up the proceedings. Third, Peter was only one of the church's "pillars" (Gal. 2:9). Fourth, he was only one of the "apostles" on whom the church was built (Eph. 2:20). Fijh, he was rebuked by the apostle Paul, an action hardly befitting another of lesser status (Gal. 2:ll). Sixth, Peter introduces himself as only an "apostle" in his writings (1 Peter 1:l; 2 Peter 1:2), even though they are called General Epistles. If he alone had authority over the church, he should have asserted this in a general epistle. Seventh, he acknowledged Paul's special role in the church (Gal. 1-2). Eighth, and finally, even Paul's commission to missionary service was not done by Peter but by "the [local] church that was at Antioch" (Acts 13:l-3 NKJV) . Hence, the Roman Catholic view that makes Peter primary and infallible in official teaching on faith and practice is without New Testament foundation. The early local churches were independent selfgoverning bodies under the headship of Christ, with the leadership of their own elders as approved by their congregation." Etc...
As Jerome (340-420 AD) stated, "...and they all [the apostles] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and the strength of the Church depends upon them all alike." (TAJ 1.26)
Just because Isaiah 22:22 mentions opening and shutting (which appears similar to “binding and loosing” in Matthew 16:19) this does not prove they are the same set of keys. There are many different sets of keys in the Bible and they all require binding and loosing or opening and shutting doors with them. It is not necessary to infer from the mere similarity between opening and shutting in Isaiah 22:22 and binding and loosing in Matthew 16:19 that they are the same keys.
One proof the sets of keys are not the same is this: In Isaiah 22:22 Eliakim is given the “key” (singular) of the house of David. Peter on the other hand is given keys (plural) of the kingdom of heaven. The key (singular) of the house of David which was given to Eliakim in Isaiah 22:22 is not given to Peter much less the Bishops of Rome.
In fact this singular key of the house of David remained with Jesus Christ himself and is messianic in nature. Revelation 3:7 affirms that Christ holds the key of the house of David:
“... The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens” (Revelation 3:7).
