Regarding the evidence against the papacy outside of Matthew 16, think of the many contexts in which a papacy could have been mentioned early on, but wasn't: there's no reference to a title for a papal office (in contrast to "apostle", "deacon", etc.); the qualifications for holding other offices, like apostle and elder, are mentioned in places like Acts 1 and 1 Timothy 3, whereas there's no such discussion of the qualifications for being a Pope; passages discussing the structure of the church, like 1 Corinthians 12 and Ephesians 4, say nothing of a papacy; the imagery used for the church in Ephesians 2 and elsewhere doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; the imagery used for the apostles in Matthew 19 and elsewhere (e.g., twelve thrones, twelve foundation stones) doesn't make any effort to portray a papal office; in passages in which the apostles are anticipating their departure in some sense (Paul departing from the Ephesian elders in Acts 20, Paul and Peter anticipating their deaths in 2 Timothy and 2 Peter), there's no reference to a papal office, looking to the bishop of Rome as the foundation of the church, looking to the bishop of Rome as the center of Christian unity, or anything like that; the earliest sources to comment on the Roman church and its importance (Paul in Romans, Luke at the end of Acts, Ignatius, Dionysius of Corinth, Irenaeus, etc.) give a variety of non-papal reasons for the Roman church's significance; the early opponents of Christianity, including ones who addressed the religion at as much length as Trypho and Celsus did, showed no awareness of a papacy. Furthermore, passages like 1 Corinthians 12:28 (mentioning "apostles" as the first order in the church) and Galatians 2:9 (grouping Peter with other apostles and naming him second) make more sense if there was no early belief in a papacy than if there was a belief in it.
Some of the arguments don't have enough significance to use in isolation. They should be part of a cumulative case instead. But some of them could be used in isolation. You could choose one or more to start with, then move on to others if warranted.
Thanks, and do not forget your parody "51 Biblical proofs of a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy" - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/08/51-biblical-proofs-of-pauline-papacy.html.
ReplyDeleteThe evangelical Peter and his gospel (Acts 10:43-37; 15:7-8) is not that of Catholicism.
Yet the issue is not just the papacy, for distinctive Catholic teachings are not manifest in the only wholly God-inspired, substantive, authoritative record of what the NT church believed (which is Scripture, in particular Acts through Revelation, which best shows how the NT church understood the gospels) - http://peacebyjesus.net/deformation_of_new_testament_church.html
In fact, one could say that the RCC (and its competition for the self-proclaimed title of the One True Church) is the invisible one in Scripture. Which source, for faithful Catholics is not the definitive sure standard for faith and doctrine, for instead their church is, which is an object of faith. For the word of God only authoritatively consists of and means what she says.
Thus Scripture is forced, as an abused slave, to support RC distinctive Catholic teachings, while Oral Tradition is also invoked by RC apologists, citing 2 Thessalonians 2:15 (but not Colossians 2:8). Which recourse is utterly invalid due to the simple fact that men such as the apostles could speak as wholly inspired of God and also provide new public revelation thereby (in conflation with what had been written), neither of popes and councils can nor claim to do in "infallibly" defining something to be the word of God.