What is the Evidence for Papal Primacy?

[@sushi_mermaid7116]

I love how gentle and soft-spoken Jimmy is! 💕

[@mr.e8432]

I agree, that’s one thing I really enjoy about the show. Not just Jimmy, but Trent and all the other guys, it’s sound reasoning, and argument, with humility. That’s not something you find on the other side of the aisle all the time. A lot of the nondenominational/evangelicals come across as pompous and or judgmental.

[@punk3388]

The complete defense for Papacy! Thanks Jimmy!

[@johnsonhunglo1993]

If nothing else, the Papacy has always had good spokespeople!!!

[@praizejesus5772]

I love the wording here. So detailed and clear.

[@BuckDanny2314]

A superman tee-shirt !

[@silalm5445]

Hi Catholic Answer team, I am a Catholic, Would you put my short writing in the Catholic Answer's post, and edited. Question: Does St. Peter have primacy over the other apostles? Answer: According to Matthew 10:1-2: "The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother..." The word "first" (Protos=Chief) here refers to a hierarchical order. St. Matthew would have known that St. Andrew is St. Peter's older brother, so why is Peter listed first? This word (First=Protos=Chief) exists for a reason, just as Judas is listed at the end for a reason. Additionally, St. Matthew provides further details about the changing of Simon's name to Peter to remind us of St. Peter's confession in Matthew 16:18 and his roles later in the Acts of the Apostles: "18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ### Conclusion: Yes, St. Peter has primacy over the other apostles, and so do St. Peter's successors.

[@thuscomeguerriero]

"Do you love me more than these?" I never saw the distinction that is made here between Peter and the other Apostles. Very interesting. Hmm..

[@thuscomeguerriero]

@Broruben Mont Good points but here's where I differ. I am not one who believes every book MUST be reconcilable with every other book of the Bible. Therefore, not being handcuffed with the dilemma of having to reconcile one book with another I am more open to interpretations that someone who DOES believe all Scripture is consistent with itself might be. With that said it is my opinion that Luke, being a companion of Paul, does not share the opinion of Mat. and John regarding Apostolic authority..and his gospel reflects that. Im no church historian by any stretch..but Paul did tell us that in the early church communities there was division of sorts regarding authority. Writing to the Corinthians he said, "some say I am of Apollos, or Paul, or Peter..and some say I am of Christ. I point this out to say that in those early years of our developing church there were questions regarding authority.. and I believe that divergent and developing perspective is reflected in the gospels

[@jlouis4407]

@Broruben Mont Are you saying that Jesus is referring to two different rocks in that verse in Matthew?

[@jlouis4407]

@Broruben Mont So you are Rock, and on this Rock (Me) I will build my Church? Really?

[@jlouis4407]

@Broruben Mont You do know what keeper of the keys means, right? The prime minister was the keeper of the keys, and in charge of the Kingdoms of Israel and Judah when the King was absent. Refer to the prophecy in Isaiah 22:20 about Eliakim. Also, I would advise you to read what Irenaeus, student of Polycarp who was a student of the apostle John, says about the Church at Rome in Chapter 3 of Against Heresies.

[@thuscomeguerriero]

@@jlouis4407 I think there is a strong case to be made that it is Peter's recognition and confession of Jesus as Christ that lays, and defines "the rock" upon which the church is built..rather than seeing the rock as the establishment of ecclesiastical order. The rock here laid by the Father himself is the selfsame way every other rock will subsequently be layed. That is thru confession.

[@Super-chad]

I wish to know what are the qualifications that these people, like Jimmy Akin and Tim Staple, must have to become recognized Catholic apologists and to represent the Faith

[@titounoundici7920]

Through the baptism, faithfuls partake to the "prophecy" of the catholic community.

[@ToxicallyMasculinelol]

you don't need any qualifications. most modern apologists actually don't have any formal training or certifications. some protestant apologists, like James R. White, call themselves "doctor" because they bought fake theology doctorates from diploma mills. but many of the most famous active Catholic apologists don't have much formal training, if any. of course, you will be a more credible witness if you have an academic degree in a relevant subject (theology and philosophy in a seminary, or comparative religion, literature, linguistics, history, anthropology, etc. from a four-year university), but being able to write, speak, and ideally debate, is clearly more important than credentials. at least in terms of notoriety, book sales, etc. it's hard to say how successful apologists are at actually converting people or preventing people from leaving the faith. popularity may not be a good measure of true success in apologetics, as that popularity may come from people already within the faith. in any event, I think atheists will take you more seriously if you have an academic degree. it doesn't even need to be in a subject relevant to religion. it just shows that you have proven academic achievements, which indicates a capacity for intellectual rigor. doesn't necessarily guarantee that you'll apply intellectual rigor to every subject, of course, but I think most atheists would be more likely to give you a chance if you have some academic authority. the issue isn't that it enhances your arguments, simply that a materialist intellectual (speaking from experience here as a convert from lifelong atheism and a scholar) may not even read your material if you don't have any academic credentials, assuming they stumble upon your work at all.

[@1stlast290]

Jesus does bid Peter to feed His sheep as an act of love and service to the Lord, but let’s remember that after all, the sheep are the Lord’s, not Peter’s. If anything, we might say that Peter’s place was first among equals. Recall as well that Peter was rebuked and corrected by the Apostle Paul. The Church is by necessity Apostolic. It is not merely Papal. Christ alone is the Head of His Church, His Bride.

[@craigsherman4480]

The Pope is not sinless. So the fact that Peter made a mistake and Paul rebuked him for his error is in keeping with how the Catholic Church still operates today. Jesus is the head of the Church. However, as Jimmy Akin has said there is a heavenly Church and an earthly Church (as Earth as it is in Heaven). Jesus wanted someone to lead his Church here on earth. This is why he established a visible Church here on Earth with Peter as its head. This goes along with the Scriptures in Isiah as well.

[@1stlast290]

Craig Sherman I wonder, would the western Church renounce it’s current position on the Papacy, for an equal role between eastern and western leaders, as is suggested by the ideas in Revelation that all 12 will rule together in the end? First among equals was Peter, but not supreme, or Pope, and certainly in he was in need of the rest of the counsel of the Apostolic Church.

[@craigsherman4480]

@@1stlast290 I would say no, because it goes against Scripture. If anything, the East would come back into full communion with the West. The reason why they split in the first place was date of Easter. Like with regard to women priests, the Church can not change a dogma of the Church affirmed by the Ecumenical Councils.

[@1stlast290]

Craig Sherman was the Easter date disagreement a true split, or just a decision to use varying calendars?

[@craigsherman4480]

@@1stlast290 I know that was one of the big problems. There was another one with the Nicene Creed. However, the big split came due to the animosity between the Greek speaking East and the Latin Speaking West. Of course, there are several other reasons and several books written about it.

[@joehechema]

“...And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8) Mar Abdisho of Soba 14th century canonist (from the Assyrian Church)

[@eui6037]

Wait, what about the other bishops that Peter named in other cities?

[@josephmary969]

the above quote was after the schism therefore invalid from a hitorical church teaching for this subject, you should and would be better off quoting "proof" before 1054

[@cailin5]

Really nice and concise video

[@Henry._Jones]

Wow, the host really missed an opportunity there w/ the first guest to say "Hey, Jude!"

[@homemademusic7]

Isn’t Jesus the rock that the church was built on?

[@rickdavis2235]

Benjamin " Isn’t Jesus the rock that the church was built on? " Yes sir, Christ is the rock but that's not what the Catholic Church teaches. The problem facing the Catholic Church is that Scripture interprets Scripture and when we look at what the rest of Scripture says about the papacy, Peter as the bishop of Rome, Peter being in Rome or Catholicism in general, it's completely silent.

[@J.F.331]

The concept that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18 is not a unanimous position by some of the most influential Christian thinkers of the first 400 years. We need to stop pushing this narrative. Peter’s confession and God (and therefore Christ) being called the Rock is what the Church is built on (God is the Rock - Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 32:30-31; 2 Samuel 23:3; Psalm 89:26; Isaiah 17:10; 30:29; 44:8; Habakkuk 1:12; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 ) Augustine of Hippo “Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.” 
 Jerome “The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built .. for the Church was founded upon a rock ... upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock.... The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” 
 John Chrysostom “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;' that is, on the faith of his confession.” 
 Basil of Seluecia “Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”

[@hgbitner8486]

This is evidence for Peter having a special role, but what is the evidence that that role is the role of the Pope that we know today? There seems to be a jump here that assumes the special role Peter has is the role of the Pope, but there doesn’t seem to be evidence for that connection.

[@ֆքǟռ-m5g]

Romans 4:4-5 New International Version (NIV) 4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

[@Roman_Leo3]

Out of topic and nothing to do with the video, but Amen! Love that quote as a Catholic. I also like james 2:24-26: 24 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 25 And in the same way was not also Rahab the prostitute justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? 26 For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, so also faith apart from works is dead.

[@MataniuFulu]

Satan always tried but always fail because Christ is Lord of all, the Pope is Christ best man and gave him the keys of heaven and the gate of hell will never prevail against that truth....

[@gerpis]

how about the temporal power of the Pope? is that in the Bbile?

[@AmericanBerean]

No. That was just an incidental aspect, coming along centuries AD, due to the power vacuum left when the Barbarians laid waste to the Roman Empire. But the Papacy held temporal power over any given secular society only insofar as the leader of that society (ie king or chieftan) was a Christian. The papacy was a stabilizing, unifying force when otherwise there would have only been chaos and disorder. Hostilities between various peoples (kingdoms, clans, et al.) was minimized when they listened to the Pope. (usually).

[@Mary-hc6qp]

Ok , so They Rock is JESUS CHRIST; get this: There is only 1 Rock 😃, Peter was a Pastor for Jerusalem; Paul was sent to the gentiles; jimmy; Jesus went back for peter because peter went/fell back to :Fishing; just like JESUS will convince you, Jimmy, to Come back to your Father; not on earth 🌍, but your Father in heaven; Peter answered [yes jesus , I love you] The Greek Word “Love” used by Peter was different than the The Greek Word That Jesus used for LOVE. Agape ; context; teach the Bible ; Jesus is The Only Name under heaven given to men by which we can be saved . Amen 🙏🏽

[@mist172]

Quick question, where does the bible come from?

[@philipbuckley759]

Peter was to go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles....what is up with that...

[@joanlynch5271]

They divided up the work.

[@AmericanBerean]

Sure. But Peter was the first Apostle to bring a gentile into the Kingdom.

[@jakeabbatacola5092]

Very nice. The interesting this that papal authority is based on misconceptions/misinterpretations of biblical texts that don’t take a very high reading level to understand correctly. I’m looking for reasons to become Catholic, and the papacy just isn’t biblical, no matter how hard you try.

[@men.276]

Can it be that at Peters profession of Faith the Rock referred to is Both Christ supremely and Peter Lesser as foundation of the Church?

[@alexmarker881]

The early jewish christian church never acknowledge a hierarcy of superior infalable bishop in a singular sense nor does the bible reflect a papacy this includes the church rome so No Aquila and Priscila where never under a catholic papacy leadership called pope on another note rome was not even among the seven churches to be recievers of st john divine revelation nor did he give us a word concerning the papacy as niether st paul to the gentiles to acknowledge a infalible papacy rather rebuked peter during his ministry to the gentiles

[@javierduenasjimenez7930]

Yes, there are scriptures where Peter presides assemblies with the other apostles.

[@truthunzippedwithoscarmach8853]

You did not show in scripture that Peter was ever in Rome never mind proving he established a church there. I am a protestant and I always believed the catholic view, so I was coming here to get an answer because there is no evidence in the Bible. You failed dismally, you should not have posted this if you dont know the answer.

[@Ricky2901]

Epistles of Peter - Rome as Babylon First Peter (1 Peter 5:13) implies the author is in "Babylon", which has been held to be a coded reference to Rome. If the reference is to Rome, it is the only biblical reference to Peter being there. Plus there's other non biblical sources. Study your history and you will realise the Catholic faith is the true faith.

[@joecastillo8798]

@@Ricky2901 Ricky, You're absolutely correct! Well done.

[@Ricky2901]

@@joecastillo8798 Its not about me Joe but about trying to be true to a divine truth.

[@brinydemon0321]

Sola Scriptura. Your blinded by it.

[@mist172]

Look at the historical church (Catholic and Orthdox) peter was in Rome. It's where he was killed, it's factual

[@Thetruthisnoteasy]

These are the most naive and dishonest interpretations of the text. Change the t-shirt!

[@noahfletcher3019]

ikr

[@gabrieltomas9914]

Is that........ Milo....???

[@evangelosdiamantopoulos8608]

The term ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ (Church) itself used by Christians from the apostolic period to describe their communities , excludes the existence of a monarch within its body. Suppose though that Peter was given authority all over the Church,why should the bishop of Rome be considered as his successor and not the bishops of Alexandria or Antioch whose churches were also founded by Peter according to the same Holy tradition or evenmore the bishop of Jerusalem founded by Peter and all the apostoles on The Pentecost day? There are just hints about Peters special role,while st John the Divine is officially entrusted by Chtrist himself with the protection of His Holly Mother that is with the protection of the Church.,why not considering him as pilar of the Church and universal vicar?

[@dioscoros]

Peter wasn't at the crucifixion. How does Ecclesia (which I believe is the English) exclude a papacy?

[@sunhair5499]

Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch never claimed to have the same power as the bishop of Rome.

[@vincentsheridan284]

Why did the Greek orthodox church fully accept the Papacy for 1100 years?

[@1stlast290]

Vincent Sheridan they didn’t. The pope wasn’t The Pope until later in Church history like you suggested

[@vincentsheridan284]

@@1stlast290 St. Peter was the first Pope.....that is undisputed. Even ask the Greek Orthodox.

[@hornatham1487]

Why do Catholics Answers disabled comments on their postings such as is the Norvus Ordo mass Valid. As found in Sacred Scripture in the book of Apocalypse 22 Cowards shall not enter the Kingdom.Disabling comments falls into this reality.

[@Mirro.555]

Why hijacking Apostle Peter's person just in order to have some temporary premenence? Don't you find it too little?

[@AmericanBerean]

Jesus didn't hijack Peter, He appointed him to the task as the King's (Jesus') prime minister over His kingdom on earth. That is what the 'keys' mean.

[@ΟριζόντιοςΚατακόρυφος]

1) But Jesus also call Peter "satan" in a case. 2) Paul had a more special role than Peter. 3) Peter first founded the church of Antioch, not the church of Rome.

[@thomascomerford7815]

1) That was before the resurrection. Christ hadn't yet bestowed upon St. Peter what he said he would do. 2) There is no reason that I can find for this to be true. In fact, I'd argue the opposite, if you want we can discuss it. 3) Yea, he founded Antioch and Alexandria before Rome, but that's not important because Rome is where he appointed his successors. Rome is where the apostles talk of it's bishops being successors of Peter. This is not true for Antioch and Alexandria.

[@thomascomerford7815]

In 3) I said apostles instead of Church Fathers at one point. Just wanted to clarify and correct...

[@ΟριζόντιοςΚατακόρυφος]

Thomas Comerford 1) ok, but it seems to me as a "bad" point for Peter: Peter was already with Jesus, but he made Him call him "satan". And just before crucifixion, Peter refuses his 3 year teacher and master, Jesus Christ. Of course I believe in the holiness of St. Peter, but I dont see something special compare to other apostles. 2) What I have in mind is the plurality of tours, and the letters that Paul did and wrote in comparison to Peter. Also, in matters of doctrine, when Peter and Paul interjected, the church eventually accepted Paul's view (for circumcision, Judaic Christians, etc.) 3)Paul also died in Rome. But the point isn't the place of the death, but ecclesia. We can get salvation because we are members of ecclesia. And we know that ecclesia founded in Jerousalem in Pentecostal event and then spread away in east Mediteranean, in Greece and around Agean and then in Italy, India, Spain, north Europe, northeast Europe, Asia, America. It isnt matter of place or time, but matter of Holy Spirit. 3) In ecumenical councils for a thousand years, before great schism, the patriarch of Rome never had a special role among other patriarchs. Ortodoxy keep this tradition for almost 2000 years. 4) Today, there are many thousands of ecclesias, but which is the authentic only one?

[@thomascomerford7815]

Οριζόντιος Κατακόρυφος 1) But what it all comes down to isn't St. Peter's holiness or unholiness, what matters is whether or not he was given a primacy and an ability to settle matters of doctrine on his own. 2) Actually, one will see in the book of Acts that Peter's decision was in agreement with Paul's and when he spoke it became binding. I'll link the video in another comment that goes very in-depth on the matter. 3) It's not necessarily that Peter's death was in Rome that had me worried. What is telling is that the Church Fathers list the successive bishops of Rome as successors of PETER. They don't say that they're successors of Paul, another apostle, or that the bishops of other churches are successors of Peter. This is because St. Peter while founding three churches, picked for his successors, Linus and Clement to be in Rome.

[@thomascomerford7815]

Οριζόντιος Κατακόρυφος kzbin.info/www/bejne/bHy5Z4OOiLR3nac

[@RonnyC880]

I get the point about Peter having a special role, not a superior role, but there is no evidence of passing Peter's role to a successor because the apostles believed that the end was coming in their lifetime.

[@thomasdonoghue1535]

Gospel of Matthew chapter 16 verses 16-18 is all that needed

[@RonnyC880]

@@thomasdonoghue1535 I need more than that to convince me that Jesus intended to make Peter the head bishop and to pass that authority to everyone else after Peter.

[@KristinaMassa17]

@@RonnyC880 in history, it was tradition that if the king died, he would pass LITERAL keys onto his appointed "in command." It is therefore assumed that peter knew that was how tradition worked so he would pass the keys to the next.

[@jacobraji2442]

@@RonnyC880 hey Ron. What about when Jesus tells Peter to "tend my lamb, feed my sheep, tend my sheep".

[@RonnyC880]

@@jacobraji2442 Take it in context. Peter had denied Jesus 3 times and now Jesus asked 3 times "Do you love me?" Peter said yes each time and Jesus responded 3 times "Feed my sheep." Peter was being reinstated after his triple denial. That doesn't mean Peter was appointed pope and the only one feeding the sheep.

[@men.276]

So many different interpretations. I wonder why the Lord left some things unclear. Maybe it's a faith issue. sigh....

[@TheArtlover36]

Dear Michael, Christ did NOT leave things unclear to his closest students as we know from the Scriptures that He would give parables to the outsiders, but explained everything in details to the apostles in private. So, the apostles handed down their knowledge to their students, the bishops. So there are documents for inner Church use like the canons. You need to study the Apostolic Canons, Ecumenical Councils of the Church and the Church History. This is where the apostolic teaching unfolds. And you will see for yourself that the Roman Catholic Church does not follow it.

[@men.276]

@@TheArtlover36 Church History says the Eucharist is the body of the Lord. Something I recently learned Protestantism denies. I tend to agree it is now but as a protestant I was thaught it wasn't. It makes more sense now what Paul meant about eating and the drinking the body of the Lord in an unworthy manner and why there is such a high reverence for the Eucharist. As a Child I remember the knowing you couldn't receive it if you were unprepared with a Godly Fear. The pieces are coming together. Thanks for your input.

[@TheArtlover36]

Michael Nevarez , the true Eucharist is only in the True Church which is the Orthodox Church.

[@men.276]

@@TheArtlover36 Well I'm sure there are faithful true orthodox Christians and I respect what you have come to believe. The fact is that the Catholic Church existed first and the Orthodox was born out of the scism and then came the reformation. Eventually bringing about so much confusion within Christianity. I not saying the Catholic Church is right on everything but It may be the original Church Christ founded and have authority to. If that's the case it could be rebellion. God knows may he have mercy on us all.

[@TheArtlover36]

Michael Nevarez, no, you are terribly misinformed. The first Church to be established was the church of Jerusalem and the Jerusalem Patriarchate has always been and still is Eastern Orthodox. So, we never went anywhere - it was the Roman Church that went away and basically came up with a new faith . By the time the printing press was invented and many people started reading the Bible they saw that a lot of things the RCC taught were not biblical like indulgences, papacy, etc. That is the real reason for the Reformation... and because the ties with the East were already severed and they did not know the Orthodox Church, so they came up with their protestant religion. You need to study the Canons of the Early Church and Church History (not just the RC point of view) to see for yourself , they are the best evidence.

[@vaggelis39]

Peter was not the primer of apostles instead all apostles had the grace of holy spirit and it is clear that in the chapter who Jesus speaks about his church which would built-in peter's but in stone of peter's homology that time does not mean that he built the church above the peter's name. This is a misunderstanding of Pope and he thought that is the only one who represents the god in the earth, that's ridiculous!!!

[@thatskytv286]

Vaggelis Gampis it was peter given by Jesus the key of the kingdom of Heaven.. not any other apostles..

[@vladcristianruxandu2831]

Isaiah seems to talk about Jesus, not Peter, using words also found in Revelation 3:7.

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

Yeah, but not in reference to recieving the keys, unless you think Jesus was the Prime Minister and not the King.

[@vincentsheridan284]

@@hopelessstrlstfan181 Jesus is the King of Kings, not of the office of Chief Steward....

[@hopelessstrlstfan181]

@@vincentsheridan284 exactly. That is the point. Jesus as Son of David is King of the Kingdom of Heaven. Remember, "Repent because the Kingdom of Heavn is at Hand" and those genealogies which document that Jesus is Son of David? In the Davidic Kingdom, when the KIng was temporarily out of Jerusalem, the Chief Steward would rule in his place. In the same way, until Christ returns, He rules thru the Chief Steward of the Kingdom, ie the successor to Peter. Jesus owns the Keys to HIs Kingdom and has temporarily bestowed them on His stewards who answer to Christ. At the End of Time, there will be no need for a Steward as The King will be United with all HIs people in a New Heaven and New Earth. In the meantime, those members of HIs Body who are in Heaven are United with Him in the Beatific Vision while those of HIs Body on Earth understand His Kingdom has a Steward who guides His people as they live here in this fallen world. Christ is the Head of the Entire Body of Christ and that remains true forever. As Cheif Steward, the successor to Peter only answers to God, the True and Everlasting King. Here is the sticking point missed by most Catholics and virtually all Protestants: the Body of Christ is not the hierarchy alone with the successor of Peter at the helm. The Body of Christ is all of her members and at the present time, knowledgeable lay people are resisting the current Pope. He has not taught heresy from the Chair of St Peter, but he has said troubling things. He answers to God alone, but we as members of the body are resisting him. For more information on this difficult topic see Taylor Marshall in this video kzbin.info/www/bejne/i4Oxp5Vjd7yhqs0

[@albertaowusu1790]

Our Lord knew what He was doing when He sent St Peter back to Rome on the Apian Way (yeah not in the bible). After St Peter's death he was buried on Mount Vaticano upon which St. Peter's cathedral was built. Co-incident? I don't think so!

[@albertaowusu1790]

@Broruben Mont If you listened to this program without your protestant ears the answer is there. In fact it goes back to the Old Testament.

[@albertaowusu1790]

@Broruben Mont Yeah I have heard that one about adding and taking away. Even your abridged bible should tell you it is taking about The books of Revelation an Ezekiel. There was no bible then until the Catholic Church put them together. I would believe the church that put it all together than some protestants who came 1100 years later. You don't believe that either. Do you?

[@albertaowusu1790]

@Broruben Mont If you read about the Councils they will tell you why they were set up. You don't know anything about The Watchtower people nor the Mormons so stop trolling.

[@eui6037]

@@albertaowusu1790 I'm not protestant. I'm orthodox, and never will I understand why some institution (roman chair) with so many errors in the past and present, claims to be superhuman. Arogant! The orthodox world functioned 2000 years under equality of patriatchs and bishops. Old testament you say? I thought the old testament fullfilment is JH... Not the pope....

[@albertaowusu1790]

@@eui6037 I say that because the Orthodox are the first protestants. Well, those that are not in communion with Rome and operating in their own little corner. God blessyou. Love you all!

[@TheArtlover36]

«Rock=Peter=Church foundation» is a semantical logical fallacy. The Catholics view the word “Rock” as it is, and in this fashion draw their logic directly to the conclusion that Peter is the foundation of the Church, because it serves their idea of leadership. But in fact the word “Rock” is a biblical metaphor which means “faith” or “confession of faith” and also “Christ” Himself. It is very easy to see, especially with a searchable online Bible. Just type in the word “rock” and it will give you all the verses including that word. You will see for yourself what it means. Then, apply that meaning to the following passage without taking it out of the context: Jesus asks who the apostles think He is. Peter confesses faith that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus gives Peter a metaphorical name reflecting the nature of his faith and then says that that on this confession of faith He will build His Church. In the same manner James and John were called the “Sons of Thunder” not because they had any connection to the weather but to the the nature of their fiery faith. Also, in the Sermon on the Mountain Jesus directly says that whoever builds his house on the “rock” will withstand the storms of the world as opposed to those who builds it on “sand”. He is obviously not talking about Peter, but about following the correct or incorrect faith. Now, regarding the keys. Peter is the key holder, but he does not hold it alone - other apostles were given it too a few paragraphs later and they got it not from Peter, but from Christ, so there is no succession in the key holding among the apostles. Because Peter was the first to receive the keys, he is what we call “First among Equals”. It means honor, not actual management power. Besides, anyone who googles what that position entitles will see that it is NOT the position of management. Its average salary is $10 per hour. Any traditional monastery has this position and by no means this person is the Abbot himself. It is an important position, but it is rather a logistics, servant position. Apostles are Christ’s servants. They have the power of the keys to open the gates of heaven through the sacraments of the Church, but they don’t own the Church. It is like to say that the monastery key holder owns the monastery and dictates the rules of it. Only the founder and Abbot of the monastery establishes its rules. Christ is the founder and the Abbot, NOT Peter. And since when did a key holder would act as a vicar to the Abbot? That insults and undermines the position of the Queen of Heaven and Earth - the Mother of God. If anyone is really a Christs vicar that is Her. So again, the Catholic logic here is separated from Tradition, Scriptures and common logic itself. The rest is just irrelevant. The Holy Scriptures and history of the Church itself clearly shows that Peter was not the one and only head of the Church. At the first ever apostolic Council in Jerusalem while apostle Peter does have an honorary word, it is the apostle James who draws the rules for the new converts. Besides, according to the apostle Paul, Peter was appointed as the apostle to the circumcised. His writings are directed to the Jews, while apostle Paul wrote to the pagans, most famously, the Romans. While there was an important Jewish community in Rome, most of its parish were pagan Roman converts, so the founders of the Roman Church are BOTH apostle Paul and apostle Peter. That means that apostolic succession of the Church of Rome cannot belong to apostle Peter alone. He did not and could not establish that Church himself. And finally, if Roman papal primacy was such an important and saving ecclesiological doctrine, it would be established right away in the Apostolic Canons and the Creed. But there is nothing like that. The Canons rule number one says that two or three bishops establish a bishop, and the rule 34: “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all.” That is the Orthodox Church ecclesiology - the Church is build as a network of equal bishops and not by a single person, and different nations have their own heads (Patriarchs) who work with others in consent. But the Roman Pope doctrine claims that he is the sole authority. That is simply against the very foundations of the Christian Church. And the Creed says that we believe in the Apostolic Church (That is, the Church build on the “foundation of apostles”). Not in the Church of Peter. That is the Orthodox perspective, if you wondered. You are welcome.

[@morelmaster]

YOU: Now, regarding the keys. Peter is the key holder, but he does not hold it alone - other apostles were given it too a few paragraphs later and they got it not from Peter, but from Christ, so there is no succession in the key holding among the apostles. ME: I anxiously await the verse where Jesus gives the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" to the other Apostles?

[@TheArtlover36]

john mizak , why anxious? Mat. 18:18. But generally this whole chapter can be interpreted as against the special place of one of the apostles.

[@morelmaster]

@@TheArtlover36 Matthew 18:18 says this; "Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven. " Where is it that you see Jesus giving the "keys to the kingdom of heaven" to the other Apostles? READ what it says, and please don't add to what the verse says.

[@nikolakuncevic2417]

Nations having their own heads? What would Byzantines say about that? When was it that Constantinople recognised that Bulgarians are a nation that's entitled to have their own head? And when will Moscow recognize Ukrainian nation? Si it's not really very orthodox at all.

[@jlouis4407]

Are there two rocks there in Matthew?

[@johnsonhunglo1993]

Peter was always second, behind James the Just.

[@AmericanBerean]

Or, never. King Jesus Himself appointed Peter in the 'prime' position. This was shown with the symbolism of the keys of the kingdom. In the Davidic dynastic kingdom, over which Jesus is now and forever King, the King would give one of his ministers the 'key' to the kingdom, which represented the King's authority to administer the kingdom in his place, or in his absence. (refer to Matt 16:16ff in light of Isaiah 22:20ff). King Jesus gave Peter alone (not James) the 'keys' to His kingdom. Therefore, Peter had the prime-ministerial position over the Apostles (His first bishops) and His kingdom on Earth. King Jesus rules vicariously through Peter and his successors, down to today.

[@johnsonhunglo1993]

@@AmericanBerean : HOGWASH!!!!

[@AmericanBerean]

@@johnsonhunglo1993 Why do you say that?

[@johnsonhunglo1993]

@@AmericanBerean: Jesus was NEVER a Christian!!! Jesus was in fact a very, very Jewy Jew. He stated on at least one occasion, that his mission was to gather the 'lost sheep' (ten tribes) of Israel. His 'church' was the Church of Jerusalem, headed by James, his brother/cousin. Peter was a dullard, an unlettered, stubborn, strong-headed, clueless rube. Peter came up 'short of the mark' several times!!! Everyone has known at least one 'Peter' in their lives.

[@fasho6054]

@@johnsonhunglo1993 💀An essential part of Jesus’ mission was, of course, to die for our sins on the cross and, through repentance and faith in him, open the way for us to experience eternal life with the Father. As Romans 5:8 says, “God demonstrated his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us”. Jesus paid the penalty for our sins! When Jesus began His ministry on earth, by standing up in the synagogue in Nazareth to read the Scriptures, He outlined His mandate - “to preach good news to the poor....to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.....” (Luke 4:18-19).Jesus never said his mission was to only gather the lost sheep of Israel.Your also forgetting at the time Jerusalem was under Roman Control

[@cbooth151]

What is the Biblical evidence for papal primacy? Answer: there is no such evidence. The Catholic Church is good at making up lies.

[@zacharynelson5731]

We interpret Matthew 16:18-19 as evidence for papal primacy. Who are you to tell us we’re wrong in our interpretation?

[@cbooth151]

@@zacharynelson5731 Where does Matt. 16:18, 19 say that Peter was a pope? Answer: NOWHERE!! As I said, the Catholic Church is good at making up lies.

[@Solideogloria00]

The papacy claim is very problematic both exegetically and historically. That’s why you don’t see such claims in the first centuries of the Christian church. The Orthodox Church is the true historical church.

[@moisesbarrera4849]

Totally agree with you, and they know that!!

[@richardradice3391]

@@captainflops474 Catholicism, it is supported by Scripture, History, and the Fathers.

[@richardradice3391]

except you do, especially at Antioch as they credit Peter not Paul as their founder.

[@xXXDeadlyHavocXXx]

@Joël Early Church Fathers: Ignatius of Antioch: You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]). Ireneaus: the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2[inter A.D. 189]) 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. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man that is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]). Letter of Clement to James: 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; the called, and elect (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D, 221]) Cyprian: With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]) Optatus: In the city of Rome the Episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas - of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367] Tyrannius Rufinius: and further how he speaks of the city of Rome, which now through the grace of God is reckoned by Christians as their capital (Apology 2:23 [A.D. 400]). Augustine: Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear “I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven” (Sermons 295:2 [A.D. 411]). I hope to see the Western and Eastern Church back in unity in my lifetime. God Bless and take care. Also please remember Papal infallibility is exercised is only very specific circumstances, not everything and anything the Pope says.

[@jesuscastanares4968]

Make the Holy Mass true to its Nature. No Hype: Please, don't make the Catholic mass like a carnival. Make it solemn . That may show the modern misunderstanding of what the Holy mass about. Don't get into the hype that it is a banquet of merriment and pomposity. That kind of interpretation may only invite scandalous behavior, homosexual gaity, and the result is that some Catholics may fall away; and that would be the the fault of the church and the Lord wouldn't like that kind of change of behavior. So be careful. Don"t abuse the sanctity of the Holy mass or the church in general.

[@katigrahn3278]

wow! what an amazingly horrible interpretation and leap from what the bible actually says.

[@sinfulyetsaved]

I got this one thing to say since Catholics love their doctrine of primacy so much Quit trying to to recall the Pope.hes your guy anyone who criticizes the Pope criticizes the see of Peter and more importantly Jesus.thats ur doctrine in a nutshell. Anyone who dislikes Francis and is against him is no different than Martin Luther.

[@charlotteanneaton1143]

Not accurate. They can claim the necessity and legitimacy of having a leadership role, without claiming total perfection for an given leader. That's not logical to insist on.

[@McPilot_W3DDS]

weak

[@SaintTrump99]

???