Does the Bible teach the Doctrine of the Papacy?

 

Second Rebuttal Statement

 

Moses Flores

 

 

            In my last response I briefly surveyed some of the early Fathers’ works on the subject of the Papacy in particular their interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19 which is most significant and relevant especially in the light of Vatican I’s comments about the unanimity of the Fathers concerning the interpretation of that text the council was about to dogmatically and, as it turns out, infallibly about to state.

            There are a few things that I want to now take the time to respond to from previous arguments by my esteemed opponent.

            First, in Mr. Rosado’s opening statement there is the huge assumption that these words were said originally in Aramaic.  I have already refuted that once and given notation in reference to scholarship of the same persuasion.  It is true, as Mr. Rosado points out that “there is not a difference between the words stone or rock”.  This argument is not unfamiliar.  However, the burden of proof still rest upon Mr. Rosado and the Roman Catholic Church to produce the historical documents that Jesus spoke these very words in the Aramaic language.  I am not denying that Jesus spoke Aramaic in anyway or that the language was not used but only saying that we do not possess any manuscript of these words in Aramaic.  Rather, as I pointed out, the Holy Spirit inspired Matthew to write in the Greek language and in that language he intentionally used two different Greek words meaning two different kinds of rocks.  Thus, when Jesus said “and upon this rock” – that is, a different kind mentioned previously.   Grammatically, this is irrefutable from the original languages. 

 

kalw  de  soi  legw  oti  su  ei   Petros,  kai epi  tauth  th  petra  oikodomhsw    mou thn ekklhsian kai pulai adou ou katiscusousin auths.

 

            Not acknowledging the differences in the Greek languages leads to the equivocation fallacy in the opening statement where it was said “I change your name to rock…and on this rock I will build my church”  “Can anything be more straightforward and unclear than that?”  Well, logically speaking, this argumentation doesn’t hold since the equivocation is based on a speculative and unfounded theory of a non-existent Aramaic text of Matthew.

 

            A grammatical point that I want to address is the comments made for the word “and”.  It was argued that the word “and” (Gr. kai) connects “I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock…”  I don’t deny the conjunction, but it must be pointed out again that there is a different kind of rock referred to.  Jesus says, “this” rock.  What “rock” is he referring to?  It cannot be the same rock that Peter is for the words are different and the kind of rock each term means is different as well.  As I have argued in my opening statement, the rock that the Church would be built upon, the foundation in which members of the Church stand is that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God.  That is, the content of Peter’s confession.  Augustine agrees.  He writes,

Remember, in this man Peter, the rock. He's the one, you see, who on being questioned by the Lord about who the disciples said he was, replied, 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' On hearing this, Jesus said to him, 'Blessed are you, Simon Bar Jona, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you'...'You are Peter, Rocky, and on this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of the underworld will not conquer her. To you shall I give the keys of the kingdom. Whatever you bind on earth shall also be bound in heaven; whatever you loose on earth shall also be loosed in heaven' (Mt 16:15-19). In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, 'They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ' (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ.
Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter's confession. What is Peter's confession? 'You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.' There's the rock for you, there's the foundation, there's where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer.[1]

            In regards to the comments that “this should be considered deception if it meant anything other than what Jesus meant He would build His church upon Simon Peter,” I only point out that this is circular reasoning in that the premise of Jesus actually meaning that He would actually build His Church on Simon Peter is not in the premise, but is already assumed into the conclusion.  It is deception if something other is meant than what Jesus meant, but the question is “what did Jesus mean?”  What did He mean when he spoke of “Petra” and “Petros”?  Why the difference?  It is logically fallacious to assume He meant the Roman interpretation when there is clear evidence to the contrary.

            In the first rebuttal statement there is a discrepancy that I couldn’t help note between Unam Sanctam and the historical position of Rome regarding salvation outside the Catholic Church.  Unam Sanctam clearly states that any who do not accept this doctrine are under the anathema of Rome and outside of salvation.  This is part of the historical stance of Rome regarding salvation outside of her stated in the Latin phrase extra ecclesium, nullus salas (outside the Church, no salvation).  I can’t help but see the contradiction between the historical position of the Roman Catholic Church and what is being proposed today which Mr. Rosado asserts. 

            It was asserted that “we teach that protestants are a part of Christ’s sheep.  This is because protestants are under the care of Peter and his successors.”  So now, I curious, but does the anathema of Unam Sanctam and even Vatican I, reaffirmed in Vatican II still stand?  If it does, how can Protestants – who utterly reject the Pope and the claims of the Papacy for salvation – be “part of Christ’s sheep” as defined by Rome?  Protestants don’t partake of the Eucharist, nor can they since they don’t have the apostolic succession for the consecration.  They cannot properly perform the sacraments.  Protestants reject the Marian Dogma’s as idolatry of some sort so how can it now be that Protestants avoid the anathemas of Rome? 

            But follow the rest of the logic. 

            It is asserted that the above statement is true “because the bible came from God and was put into the hands of the catholic Church.”  Now, how does it follow that Protestants are part of Christ’s flock since the Bible was given to the Catholic Church?  That doesn’t follow at all.  In fact, it completely misses the point!

            It was claimed that the canon was put together through the “inspiration of the holy Spirit” and then the words, “Can you deny this?”  Yes I can.  Again, I point to 2 Timothy 3:16, the only instance where the translated word “inspiration” is used in the entire New Testament (theopneustos, better translated as God-breathed).  Please refer back to my arguments on the Sola Scriptura debate for further treatment of this.  Only the Scriptures are “God-breathed”.  Nothing else in all of God’s revelation claims this.

            But now, notice what follows; that if I reject the inspiration of the Church from selecting the books of the Bible under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit then I must admit that the Protestant Bible “most certainly has some wrong books in it.”  The Protestant Bible with some wrong books in it?  But how can this be?  How does it follow that if I don’t accept a belief about the canonical process, that therefore the Bible I use – which contains the same Old Testament and New Testament books of Rome, excluding only the Apocrypha – that therefore, the Protestant Bible has some wrong books in it?  This doesn’t logically follow.  But worse than that, it proposes that equally that Rome’s canon has some wrong book in it for we have the same books they do!  The Roman Catholic is the one with extra books in their Bible.  If Protestants have some wrong books, then it would follow that Rome also has some wrong books.

            Regarding the second rebuttal statement, I would advise Mr. Rosado to overlook again my comments regarding Tertullian.  It was asserted that “I believe that he was defining the rock as strictly Simon’s confession about Jesus.”  I made no assertions about Tertullian.  Rather Tertullian’s position was that Peter was the Rock but only in that he first opened the way of salvation to the Jews and Gentiles.  I would also point out that Tertullian understood Peter alone to receive the title, and not any successors after him.

            Regarding the other quotes from the Fathers provided by Mr. Rosado, I would only ask if those quotes really do teach the Papacy as defined by Rome?  Remember that the Papacy as defined by Rome is based on the relevant text of Matthew 16:18-19 and not general letters and which mention in passing “the primacy of Peter” or the “chair of Peter”.  I was able to provide quotes from the Fathers about what they believed “the Rock” was in Matthew 16:18-19.  I don’t deny they affirmed the primacy of Peter, but I do deny they understood it in the same way as later defined by Rome.  I also noted that one of the Father’s disagreed with the doctrinal stance of Pope Stephen.

            In regards to a fuller treatment of quotations from the Fathers, like I mentioned space does not permit such a feat in this debate.  However, William Webster has provided a thorough list of quotations from the Fathers in his website[2] as well as through a book titled “The Matthew 16 Controversy” which I highly recommend.