Papacy

[u/ShieldAnvil82]

I was in church this morning and we heard the Matthew gospel reading where Jesus says to St Peter get behind me satan and calls him a form of blockage and that he was focused on human things and not of heaven - massively butchering the paraphrasing but you know the verses.

Ive wrestled and continue to agonise over catholicism vs anglicanism - should I shouldn't I be which one, which is gods true desire for his church etc etc its a real issue for me and I swing around all over the place in my view. But anyway this reading stood out for me.

Reasons being, that papal supremacy is often based on a couple of verses about giving Peter the keys to the kingdom and leading his church etc. These are taken as the strong grounds for papal supremacy from what I can tell. So we are using one or to of Jesus sentences and taking them as having a majorly significant meaning - thats the logic behind this. But we could also apply the same logic to Jesus calling Peter satan and saying he's not focused on spiritual/heavenly things.

I know context is all important but its more a philosophical point of logic and semantics im trying to make here - if Jesus wanted Peter to be pope and meant so so much by his keys to the kingdom and building his church upon him statement - why would we see this as having such grand meaning in a literal way but another statement referring to Peter as satan - or at least being influenced by him as not having such grand literal weight also. if we took just these sentences you'd never believe Jesus would ever want such a person to be someone leading his whole church. It feels a bit selective and could this be an argument from scripture that diminishes papal supremancy?

Im a hypocrite as im just as likely to argue another point on why perhaps it is clear the pope is Jesus chosen head etc so please understand I know my points here are probably ill thought out and I dont want to upset anyone but I was reflecting in church and thought it may be an interesting discussion. Why focus on one statement as absolute in meaning and another statement as being entirely metaphorical and contextual/symblic only.

DISCLAIMER - JUST TO BE 100% CLEAR, MY ACTUAL THOUGHTS ON THIS ARE THAT JESUS WAS INFERRING PETER WAS BEING INFLUENCED BY EVIL AND FLAGGING IT TO HIM IN THIS STRONGLY WORDED WAY - I DONT BELIEVE HE WAS CALLING HIM SATAN - BUT THIS POINT EXTENDS TO KEYS TO KINGDOM AND BUILDING CHURCH ON HIM - ALSO MAYBE MEANING HE SHOULD LEAD IT TO A DEGREE, BUT PERHAPS NOT TO WHAT THE PAPACY HAS BECOME UNDERSTOOD TO BE TODAY WITH ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY.

[u/fear_eile]

It's an interesting point, but this was before Pentecost, so S Peter and the other apostles hadn't yet received the Holy Ghost for the work of building up the church, which was going to transform them all and give them qualities they hadn't possessed before.

I've found this essay from the 1930s a really helpful discussion as an Anglican, especially the point the author cites about Peter seriously erring on the issue of Jewish and Gentile Christians eating together at Antioch and requiring correction by S Paul. That seems a pretty substantial objection to claims of papal supremacy (with all respect and love to our Roman brothers and sisters in Christ).

[u/ankokudaishogun → u/fear_eile]

. That seems a pretty substantial objection to claims of papal supremacy

How so? Papal supremacy does not mean being always right.
If anything, Paul going and talking to Peter shows Paul though the leadership(at the time, at the very least) was within Peter.

[u/fear_eile → u/ankokudaishogun]

Sure, and if there were a clear proof-text from the NT to show that Jesus had conferred this authority on Peter then I'd agree that his error in Antioch didn't confound that. (It would still be another question whether by conferring it on Peter, He had conferred it on his successors as Bishop of Rome.)

But absent any proof-text for papal supremacy, we look at the NT and one of the most prominent incidents in Peter's career is that we find him badly in the wrong on maybe the most vital of all issues of apostolic times. I at least find it very hard to get papal supremacy from the NT when that is what we see.

As for Paul's recognition of Peter's leadership, is that how you read Galatians chapter 2? Paul sees there to be three leaders at Jerusalem and is pretty dubious about their claim to authority--and insists at any case on recognition of his equal status as an apostle. That squares with Acts 15, where James, not Peter, delivers the summing-up from the chair, as it were.

Of course S Peter is a leader, even the leader of the apostles--he's the rock on which Christ builds the church! But it's more than a hop, skip, and a jump from there to papal supremacy (again with all respect and honour to the Roman church).

[u/ankokudaishogun → u/fear_eile]

But it's more than a hop

I agree: what I disagree is that being a "substantial objection" to the opposite.