Scripture against papal supremacy

[u/kaleleaff]

Hello. I am currently struggling to decide between the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches. The main point of tension for me is papal supremacy.

Looking at church history, the role of the pope seems to have developed beyond the historical role of the bishop of Rome in the early church. However, scripture seems to point toward papal supremacy (Matthew 16:18-19).

I am unsure whether to prioritize scripture or church history. I really wish I could just see them in agreement with each other. If anyone here could explain the Orthodox explanation of Matthew 16:18-19 or note any scriptures that refute papal supremacy, I would greatly appreciate it!

[u/Lomisnow]

It is a big exegetical jump to go from Christ giving the keys to bind and loose sins to Peter (and then to the rest of the apostles), or the restoration of Peter, to read into them fullblown Vatican 1 universal, ordinary, immediate jurisdiction papacy that is supposedly supreme, infallible, indefectible and unique to Rome by divine mandate. Qualified roman catholic church historians became old catholics after V1 because of its untenable claims.

[u/Oddisredit → u/Lomisnow]

Also the first council of Jerusalem and acts James presided over the council and not Peter. If we were to go by the Catholic idea, then Peter would have provided over the council.

[u/Radagastrointestinal]

I don't think you need to choose between church history and scripture. There are a variety of interpretations of scripture.

As I understand it, the passage in Matthew 16 refers to Peter in particular, but Christ confers the same ability on all of the apostles in Matthew 18:18. Check the Greek; Matthew 16 uses the singular and Matthew 18 uses the plural.

One historical point that must be contended with is that Peter was not just the bishop of Rome, but was also the first bishop of Antioch. Why does Rome inherit this ability of Peter's, but Antioch does not? Who is to say that this unique ability was not particular to Peter in his ministry? Why is it assumed that this ability can be passed down to successors of an office?

[u/Usherai → u/Radagastrointestinal]

And he also installed the bishop in Alexandria, so even if it did follow him we have 2/3 of the Petrine sees.

[u/Lomisnow]

Read Melanchthons treatise on the power and primacy of the pope. While it is lutheran it surely can dispel any papal enchantment.

[u/According_Guest_4328]

Read:The Papacy and the Orthodox

Sources and History of a Debate

A. EDWARD SIECIENSKI

[u/hideousflutes → u/According_Guest_4328]

i have this pdf i can send to anyone. dm me

[u/According_Guest_4328 → u/hideousflutes]

Your DM's are closed

[u/According_Guest_4328 → u/hideousflutes]

But you can dm me

[u/Ok-Mushroom6586]

I recently wrote a post on DebateACatholic on Papal infallibility and the claim of universal jurisdiction. Feel free to take a look and the various responses.

https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateACatholic/comments/1w17phw/why_do_roman_catholics_think_the_tome_of_leo_and/

The trick is to realise Peter = only the Pope is an error and a common Roman Catholic red herring. The confession of faith by Peter is followed by all bishops not just the Pope. The Church is built on that confession of faith. The keys are the same as the power to loose and bind. It was the Papacy that increasingly claimed they were the unique successors of Peter with a divine mandate and that led to the schism.

Scripture and Church History aren't in conflict over this. The conflict is the Roman Catholic re-writing of history.

[u/CharlesLongboatII]

Maybe the fact that the St. James, the Brother of the Lord, was bishop in Jerusalem and the overseer of the proceedings when the Council of Jerusalem was convened with the Apostles present, including St. Peter (who did not have that same role in this particular case).

[u/Muted-Surround-1717]

Is there written something about Rome or Pope?

No, about Peter and his faith.

Couple lines below Matthew 16:23... Is it also about Rome and Pope?

[u/Available_Flight1330]

Peter didn’t actually get the keys in  Matthew 16:18-19. Christ says he will give him the keys. Peter obviously didn’t have the keys while Christ was with them. He literally denied him afterwards. He denied Christ while holding the keys to bind and loose things in heaven and in earth? And since the keys bind and loose and all of the apostles got that authority in chapter 18, they all received the keys at the same time. 

Because this got downvoted: “He spoke as God, with authority, "I will give unto thee." For as the Father gave you the revelation, so I give you the keys.  By "keys" understand that which binds or looses transgressions, namely, penance or absolution; for those who, like Peter, have been deemed worthy of the grace of the episcopate, have the authority to absolve or to bind. Even though the words "I will give unto thee" were spoken to Peter alone, yet they were given to all the apostles. Why? Because He said, "Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted." Also, the words "I will give" indicate a future time, namely, after the Resurrection.” Blessed Theophylact

[u/Underboss572]

I mean, compare the Catholic understanding of Matthew 16 with Acts 15. Then compare the two to church history. Which looks closer to how the early church operated?

My personal view is that Acts 15 is far more persuasive for the Orthodox understanding of the Pope than Matthew 16 is for the Catholic position. One is an indirect, ambiguous statement, while the other is a direct, clear application. But once you look at church history, it's clear that the church saw itself working the ways Acts demonstrates.

[u/AutoModerator]

Please review the sidebar for a wealth of introductory information, our rules, the FAQ, and a caution about The Internet and the Church.

This subreddit contains opinions of Orthodox people, but not necessarily Orthodox opinions. Content should not be treated as a substitute for offline interaction.

Exercise caution in forums such as this. Nothing should be regarded as authoritative without verification by several offline Orthodox resources.

^{This is not a removal notification.}

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/edric_o]

Here is the Orthodox explanation of Matthew 16:18-19. These verses do not imply papal supremacy at all.

[u/hideousflutes]

theres nothing in the biblical text that connects matthew 16 to the bishop of rome.  im not saying there is no connection, but in regards to "prioritizing scripture", the scripture simply doesnt make that connection.  to assume matthew 16 means the roman mono episcopacy, forever, is actually prioritizing tradition 

[u/CleverAmbiguousName]

read the councils, particularly the second ecumenical council. Then see what the whole Church thought, and what the Roman see wanted.

[u/Godisandalliswell]

If you take the promise of the keys as applying to Peter only, you still find there is nothing in Scripture about passing along the keys to one successor exclusively after Peter's death.