Matthew Bellisario and the Papacy

The Papacy, Matthew 16, and the Petrine Claim

Webcasting around the world from the desert metropolis of Phoenix, Arizona. This is the dividing line. The Apostle Peter commanded Christians to be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us.

Yet to give that answer with gentleness and reverence. Our host is dr. James white director of Alpha Omega ministries and an elder at the Phoenix reformed Baptist Church. This is a live program and we invite your participation.

If you'd like to talk with dr. White call now 602 nine seven three four six zero two or toll-free across the United States. It's one eight seven seven seven five three Three three four one and now with today's topic.

Here is James white.

And good afternoon. Welcome to the dividing line on a Thursday. Afternoon, as I mentioned on the blog we are going to have a discussion today on an actual argument that I have made against the claims of the Roman Catholic Church in reference to the papacy I believe.

Specifically in regards to the primary Petrine passage, which I believe. Is in gold around the rotunda of st. Peter's in Rome. I seem to recall taking pictures of that a few years ago when I was there.

The words from Matthew 16 18 and following from the Gospel of Matthew, of course and. The individual who will be raising those issues is Matthew Bella. Sorry. Oh, hello, Matthew.

Doing pretty good. Thank you very much for inviting me back on to discuss this topic.

Scripture Alone, Tradition, and Reading Matthew 16 in Context

Well, you want to ask for a specific amount of time a few minutes to sort of lay out a case and so I Be happy to do that. Why don't you go ahead and let us know. Are we focusing specifically on? Matthew 16 18 are we looking at?

Wider topics. What what was your intention?

Well, I want to discuss of course Matthew 16 16 through 19, but to try to hold that particular text by itself is is kind of Having a low regard for the scriptures and looking at it a little bit. Just looking at it in the linguistic sense.

So I just want to kind of give a little introduction. I'm approaching that particular text and how it falls into the rest of the New Testament. And also we can look at a little bit about some of the arguments that You've posed before that you thought were good arguments against the papacy.

That's okay. That's fine with me. Okay, and of course, you know that I'm a Catholic so I don't believe that scripture alone. We can argue everything from scripture alone, and I don't intend to do that.

However, I Believe that the scriptures must be read at the mind of Christ. They must be read when the community the church and I agree with the Holy Father Pope Benedict the 16th. Well, I think how wrong it is to attempt to draw final conclusions from isolated text of the New Testament end quote.

So if we're only going to examine the scriptures by linguistics and human reasoning alone that we're doing a severe injustice to the biblical text. Now, of course, we know there are many levels of understanding with the sacred scriptures.

And I believe once again, they must be read with the mind of Christ within the church. Deconstructing the text and looking at it on your human level of linguistics only scratches the surface. Scriptures are not read as a textbook without regard to their divine inspiration.

This can be seen for those there are several people who are who are Greek scholars. And even though they oftentimes appear to agree on the sentence structure that they're talking about. They often quarrel over the actual meaning of the text that's applied to the theological position.

So I don't believe that this alone is Going to get us the answers. We're looking for for example when we're looking at the biblical text of Matthew 16 16 through 19 I don't believe we can ignore the inherent reality of the relationship between Peter and the Apostles to Christ and Christ to the Father.

I.

Believe in Matthew 10 40 through 42 Jesus says he who receives you receives me. He who receives me is the one that sent me. Nor can it be divorced from John 20 21. Peter said again peace be with you as to the father sent me I am sending you.

So Christ represents the prototype of the Apostle in which then turns and grabs Peter into himself in Matthew 16. Then he sends him and his Apostles out with divine authority. Likewise, we can't divorce it from John 21 15 through 17.

Well, Peter tells you this to you Alone, he doesn't tell all this a positive. He tells Peter alone to feed his sheep. The ecclesiastical groundwork, I believe is laid women's passages of the New Testament.

For those however who are looking for Vatican one to be explicitly spelled out in the New Testament As a systematic theological exposition, I believe are making unreasonable expectations of the text. Now I want to continue on a little bit and look to st. Peter's confessed his profession of faith.

St. Peter and his profession of faith is bound to Christ as the rock. Therefore Christ names him also rocked why to grasp st. Peter into himself. There's a unique and mystical bond that Peter will receive from Christ the cornerstone.

The resemblance of Christ being sent from the father to Christ sending Peter is unmistakable in my opinion. Thus we see various fathers of the church. Refer to st. Peter's faith as being the rock and his being the chair being referred to as having a unifying character in essence to it.

St. Peter takes this position after Christ's resurrection. Of course, this is demonstrated in the book of Acts such passages as Acts 1 15 5 1 to 11 15 7 to 13. I believe all of these are intimately linked and it cannot be taken and pulled out of context pulled out of how they are linked together.

With a.

Christological nature about them. And there are few reputable scholars that I find who take who who who basically? Say that Matthew 16 does not show the leadership in a special place of honor among the Apostles of Peter.

I believe the keys given to Peter make him unique among the Apostles. Although I will admit the other Apostles likewise receive authority to bind and loose just as the bishops today Also have that authority.

However, I don't believe this to be in contradiction to the youth the unique authority of st Peter and I don't believe it denies the bond that the other Apostles had with Peter to exercise their authority.

There are many Orthodox theologians who also agree with it. John Mayer door Father Lawrence Quinn work. I was Thomas Costco, for example, although they do not go as far as Rome in Taking the authority of st. Peter.

I will admit. One other thing I would like to say before we get into anything further is talking about tradition but I think a lot of people misrepresent tradition both in the Catholic Church and outside the Catholic Church and They they they merely look at it as being just quoting church fathers.

Or just merely a tool to interpret scripture and We have to understand a tradition. I believe is the gospel being conveyed living and breathing within the unity of the church. And one more thing about the early church fathers that I would like to outrightly state is that the early church fathers were not writing.

Their letters.

For future controversialists such as dr. White and myself. They were writing for specific controversies at a time. So I believe we have limited access to look at these particular Statements that we're looking for from the church fathers.

Although I do believe we can make it a pretty strong case that We have a majority that believes in what the Church of Rome teaches. One last thing I want to talk about the unanimous consent that is often misunderstood by both Catholic apologists and Protestant apologists as having it to mean that every single church father has to agree.

That is not the case and we can look to the writings of the Catholic Church by Pope Leo the 13th to actually see what that means. And it means a Basic majority not every single church father. So if we bring up a couple arguments where church father Contradicts what Rome teaches it doesn't necessarily mean that that debunks the argument from Rome.

And.

One last point. Some of these early church writers are not early church fathers. I see Tertullian constantly being quoted as a church father. I see origin constantly being quoted as a church father according to the true sense of the word.

They're not church fathers. They're early church writers. And now a few questions for you. Dr. White that I would just like to pose to you since we want to.

Matthew 16, the Keys, and the Confession of Peter

You get an opening statement so do I. I think that people need to Hear the other side first and then we can start. That's fine. I Would like to quote from the First Vatican Council's dogmatic constitution from 1870.

We therefore for the preservation safekeeping increase the Catholic flock with the approval the sacred council. Do judge to be necessary to propose to the belief and acceptance of all the faithful in?

Accordance with the ancient and constant faith of the Universal Church. The doctrine touching institution perpetuity in nature the sacred apostolic primacy now, please notice it speaks of the ancient and Constant faith of the Universal Church.

And so if we discover that the papacy actually develops over time that is in fact unknown in Periods of time that there are major early church fathers who pursue their ministry without any knowledge of these things.

This allegedly infallible document be shown to be untrue. It likewise said it opened variants with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever Understood by the Catholic Church. Are the perverse opinions of those who while they distort the form of government established by Christ Lord in his church?

Denied that Peter in his single person Preferably to all the other Apostles whether taken separately or together was endowed by Christ the true and primary proper primary Primacy of jurisdiction notice.

It's a clear doctrine of Holy Scripture, and this is as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church, so These are the claims that Rome itself makes. Now my understanding was we're gonna be looking at Matthew chapter 16.

So we read in that text now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi He was asking his disciples. Who do people say the Son of Man is they said some say John the Baptist others Elijah. But still others Jeremiah one of the prophets he said to them.

But who do you say that I am Simon Peter answered you are the Christ the Son of the Living God and Jesus said to him Blessed are you Simon Barjona because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you my father who is in heaven.

I also say to you that you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven and whatever you Loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.

The central theme of this passage is the Messiah ship of Jesus Christ. Any Interpretation that takes the focus off of Jesus as Messiah is quite simply missing the point. She is his questions to the disciples about the opinions the multitudes and their own viewpoints are all directed toward his own person his own Identity.

When Peter speaks up and confesses that Jesus is a Christ the Son of the Living God He is confessing the faith of all the disciples not merely himself. He is speaking for them all as he often does. Jesus pronouncement of blessing upon Peter is not due to any inherent goodness in Peter.

But as due to Peter's being the recipient of a great blessing from the father. The father has revealed to Peter the true identity of Jesus. And of course revelation was given to the other apostles as well.

We can hardly think that they all sat there amazed. Never having even thought that Jesus was the Messiah. The point of Jesus words is that it requires the work of the father to reveal the son. The subject of the passage remains the identity Of Christ found in the confession of Peter.

When the Lord says I tell you you are Peter and upon this rock I will build my church and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. The focus does not change. Jesus is not here speaking of the identity of Peter.

He is still talking about himself and his church. This is plainly seen by continuing on through verse 20 where we read. Then he warned his disciples not to tell anyone that he was The Christ the Messiah.

The focus never shifts from Christ to anyone else including Peter. The rock of which the Lord speaks is that common confession made by all who are part of the church? Jesus is the Christ the Son of Living God.

This is seen I believe in the fact that while the Lord is addressing Peter directly He changes from direct address to referring to something else this rock when speaking of Peter's confession He does not say upon you Peter I will build my church.

Instead you have a clear distinction between Peter the Petras and The use of the demonstrative pronoun this Petra the confession of faith upon which the church is built. This statement is followed by the promise to at some time in the future Give the keys the kingdom of heaven to Peter.

I emphasize this is a promise for the verb is future intense. Jesus is not here in this passage give anything to Peter in the way of keys. Yet when we see us the authority given in Matthew 18 18 it is given not to Peter alone or even primarily.

But to all the Apostles and that using the exact same language word-for-word regarding binding and loosing. If someone wishes to say that Peter receives the keys and distinction from the other apostles as their superior they are also forced to admit that the giving of these keys is never recorded for us anywhere in Scripture.

A Strange thing indeed for something supposedly so fundamental to the Constitution of the church. Now these are just some comments on the the text itself. But I would likewise point out that I am certainly not alone in taking that view.

There is a long list of individuals in the early church Gregory of Nyssa st. Cyril of Alexandria st. Chrysostom theodoreth theophilic St. Hillary st. Ambrose st. Augustine st. Gregory the Great quote just one John Chrysostom One of the greater biblical exegetes of the early church having said to Peter blessed art thou Simon Barjonas.

And of having promised to lay the foundation of the church upon his confession not long after he says Get thee behind me Satan and elsewhere. He said upon this rock He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man.

But upon his own faith the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ the Son of the Living God and so we have a an interpretation of Matthew chapter 16 that is Consistent it requires no appeals to anything outside the immediate context and it is consistent with the interpretation of the early church as.

Well, and so I would simply present that as an interpretation of the text you go to the text Mr. Belisario has said well, you know linguistics and human reasoning alone can't do this. We need to read it in The unity of the church.

Well, I think especially when that church is founded upon the claim that this text has to have a certain meaning. That is in danger of becoming somewhat of a circular argument if we are not careful So with that, Mr. Belisario, you said you had some questions to to raise.

So would you you don't see any connection between Christ receiving the authority from the father and then in turn passing that on that that that authority on to Peter.

You don't see in Matthew 16 in Matthew 16. No.

Well, once again, I don't think Matthew 16 can be isolated from the rest of the text. I don't think you can pull it out and just say well if this refers to Peter's faith That's the end of it because John Mayerdorf who's not a Catholic He says as far as I know he's a Greek scholar says that the the faith of Peter cannot be separated from the person of Peter.

So while it may not be able to the fact remains that Jesus did not say You are Peter and upon you I will build my church. He uses a demonstrative pronoun and I've asked many times. Why does Jesus use a demonstrative pronoun.

And if this is the constant and ancient faith of the church? Why can I cite the leading? Commentators of the first four centuries of the church who agreed with what I just said I just wrote I just I just read for you John Chrysostom.

So why does he say. Why does he not say and I will build the church upon you Peter?

I.

Wasn't asking about Greek.

Well as far as we're looking at the text when we're looking at The English text that that's not clear. It says on this rock and Peter is named rock. Am I correct? It's it Jesus not changed Peter's name to rock.

Was there not a reason that he did that so that the person here would also be? His name was changed to refer to Peter as well and and that his faith also is is bound to the person. I don't think you're going to separate st Peter's profession of faith from him as a person.

Otherwise, why would he just change his name to rock?

Well, he doesn't here again. We we keep we keep leaving this text and and I'm asking is a specific text question about the text. And that is if this is so and and I again quote from Vatican one. At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church and.

So there was John Chrysostom not a part of the Catholic Church.

Yes, dr. System, but dr. System we can quote we can throw quotes of dr. System back and forth where I asked him he called. What counts where he calls of Peter the rock and calls the unifying chair of Rome?

Yeah.

Yeah.

Well, certainly mr.

Mr.

Bell, sorry you know that the Cathedral Petri in the ancient church a chair of Peter is Shared by all bishops as Cyprian pointed out and as the North Africans pointed out and so on so forth. So it wasn't just applied to him in the person of the Bishop of Rome in any way shape or form but I again return to to the text and are you saying we just.

It's not clear, I mean this is the key Petri in text is it not.

As long as it's looked at in relationship to the rest of Scripture not just pulling it out and looking at it in your linguistic Exercise, which is what what what you're really doing. So what other text?

Explains why he uses a demonstrative pronoun and says upon this rock rather than upon you. What other text? Explains that is is Peter's failure of faith and his need to be prayed for. Is that does that explain?

The demonstrative pronoun. What what what's. I'm trying to understand how other texts which I would assert are actually significantly less central and less compelling in their testimony to some kind of Petrine primacy.

How they could somehow Explain what Jesus is saying here if evidently the text is itself unclear.

Well, I mean we can look at other arguments. I'm sure. You know, Robert St. Genes has an argument for the demonstrative use of the Greek text. Once again, I can't debate you on the Greek text and what exactly is going on because I'm not a Greek scholar.

But what I can do is take another Greek scholar and put him against you to disagree with your interpretation on the demonstrative.

Use of this text. No one no one disagrees. There's a demonstrative pronoun there. Nobody because they're gonna. Well Sir it's it's a fact that the the Greek Specifically has contains a demonstrative pronoun that that's not that's not even that's not even an arguable thing.

Now he may disagree with the interpretation, which of course I know that he does but epitout a tate. It's it's right there tout a it's it's it's right in the Greek. It's not that it isn't a question about that now.

Mr. St.

Genes has made numerous errors about the Greek which I've documented in the past, but I really don't believe that that he would go to the point of Saying that tout a is not in the text. So the question is what it means and it says upon this rock and so the the question then comes back to.

You know, okay, so you don't agree with my interpretation but I have demonstrated that it is consistent with the context because it maintains the focus upon the identity of who Jesus is. It is consistent with the rest of the Gospel of Matthew because Jesus in a future tense promises to give the keys to Peter and he does in Matthew 18 along with the other Apostles and.

It is consistent with an entire list of people that I cited for you and their interpretations.

I thought I heard you say that the keys are never given to anyone. No, I said, I know I've never thought the son in Scriptures.

But if you forgiven now in my in my in my in my statement I said you have to do one of two things with Matthew either you have to recognize that that future promise I will give do so. The keys is either fulfilled in Matthew 18 18 when Peter receives them along with the other Apostles in equality.

Or if you want to say that's not the fulfillment then you're gonna have to say that nowhere. Does Matthew or any of the other part of the other gospel writers? record this momentous fulfillment. So you've got one of the two.

If you accept Matthew 18 18 as being the place where Peter receives the keys then he does not do so as Superior to the other Apostles. And if you don't accept Matthew 18 18 is that fulfillment then. You have no place recorded for you when when this fulfillment this promise is fulfilled.

So I'm not sure which view you take and I would think there especially on the issue like this be an infallible interpretation from Rome and its oral tradition, but I'm not unaware of any infallible interpretation of.

Actually of any of these texts come to think of it even Matthew 16. I've heard Tim Staples say that it's capable of multiple meanings and you only have to affirm one. But the other ones could possibly be meanings too.

I'm not sure if that's position you take or not.

To me I don't have a problem with Peter receiving keys and the rest of them receiving the likewise authority. It doesn't really specify that they all receive the keys the claims.

As.

As far as Peter receiving the keys and the lights and the apostles receiving a likewise authority I don't believe that jeopardizes the primacy of Peter in this. When he was when they received that authority, I mean even today as the Roman Catholic Church operates the Pope is not looked at as the Dictator obviously that all the other bishops and archbishops throughout the church have their own autonomy over there over there.

The dioceses are the archdiocese or whatever you want to look at their take their seat so when we look at the text. When we look at the text in that context, I Like like I said, I don't think you can divorce the rest of these New Testament passages that I named before.

That give us an overview of how this is looked at throughout the New Testament. Okay, so when you say throughout the New Testament You you mentioned only a couple of texts you mentioned when Peter denies Jesus and in the in the restoration of Peter in John 21 you you have First you have the prayer for Peter's faith and you have the restoration of Peter and you feel somehow that because Peter denied Christ is somehow Gives him some type of a of a primacy.

What what what early church fathers for example? Interpreted John chapter 21 the way that the way that you are. I'd be interested in in in knowing John chapter 21. Yeah, you you mentioned the feeding the sheep.

Passage. Yeah, so feeding the sheep. Passage. What was it? It was only it was only given to To Peter correct didn't speak to everybody when he told him to feed the sheep. Yes, it can be looked at as restorative in nature, but such people as such as St. John Christos from.

Looked at it as him being restored not just a restorative in nature. But it was restored back to his place of honor that he had received before that. So yeah, I'm understanding that that thing for socialism says he received it.

He denied Christ. Christ comes back restores him to his place of honor and primacy amongst the Apostles and that's the.

Interpretation that he gives us. But does that mean that you are saying that Chris system viewed this as Establishing Peter as the as the primary.

As as establishing a papacy that st. Peter looked at or I'm sorry St. John Christos and looked at Peter as being the leader of the Apostles. Yes.

So but That but then that means that he viewed the Bishop of Rome as having Ultimate authority over the entire church as a result of that I mean, I'm just I'd need to point out that no matter what you do with Peter the Roman Catholic argument for authority requires not only that you find in these scattered passages a Primacy of Peter, but then you also have to make the leap that Peter then goes to Rome and Peter is the first bishop of Rome and the bishop of Rome receives from Peter this alleged authority and That it is passed down through those bishops of Rome.

So I think we can conclude that from history. Yes from historical sources, we can conclude that that's that's a long long chain of possibilities. I just wanted to let Cyril of Alexandria Respond to you on John 21 if anyone asked for what cause he asked Simon only Though the other disciples were present and what he means by feed my lambs and like we answered st Peter with the other disciples had been already chosen to the apostleship.

But because meanwhile Peter had fallen from the great fear he had thrice denied the Lord. He now heals him that was sick and exacts a threefold confession in place of his triple denial Contrasting the form with the latter and compensating the fault with the correction.

So it it would seem to me Especially in light of Acts 20 28 and other other indication other texts that there is no indication that only Peter is Told to shepherd God's flock nor that all others who shepherd the flock do so derivatively from Peter's supremacy.

That would be a major reading into the text of a concept That I would argue is coming from outside of the text of the New Testament so we have John 21 15 through 17 and We have Matthew 16 18, but you continue to speak of this whole New Testament Concept that drives your reading of of these texts.

Would these include Paul's? Rebuking of Peter when he is found to be guilty of not walking straight in accordance with the truth of the gospel in the book of Galatians or.

Peter having somebody else another apostle address him and Having him change his mind admit his error. I don't. It's not even really what would be considered. It would be considered more to be a disciplinary Matter during that in the New Testament.

I don't find that text to be a particular strong argument against papacy. I.

Don't think it's it's relevant to the papacy because I don't see the papacy in the New Testament. But it does if we're going to assert Certain aspects that papacy I think not walking straight in accordance of the gospel might be a little bit more than just a disciplinary thing.

But be that as it may what other texts then are there that? Provide this overriding context that leads you to believe that. Your particular interpretation which was not the majority.

Interpretation of the early church. Well, I don't think that's been proven. But I mean we can look at st. Cyprian. Who. Who who. I'm on John 21, you know, he says feed my sheep on him. He built the church and he gives the keys to feed the sheep.

And although he assigned the like power to all the Apostles yet. He founded a single chair. He established his own authority as a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity indeed others. Were that Peter was also but a promise he has given to Peter.

That's that's Cyprian. And how did Cyprian understand how to end?

Mr. Bell, sorry, how did mr. How did that martyr Bishop understand those words that he wrote? Did he not demonstrate? For example. And just just just just a question before I proceeded that who is the first Bishop of Rome to use Matthew 16 18 in his own defense, do you know.

Who is the Bishop of Rome? Who's the first?

Yeah, the first Bishop of Rome to use this this text as you're using it I'm not sure who the Bishop of Rome is the first one my mind my understanding is that according to J. Andy Kelly It was in fact Stephen who was the very Pope that Cyprian opposed and and specifically Repudiated his.

Not only his use of that text as you read for millions letter, which is a real scorcher in regards to Stephen, but The entire North African Church speaking through Cyprian and the Council of Carthage rebuked Stephen's attempts to expand his authority into the North African churches at that time, so One of the reasons that he did that Specifically was because he understood the Cathedral Petri.

Yes, he did believe that Stephen sat upon the the chair of Peter. But he believed that for million did and Cyprian did and every bishop in the church sat upon the chair of Peter and that it Was not in fact Centered in the city of Rome that of course has become the position of the Roman Catholic Church since then.

So if you're gonna go to Cyprian, then you need to recognize That Cyprian is a strong testimony Against the claim that the ancient church has always understood a primacy of the Bishop of Rome himself as The fulfillment of those texts.

That's I think of a fair reading of what he said.

That's I don't think that's entirely accurate because if I'm memory serves me, but I think that Think Cyprian was first of all ask folks even to intervene. If my memory serves me right, I don't think that the Pope imposed himself on thing I think Cyprian started off as.

Many times we see in the Eastern Church at the time because there's a love-hate relationship. From what I read in the history of the Eastern Church and the Western Church That they asked several there's there's several I can go through several times where they ask the Pope to intervene.

They send people to Rome to be judged and then when they get the answer back, sometimes they go along with it. Sometimes they don't.

Mr. Bell sorry. You you're you're speaking somewhat anachronistically when you speak of appealing to the Pope in point of fact the deacons of the Church of Rome Referred to Cyprian as Pope which I find interesting, but let me quote you the actual words the Seventh Council of Carthage.

Where we read these words for neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops? Nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience since every bishop According to the allowance of his liberty and power has his own proper right of judgment.

It can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. I understand that Cyprian That's not that's that wasn't Cyprian. That's not Cyprian. That's the Seventh Council of Carthage.

Yes, I know that St. Cyprian.

Opposed Rome, that's that's not that once again. No, no, no, he opposed Stephen you see you make a differentiation.

But he was the bishop of Rome, right?

But he he recognized that previous bishops of Rome had not been as shall we say imperious as.

Stephen himself was so you don't see any reason why St. Cyprian would appeal or Even to intervene. Why why not go to his own bishop? Why is he going to Rome?

Well, that's easy that that's very very easy. This happened many this happened many many times in church history where if you had a conflict you wanted to have as many and as influential churches on your side as you could possibly get and that's why you see and well, especially with Carthage being in the West.

You see this in the East all the time Jerusalem Antioch Constantinople there is a constant power struggles and everybody wants to have Rome on their side. Rome is the richest church in the world at that point in time and the most Influential because well all roads go to Rome.

It has the greatest ability of communication.

I don't think that's entirely historically accurate. Noble usurp Rome very quickly in the fourth in the in the end of the fourth century.