The One Passage that Proves the Papacy (to Protestants)

welcome back to shus poy I'm Joe hesm

and I presently plan to present a

passage proving the papacy to

Protestants now I'm not going to pretend

I was able to do that in one take but I

wanted to make sure I got that mouthful

out for a good reason a lot of

non-catholic Christians believe the

entire doctrine of the papacy boils down

to one passage and one part of a passage

that it's all about Matthew 16 and it's

all about what it means when Jesus says

you are Peter and Upon This Rock I will

build my church I want to be clear I

think that is an important passage in

proving the papacy but as I point out in

my book Pope Peter defending the

church's most distinctive Doctrine in a

time of Crisis there's a better way to

go to present the papacy if you're

trying to explain this idea that may be

very foreign to someone not coming from

a Catholic background using just

biblical text so let's start with why I

wouldn't use Matthew 16 and then get

into the passage I would use instead so

in Matthew 16 to give a little bit of

context Simon Peter declares Jesus the

Christ the son of the Living God and

Jesus responds blessed are you Simon bar

Jonah son of Jonah for flesh and blood

is not revealed this to you but my

Father in heaven and I tell you you are

Peter and on this rock I'll build my

church and then literally it says and

the gates of Hades shall not Prevail

against it I will give you singular here

the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and

whatever you bind on Earth shall be

bound in heaven and whatever you loose

on Earth shall be loosed in heaven and

so to hear many people tell it both

Catholics and non-catholics frankly you

would imagine that the the entire

doctrine of the papacy is only defended

on the basis of this short passage or

even more specifically just on that line

you are Peter and on this rock I'll

build my church here's an example of the

way I hear it presented that whether

this is what the speakers mean or not

gives the impression that it's all just

about this passage that the entire

doctrine of the papacy is hinging on

these few verses the doctrine of

apostolic succession is based on Matthew

16 13- 20 this is Peter's confession of

the identity of Jesus and Jesus's

response Upon This Rock I will build my

church and the Gates of Hell will not

Prevail against it it has often been

suggested that Peter is the foundation

of the church I'd have to say if it were

so it would be a very wobbly building

according to Roman teaching Peter is the

rock of Matthew 16 that Christ in

conferring a Primacy upon Peter intends

this to be understood to apply to

Peter's successors as well and that

hence Christ Is In this passage

instituting the office of Pope for the

Christian church so that's actually the

first thing I would point to and why I

wouldn't start with Matthew 16 because

many Protestants are under the

impression that the entire doctrine of

the papacy is only from Matthew 16 if

they've ever heard Catholics describe

the papacy they've probably heard of

this and so it's LED people like Dave

Hunt who is a fairly anti

Catholic and kind of unreliable author

to make the claim that today it is

claimed that Christ's statement to Peter

made him the first pope The Rock in

which the one true church was built and

that the Pope's Authority today and the

Catholic religion over which he presides

stands and falls upon that assertion now

I'll just say at the outside this isn't

true that whatever you think is meant by

The Rock in Matthew 16 you can believe

in the papacy or deny the papacy they

they Doctrine does not in fact

exclusively turn on what we mean by Upon

This Rock and so let's talk about that

who or what is the rock of Matthew 16

this is the second reason I wouldn't

start with this passage is that it's

kind of a complicated question it's

complicated in part on the Protestant

side because many Protestants are eager

to affirm basically any interpretation

other than the seemingly obvious one

that the rock is Peter so for instance

here's Mike Winger their case for their

Authority that single pillar that holds

up all the doctrine of the church we

declare it therefore it's true well that

pillar is based on two passages one is

Matthew 16 we looked at that last week

and showed that whatever it does teach

it certainly does not teach that Peter

was the first pope so I call that the

kind of anything but Peter ex aesus it's

like we know Catholics take this

interpretation so whatever it means it

just doesn't mean that and there's

actually a number of Protestants who

make arguments like that about 100 years

ago a very popular Protestant preacher

and Scholar at Robertson uh Southern

Baptist he argues that it's not

perfectly clear how Jesus means the

figure to be applied when he says Upon

This Rock I'll build my church we don't

really know what he means and he says he

could mean himself if he pointed to

himself that this rock could mean Jesus

if he pointed to himself and that really

crucial detail was just left off or

something second he says Jesus could

mean Peter himself by this rock as the

representative of the 12 and is

confessing his faith in Christ so he can

be the rock as long as it's on behalf of

all 12 or third he says Jesus could mean

the confession of trust made by Peter as

The Rock so the confession could be

Peter's confession it could be all 12 or

it could be Jesus the one obvious

reading that is excluded there of course

is that The Rock means Peter in some

unique and special sort of way that

there's a reason that Simon has his name

changed to Peter and not all 12 so I

would just say at the outset it's a

complicated question to start with

Matthew 16 because a lot of Protestants

don't know what they think the passage

does mean they just know what they think

the passage doesn't mean or maybe

they'll have a very particular idea

they're convinced it means Peter's

confession of Faith or they're convinced

the rock is Jesus doesn't matter that

those two views it's hard to see how

they go together we'll acknowledge that

because the other group of people who

have sometimes confusing interpretations

on this passage are the church fathers

themselves the early church fathers were

open to a wide range of meanings to this

passage this is is a strong point to

make if you think that the entire case

for the papacy is going to be made or

broken by getting the identity of the

Rock right you should know that the

early Christians took different

interpretations and didn't seem to think

it was super important which one was

right so I want to say at the outset

here there's sometimes a mythology

around this even among the well educated

that the one interpretation the early

Christians didn't really take especially

in the East was that it was about Peter

so here's Pastor Jordan Cooper making

this pretty common kind of historical

error the way that Rome interprets this

and this is by the way not the way the

early EST strch fathers interpret this

passage which I think is very

interesting and there's reasons why the

Eastern fathers particularly have never

held to this interpretation of of this

particular passage so that's a little

confusing but it seems what he's saying

is there's this Roman interpretation and

that's a common description of the

interpretation of Peter as The Rock is

the Roman view that there's this r

interpretation but this wasn't taken by

most of the church fathers or anyone in

the East and neither of those claims are

true uh so Ed or Edward suchinsky who is

actually an orthodox I believe former

Catholic he's married to a Catholic his

kids I know he's raising them Orthodox

he said that in interviews before so