That is all really interesting...but denying the true "subject" of that word from Jesus about who [He] was (rather than who Peter was), does not change anything. Peter was the "object" of that word, not the "subject." Nonetheless, you, nor any man, nor any belief, can remove the revelation of the Father from Jesus' word and replace it (against Christ) with "flesh and blood." Nor have you.
"Jesus answered and said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it."
What you have missed, is that Jesus referred to two different things, and you have confused the two.
"Flesh and blood" means no human revealed to Peter who Jesus was, but the Father. Jesus is not putting down "flesh and blood", and He is not putting down Peter's flesh and blood, that's your Calvinoid/Manichaeism talking. Jesus always refers to the
person of Peter and you can't see that with your reformist welding goggles on.
I see you haven't refuted any of the Protestant scholars I've listed, that you seem to have missed.
"Did Christ establish the Papacy?" Now, before Protestants and Catholics can reasonably discuss this issue, we must first determine what the Papacy is; and, perhaps even more importantly, what it is not. And I point this out for a specific reason. For example, I'm sure that my Protestant brethren in the audience will readily admit that the term "Papacy" (or "Pope") carries a negative, if not utterly distasteful, connotation in the Protestant mind. Indeed, to a Protestant, "a Pope" is generally seen as some pompous, autocratic dictator wearing splendid robes and a "pointy hat," who demands that all Christians bow to his decrees without question. And this, I'm sure we can all agree, is the predominate image of a Pope in the English-speaking world. Yet, do we Catholics believe that this is what Christ established? Not at all. Rather, we see the Papacy in an entirely different light --a positive light, which is unaffected by any resentment stemming from the 16th Century Protestant reformation.
Now, this is not to say that the Protestant perspective has absolutely no validity. On the contrary, it is quite valid to maintain that the Popes of Rome
have acted in an autocratic and dictatorial
style at many times in Christian history. However, that
style of Papacy does not define the Papacy itself; nor does it address the Papacy's existence in the early Church.
And I call this to your attention so that we may not be misled by negative preconceptions --negative preconceptions which are consistently exploited by anti-Catholic authors such as James White, William Webster, Robert Zins, and others, who try to apply the Protestant, "dictatorial" image of the Papacy to the ancient Church, and then ask why we don't see "a Pope" in the New Testament or in the early centuries of Christianity. Well, to answer their question, we do not see what
they define as "a Pope" in the New Testament or in the early centuries of Christianity because
that style of Papacy did not yet exist. However, the Papacy itself (properly defined) was there from the beginning; and it existed from the moment Christ first commissioned Peter.
Papacy is properly defined (as Christ created it): “
The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.”
Papacy Debate: Mark Bonocore vs. Jason Engwer
