The Best *Biblical* Defence of the Papacy 

This is great! I love how thorough and analytical Jimmy Akin is!

This channel should get a million subscriber

As a related matter, as Catholics we need to remember that popes are people too. To my mind, the many issues some of us are having with the current pope have much to do with the simple fact that Pope Francis is the first pope from outside Europe. He comes from South America, a region where Catholicism has a much different perspective than we’ve gotten used to.

This is beyond wonderful!!!!!

This is apologetics GOLD!

I see protestants using their never ending different interpretation of what each word means, but I do not see them claiming to have Peter, or his successors, or the keys. Also, since they deny infallibility, why should anyone pay attention to what they say since their interpretation is just one of many

Awesome content 👍

I would like to see Jimmy Akin interact with Suan Sonna's work on the papacy.

If Peter was the rock that the church was to be built upon, would it not be more accurate for Jesus to say “ Thou art Peter and upon YOU I will build my church. But Jesus said “ upon THIS rock I will build my church The word THIS rock would seem to refer to something other then Peter.

Its probably the best argument I've heard so far and I'd have to think about it a bit more. My initial impression is this: 1. Petros and Petra: Since there are many possibilities this argument can't be used as a proof text. To many unanswered questions. 2. The comparison that Peter is a rock but the confession, i.e. Jesus is the cliff is not a put down. He wasn't being charitable at all. That was to bad. Peter wouldn't have batted an eye if Jesus said, "Peter you are surely a rock but the church is founded on me who is a mountain." Peter would have said, "duh." 3. The formula he presented began with Peter being called blessed, followed by the "upon this rock" section, followed by the keys section. The argument was made that it would make sense to go positive - negative - positive. That what followed blessed must then be the blessing. But later when he looked at it from the second angle, Jimmy says that the fact that God revealed the confession to Peter is what was the blessing. Take that into account, you have a different formula. Peter you are blessed because you received the revelation from God. Peter your confession is what my church will be founded upon. In this church you will have the right to bind and loose. So put another way, Peter's blessing. The foundation of the church. Peter's roll in it as a person of authority.

Was looking for a channel which refuted certainly the argumemts against protestants

Omg! That's awesome!

Growing up Protestant, I commonly heard the Πέτρος/πέτρα argument- that if "Πέτρος" is "ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ", Matthew would have used Πέτρος/πέτρος in both instances. As the argument goes, this rendering better serves, 'You are Peter, and on this rock/stone [which you are] I will build my church.' This argument asserts that Matthew's implementation of the different words indicates he intended to distinguish the meaning of Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ. Consequently, it can read, 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock - Christ/Peters confession] that I will build my church.' While this argument fits nicely with the New Testament theme that Christ is πέτρα, the clausal connection Matthew used makes it difficult to hold this interpretation (antithetical parallelism). In v.18, Matthew utilises the conjunction "καί" to join two dependent clauses. Since "καί" is a marker of an additive relation, "ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ..." is adding information to "σὺ εἶ Πέτρος". However, the above rendering 'You are Peter [little stone], but it is on this [much greater solid rock]...’ works better with a marker of contrast. In Greek, ἀλλά is a typical marker of contrast, and Matthew used this conjunction in v.17 to contrast “flesh and blood” with “My Father who is in heaven”. In English, ἀλλά renders "but," "on the other hand," "instead," or "on the contrary." Arguably, Matthew's use of "καί" supports the interpretation that Πέτρος and πέτρᾳ form a relationship of addition (synthetic parallelism) rather than contrast.

Ave Christus Rex. Ave Maria.

Christianity isn't about about formality, but that is always Catholics' and Orthodox Christians' first argument against Protestant denominations. The foundation of the Catholic Church is the Nicene Creed, not the Bible.

I like the pipe rack in the background. You know that the "Owner" knows what he is taking about. ;)

Gospel Of John Chapter 1. John The Baptist, Andrew, Philip, and Nathaniel all testify to Jesus Christ as Messiah. John & Andrew do this before Peter even meets Jesus, who then calls him Cephas-Peter. Andrew tells his brother Simon-Peter that he has found the Messiah along with few others. So why then should Peter get any special blessing or title? Just one of many points that doesn't align for the catholic stance on this issue.

Do we not refer to the Church as Holy Mother Church? The feminine rock.

PETER as Shepherd and first Pope: Scriptural evidence and the structure of the primitive Church make it absolutely undeniable that Christ chose Peter and that Peter was first among the twelve. Depending on the translation, Peter is mentioned 195 times. The closest is John (the beloved disciple) at just 29 times. The rest even less. Consider: Jesus entered Peter’s house. (Matthew 8:14) Jesus changed Simon's name to Peter. (John 1:42) Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven. (Matthew 16:19) Jesus declared Peter to the the rock. (Matthew 16:18) Jesus made Peter shepherd. (John 21:15-17) Jesus told Peter to strengthen his brothers (Luke 22:32) Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter. (Matthew 17:24-27) Jesus preached from Peter's boat. (Luke 5:3) Jesus told Peter to "Follow me" (John 21:19) Jesus called only Peter to walk on the water. (Matthew 14:29) Jesus predicted Peter's three-fold denial. (Matthew 26:34) Jesus predicted Peter's repentance and three-fold affirmation. (Luke 22:32) Jesus prophesied only Peter's manner of death. (John 21:18-19) Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times. (Matthew 18:21-22) Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane. (Mark 14:37) Peter is always listed first of the Apostles. (Matthew 10:2, Luke 6:14, Acts 1:13) Peter was first to confess Jesus as Messiah. (Matthew 16:18) Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration. (Matthew 17:4, Mark 9:5, Luke 9:33) Peter pointed out the withered fig tree. (Mark 11:21) Peter entered the tomb first - John deferring to him. (Luke 24:12, John 20:3-4)) Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas. (Acts 1:15-26) Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost. (Acts 2:14-36) Peter was released from prison by the Angel. (Acts 12:6-11) Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council. (Acts 4:8-12) Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Sapphira. (Acts 5:1-10) Peter's shadow healed. (Acts 5:15) Peter declared the sin of Simony. (Acts 8:18-23) Peter revealed the salvation of Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem. (Acts 11:1-18) The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter. (Acts 10:3-8) The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them. (Acts 10:44-45) At the empty tomb, the Angel said, "Go tell His disciples, and Peter." (Mark 16:7) Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple. (John 20:2) The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter. (Acts 10:9-16) Peter's words silence the first council in Jerusalem. (Acts 15:7-12) Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain. (Galatians 1:18) Peter was given the revelation of the end of the world. (2 Peter 3:10-11) Peter taught that Paul’s words were easily twisted. (2 Peter 3:16) Peter taught that baptism now saves you (1 Peter 3:21) And many other references. One may deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing ignorance or denial of scripture and history to do so.

Yet-Peter never claimed to be the chief shepherd-vicar-pope of the entire church. The apostles never claimed he was the chief shepherd-vicar of the church. Never claimed for himself as the rock on which the church is founded on. Nor did the apostles. The office of a papacy (supreme bishop leader, chief shepherd of the entire church) is never mentioned as a church office in any of the offices of the church described in the New Testament. See I Corinthians 12:28-29; Ephesians 2:20-21, 3:11; I Timothy 3:1-13 and Titus 1:5-9

The real issue that Jimmy did not bring up is the specific Greek word for “this” when Jesus says “upon this rock I will build my church.” It has a specific meaning that the word “this” is addressing is not the previous noun but the previous subject not in the immediate text. Matthew uses this same Greek word earlier in Matthew chapter 7 when he talks about building a house on the rock. The same Greek word for “this” refers to a previous subject not the previous immediate noun. It is also used this way in the Septuagint, such as in Numbers and in Judges. So when Jesus says “this rock” it doesn’t refer to the immediate previous noun which would be Peter. Rather, it would refer to the previous subject which would be Peter’s declaration of faith which was revealed to him by God, which is why he is blessed since he wouldn’t have been able to figure this out on his own. So, the rock is not Peter himself, but rather the revelation God gave Peter that Jesus was the Christ the son of the living God. I was glad to hear that Jimmy admitted that the purpose of the keys was to bind and loose, because when Protestants bring up the fact that this same binding and loosing is extended to the rest of the church in Matthew 18:18, which would mean that the church also has the keys not just Peter, this protestant argument is often rejected by Catholics. But now, we have a well renowned Catholic who is the senior apologist at Catholic Answers admitting that protestants are right on this issue that the entire church, not just Peter, has possession of the keys. Therefore, since Peter is not the sole possession of the keys, he cannot be head of the entire church, since the rest of the church who professes that Jesus is the Christ the son of the living God are also in possession of the keys.

Does anyone want to mention that there wasn't agreement in the early church fathers on Matthew 16, and you don't see anyone taking it to mean an ongoing papacy.

There is none.

In Matthew 16 Christ is not talking about who Peter is and making him supreme head over the entire Church, no but rather He is asking His disciples who they think He is. Therefore Peter answered Christ's question correctly by declaring that He is the Christ, and Jesus in response declares Peter's faith openly by saying on this Rock I will build my Church... You could say on this faith I will build my Church. My point is, that the rock in which Jesus acclaimed that the Church would be built upon is the faithful confession of (Him), Christ... in this regard we all are to follow this same example of the declaration that Peter confessed.. that of Jesus who is the Christ. Jesus is the True Rock and He is the Christ, when we profess this... this is the good and soild foundation, (the Rock), in which the Church is built upon. This is the same faith of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (Israel). The Church therefore is a continuation of that faith.. of Israel. By this we are to be a Royal Priesthood and a Holy Nation.

Biblical defense? I think that's an oxymoron.

Peter may or may not be the “Rock” it’s irrelevant, simply and completely irrelevant because the authority claimed by the the Papacy 1,000 years later was never claimed by Peter or assigned to him by the other Apostles and Disciples from Pentecost to 1054. Never. Your efforts to recreate a cultural, historical and complex context a millennium or two later is quite myopic as it requires you to ignore a thousand years of practice that included the Bishop of Rome. Not to mention it’s a slim historic argument that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome and even slimmer to identify any successor or individual that he proclaimed Bishop of Rome. The City with much firmer authority held by Peter and his successors is Clearly Antioch not Rome. So, the Protestant effort to legalistically and scholastically apply authority to Peter through focusing on a single or few Scripture verses is just as incomplete and fraught with error as the Efforts of Luther and Calvin. What all this further requires is the complete disregard of far greater mentioned and perfectly clear Scripture message denouncing the seriously damaging sin of schism that firmly rests with Pope Leo and Rome.

It is impossible to defend the history ot the catholic church with the truth. Jesus has already judged tbe catholic church, the great harlot, in Revelation chapter 17. The rock is The Word of God, the only tbing that will endure. Jesus said " Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." Go away Akin, your opinions are patently false.They are simply propaganda.

I didn't know that Rome was lesd than Antioch. I disagree You are aware of Against Heresy St Ireneus. Book 3. Chp 2/3.