What is the Evidence for Papal Primacy? 

I love how gentle and soft-spoken Jimmy is! 💕

I love the wording here. So detailed and clear.

The complete defense for Papacy! Thanks Jimmy!

Hi Catholic Answer team, I am a Catholic, Would you put my short writing in the Catholic Answer's post, and edited. Question: Does St. Peter have primacy over the other apostles? Answer: According to Matthew 10:1-2: "The first, Simon who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother..." The word "first" (Protos=Chief) here refers to a hierarchical order. St. Matthew would have known that St. Andrew is St. Peter's older brother, so why is Peter listed first? This word (First=Protos=Chief) exists for a reason, just as Judas is listed at the end for a reason. Additionally, St. Matthew provides further details about the changing of Simon's name to Peter to remind us of St. Peter's confession in Matthew 16:18 and his roles later in the Acts of the Apostles: "18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." ### Conclusion: Yes, St. Peter has primacy over the other apostles, and so do St. Peter's successors.

A superman tee-shirt !

Really nice and concise video

I wish to know what are the qualifications that these people, like Jimmy Akin and Tim Staple, must have to become recognized Catholic apologists and to represent the Faith

Jesus does bid Peter to feed His sheep as an act of love and service to the Lord, but let’s remember that after all, the sheep are the Lord’s, not Peter’s. If anything, we might say that Peter’s place was first among equals. Recall as well that Peter was rebuked and corrected by the Apostle Paul. The Church is by necessity Apostolic. It is not merely Papal. Christ alone is the Head of His Church, His Bride.

“...And as the patriarch has authority to do all he wishes in a fitting manner in such things as are beneath his authority, so the patriarch of Rome has authority over all patriarchs, like the blessed Peter over all the community, for he who is in Rome also keeps the office of Peter in all the Church. He who transgresses against these things the ecumenical synod places under anathema” (Memra 9; Risha 8) Mar Abdisho of Soba 14th century canonist (from the Assyrian Church)

Isn’t Jesus the rock that the church was built on?

"Do you love me more than these?" I never saw the distinction that is made here between Peter and the other Apostles. Very interesting. Hmm..

how about the temporal power of the Pope? is that in the Bbile?

The concept that Peter is the rock in Matthew 16:18 is not a unanimous position by some of the most influential Christian thinkers of the first 400 years. We need to stop pushing this narrative. Peter’s confession and God (and therefore Christ) being called the Rock is what the Church is built on (God is the Rock - Deuteronomy 32:4, 15, 18, 32:30-31; 2 Samuel 23:3; Psalm 89:26; Isaiah 17:10; 30:29; 44:8; Habakkuk 1:12; 1 Corinthians 10:1-5 ) Augustine of Hippo “Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.” 
 Jerome “The one foundation which the apostolic architect laid is our Lord Jesus Christ. Upon this stable and firm foundation, which has itself been laid on solid ground, the Church of Christ is built .. for the Church was founded upon a rock ... upon this rock the Lord established his Church; and the apostle Peter received his name from this rock.... The rock is Christ, Who gave to His apostles, that they also should be called rocks, 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.” 
 John Chrysostom “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church;' that is, on the faith of his confession.” 
 Basil of Seluecia “Now Christ called this confession a rock, and he named the one who confessed it 'Peter,' perceiving the appellation which was suitable to the author of this confession. For this is the solemn rock of religion, this the basis of salvation, this the wall of faith and the foundation of truth: 'For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Christ Jesus.”

Satan always tried but always fail because Christ is Lord of all, the Pope is Christ best man and gave him the keys of heaven and the gate of hell will never prevail against that truth....

Wow, the host really missed an opportunity there w/ the first guest to say "Hey, Jude!"

You did not show in scripture that Peter was ever in Rome never mind proving he established a church there. I am a protestant and I always believed the catholic view, so I was coming here to get an answer because there is no evidence in the Bible. You failed dismally, you should not have posted this if you dont know the answer.

Peter was to go to the Jews, and Paul to the Gentiles....what is up with that...

The early jewish christian church never acknowledge a hierarcy of superior infalable bishop in a singular sense nor does the bible reflect a papacy this includes the church rome so No Aquila and Priscila where never under a catholic papacy leadership called pope on another note rome was not even among the seven churches to be recievers of st john divine revelation nor did he give us a word concerning the papacy as niether st paul to the gentiles to acknowledge a infalible papacy rather rebuked peter during his ministry to the gentiles

Romans 4:4-5 New International Version (NIV) 4 Now to the one who works, wages are not credited as a gift but as an obligation. 5 However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness.

Ok , so They Rock is JESUS CHRIST; get this: There is only 1 Rock 😃, Peter was a Pastor for Jerusalem; Paul was sent to the gentiles; jimmy; Jesus went back for peter because peter went/fell back to :Fishing; just like JESUS will convince you, Jimmy, to Come back to your Father; not on earth 🌍, but your Father in heaven; Peter answered [yes jesus , I love you] The Greek Word “Love” used by Peter was different than the The Greek Word That Jesus used for LOVE. Agape ; context; teach the Bible ; Jesus is The Only Name under heaven given to men by which we can be saved . Amen 🙏🏽

Can it be that at Peters profession of Faith the Rock referred to is Both Christ supremely and Peter Lesser as foundation of the Church?

Is that........ Milo....???

The term ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑ (Church) itself used by Christians from the apostolic period to describe their communities , excludes the existence of a monarch within its body. Suppose though that Peter was given authority all over the Church,why should the bishop of Rome be considered as his successor and not the bishops of Alexandria or Antioch whose churches were also founded by Peter according to the same Holy tradition or evenmore the bishop of Jerusalem founded by Peter and all the apostoles on The Pentecost day? There are just hints about Peters special role,while st John the Divine is officially entrusted by Chtrist himself with the protection of His Holly Mother that is with the protection of the Church.,why not considering him as pilar of the Church and universal vicar?

Why do Catholics Answers disabled comments on their postings such as is the Norvus Ordo mass Valid. As found in Sacred Scripture in the book of Apocalypse 22 Cowards shall not enter the Kingdom.Disabling comments falls into this reality.

Why hijacking Apostle Peter's person just in order to have some temporary premenence? Don't you find it too little?

What is the Biblical evidence for papal primacy? Answer: there is no such evidence. The Catholic Church is good at making up lies.

I get the point about Peter having a special role, not a superior role, but there is no evidence of passing Peter's role to a successor because the apostles believed that the end was coming in their lifetime.

Isaiah seems to talk about Jesus, not Peter, using words also found in Revelation 3:7.

Peter was not the primer of apostles instead all apostles had the grace of holy spirit and it is clear that in the chapter who Jesus speaks about his church which would built-in peter's but in stone of peter's homology that time does not mean that he built the church above the peter's name. This is a misunderstanding of Pope and he thought that is the only one who represents the god in the earth, that's ridiculous!!!

1) But Jesus also call Peter "satan" in a case. 2) Paul had a more special role than Peter. 3) Peter first founded the church of Antioch, not the church of Rome.

Our Lord knew what He was doing when He sent St Peter back to Rome on the Apian Way (yeah not in the bible). After St Peter's death he was buried on Mount Vaticano upon which St. Peter's cathedral was built. Co-incident? I don't think so!

Peter was always second, behind James the Just.

«Rock=Peter=Church foundation» is a semantical logical fallacy. The Catholics view the word “Rock” as it is, and in this fashion draw their logic directly to the conclusion that Peter is the foundation of the Church, because it serves their idea of leadership. But in fact the word “Rock” is a biblical metaphor which means “faith” or “confession of faith” and also “Christ” Himself. It is very easy to see, especially with a searchable online Bible. Just type in the word “rock” and it will give you all the verses including that word. You will see for yourself what it means. Then, apply that meaning to the following passage without taking it out of the context: Jesus asks who the apostles think He is. Peter confesses faith that Jesus is the Messiah. Jesus gives Peter a metaphorical name reflecting the nature of his faith and then says that that on this confession of faith He will build His Church. In the same manner James and John were called the “Sons of Thunder” not because they had any connection to the weather but to the the nature of their fiery faith. Also, in the Sermon on the Mountain Jesus directly says that whoever builds his house on the “rock” will withstand the storms of the world as opposed to those who builds it on “sand”. He is obviously not talking about Peter, but about following the correct or incorrect faith. Now, regarding the keys. Peter is the key holder, but he does not hold it alone - other apostles were given it too a few paragraphs later and they got it not from Peter, but from Christ, so there is no succession in the key holding among the apostles. Because Peter was the first to receive the keys, he is what we call “First among Equals”. It means honor, not actual management power. Besides, anyone who googles what that position entitles will see that it is NOT the position of management. Its average salary is $10 per hour. Any traditional monastery has this position and by no means this person is the Abbot himself. It is an important position, but it is rather a logistics, servant position. Apostles are Christ’s servants. They have the power of the keys to open the gates of heaven through the sacraments of the Church, but they don’t own the Church. It is like to say that the monastery key holder owns the monastery and dictates the rules of it. Only the founder and Abbot of the monastery establishes its rules. Christ is the founder and the Abbot, NOT Peter. And since when did a key holder would act as a vicar to the Abbot? That insults and undermines the position of the Queen of Heaven and Earth - the Mother of God. If anyone is really a Christs vicar that is Her. So again, the Catholic logic here is separated from Tradition, Scriptures and common logic itself. The rest is just irrelevant. The Holy Scriptures and history of the Church itself clearly shows that Peter was not the one and only head of the Church. At the first ever apostolic Council in Jerusalem while apostle Peter does have an honorary word, it is the apostle James who draws the rules for the new converts. Besides, according to the apostle Paul, Peter was appointed as the apostle to the circumcised. His writings are directed to the Jews, while apostle Paul wrote to the pagans, most famously, the Romans. While there was an important Jewish community in Rome, most of its parish were pagan Roman converts, so the founders of the Roman Church are BOTH apostle Paul and apostle Peter. That means that apostolic succession of the Church of Rome cannot belong to apostle Peter alone. He did not and could not establish that Church himself. And finally, if Roman papal primacy was such an important and saving ecclesiological doctrine, it would be established right away in the Apostolic Canons and the Creed. But there is nothing like that. The Canons rule number one says that two or three bishops establish a bishop, and the rule 34: “The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all.” That is the Orthodox Church ecclesiology - the Church is build as a network of equal bishops and not by a single person, and different nations have their own heads (Patriarchs) who work with others in consent. But the Roman Pope doctrine claims that he is the sole authority. That is simply against the very foundations of the Christian Church. And the Creed says that we believe in the Apostolic Church (That is, the Church build on the “foundation of apostles”). Not in the Church of Peter. That is the Orthodox perspective, if you wondered. You are welcome.

The papacy claim is very problematic both exegetically and historically. That’s why you don’t see such claims in the first centuries of the Christian church. The Orthodox Church is the true historical church.

So many different interpretations. I wonder why the Lord left some things unclear. Maybe it's a faith issue. sigh....

wow! what an amazingly horrible interpretation and leap from what the bible actually says.

Make the Holy Mass true to its Nature. No Hype: Please, don't make the Catholic mass like a carnival. Make it solemn . That may show the modern misunderstanding of what the Holy mass about. Don't get into the hype that it is a banquet of merriment and pomposity. That kind of interpretation may only invite scandalous behavior, homosexual gaity, and the result is that some Catholics may fall away; and that would be the the fault of the church and the Lord wouldn't like that kind of change of behavior. So be careful. Don"t abuse the sanctity of the Holy mass or the church in general.

weak

I got this one thing to say since Catholics love their doctrine of primacy so much Quit trying to to recall the Pope.hes your guy anyone who criticizes the Pope criticizes the see of Peter and more importantly Jesus.thats ur doctrine in a nutshell. Anyone who dislikes Francis and is against him is no different than Martin Luther.

These are the most naive and dishonest interpretations of the text. Change the t-shirt!

Very nice. The interesting this that papal authority is based on misconceptions/misinterpretations of biblical texts that don’t take a very high reading level to understand correctly. I’m looking for reasons to become Catholic, and the papacy just isn’t biblical, no matter how hard you try.