Instigator / Pro
18
1533
rating
9
debates
88.89%
won
Topic
#5931

The Bible and Early Church Tradition Affirm the Papacy as a Divinely Established Office

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
3
Better sources
6
6
Better legibility
3
3
Better conduct
3
3

After 3 votes and with 3 points ahead, the winner is...

CatholicApologetics
Parameters
Publication date
Last updated date
Type
Standard
Number of rounds
3
Time for argument
Two weeks
Max argument characters
30,000
Voting period
Two weeks
Point system
Multiple criterions
Voting system
Open
Contender / Con
15
1500
rating
4
debates
37.5%
won
Description

The ultimate goal of this debate is to advance the pursuit of truth. Regardless of who wins or loses, the real victor is the one who gains new knowledge.

In this debate, we will examine what Scripture—and the early Church’s tradition—have to say about the papacy: whether the office of the Pope, as Bishop of Rome, is truly divinely established as the successor to St. Peter. This discussion is not about the authenticity or validity of the Bible or Church Tradition in general, but rather to explore how biblical passages, alongside historical and patristic testimonies, support (or challenge) the notion that the papacy is a direct and God-ordained continuation of apostolic authority.

To ensure in-depth and free-flowing arguments, the maximum character limit is set to 30,000. This ample space allows for comprehensive exploration of Scripture, Church history, theological commentaries, and other relevant sources (though I don't suspect 30,000 characters will be needed).

1. For consistency, the NRSV Bible will be used as the primary reference when citing scripture.
2. In the final round, only counterarguments addressing previous points will be allowed; no new arguments may be introduced.
3. Failure to comply with Rule #2 will result in an automatic forfeiture.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Matthew 16:17-19 "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter (that is, Cephas, meaning 'rock'), and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
This is the thesis, pro needs to prove succession is logically implied in this passage, con needs to deny this. It is evident Peter, being the foundation/rock the church is built, is given a divine appointment by Christ. Con does not refute this. What is vague is if this creates the Papacy. If Con went harder against this, that the divine appointment of Peter does not equal the creation of the Papacy, then con wins. Pro ignites his position with saying, "the gates of Hell will not prevail against it" means the church is to exist continuously in union with its foundation. Pro narrowly wins in R2 with Main Point #1 and in the opening of the Conclusion. The Catholic logic holds in this tight theological debate.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Awesome debate. Pro, having the BoP, needed to defend both primacy and succession. Both sides agree that Jesus gave Peter a prominent position in the early church and that he had a special relationship with Peter (benefitting Pro), but also that succession is not explicitly laid out anywhere in the Bible (benefitting Con).

I think there are two key questions to be answered here. First, do the scriptures support the primacy of Peter? A lot of arguments here have to deal with how we ought to interpret Jesus establishing Peter as "the Rock" and appointing him as a shepherd. Again, it's clearly established that Jesus gave Peter a special position, but the question is whether that special position equates to *primacy* specifically, and Con does a good job shedding doubt on this by referring to other quotes about shepherding attributed to others and a quote from Origen about the "keys of the kingdom". Ultimately, this sort of scriptural back-and-forth is the sort to make my head spin, and I don't feel that either side conclusively proves their point. I consider this point a TIE.

Second question: do the scriptures and early church writings support succession from *Peter* specifically? Again, both sides agree that it's not enumerated specifically in the Bible, which benefits Con. A lot of early church writings are referenced here -- writings of Tertullian, Clement, Origen, etc., but I think the most important here is Creed 6 of the first council of Nicaea, which Con states shows the bishop of Alexandria as coexistent, equal power with the bishop of Rome (the Pope). Pro responds that "Canon 6 establishes Rome's authority as the standard for measuring Alexandria's regional jurisdiction" and that's basically the end of that discussion, but I think Con's argument remains plausibly correct even in view of Pro's brief response, and for as much as Pro states that the early church writings "clearly" establish the primacy of Rome, I think Con establishes enough reasonable doubt that this isn't fully proven, which is important because the Papacy being divinely established and having prime authority is exactly what Pro needed to prove. I consider CON to win this point.

Overall, Con wins.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

Two hours left and no votes. Guess I should take a look at this.

Since the resolution only deals with the "divine establishment" of the papacy, the specific powers of the pope aren't the main argument here. Even if Con is right about the pope becoming corrupt or not having as much authority as the Catholic Church claims, Pro makes a decent case that the office itself is said to be divinely established. So even if other offices of bishops have comparable authority, it would not negate Pro's case that the office of pope was also ordained as the successor to Peter. Con makes a good attempt to frame the debate, but as a voter, I can't veer too much from the description.

The main thread of the argument deals with succession, since it's generally agreed upon that Peter was selected by God, even if the other apostles were also selected by God. Pro cites Acts 1:20-26 where the apostles appointed successors. Con makes a point of the pope not being singled out, but they emphasize the role of bishops and deacons. Since the Bishop of Rome is a bishop, bishops being divinely established would seem to imply the bishop of Rome was as well. The term "pope" wasn't used, but I don't think the semantics are the sticking point. Pope here just refers to the bishop of Rome, and I think Pro could make the same case for really the bishop of anywhere. Given the agreement on general church authority, the pope just being a bishop at all is enough to satisfy the resolution.

I think Con's strongest case is when they argues that Pro must show "the Roman Church possesses a superiority of ordinary power over all other Churches." They focus on arguing against that specific statement, and if the description were different, they might have won this. However, Pro's case that "papacy is a direct and God-ordained continuation of apostolic authority" gives them a lot of leeway, since they don't have to defend every claim the Catholic Church makes about the pope, just that they have a continuation of apostolic authority. Con makes the case that "Rome AD 325 does not yet have full authority of all churches," but in this case, that's not what Pro has to prove.