Hey, Read your post "On the Antiquity of Papal Supremacy". As someone brought up Protestant I feel offended... kidding, loved the article. I had thought about a similar issue in the past, your post reminded me of that, and in general I’m just glad to see more philosophy and theology on the Lainchan webring.

First, I do agree that from scripture you get the sense that Christ established a church and that he made Peter the leader or pope of it. Further: "Simon Peter answered, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' 'Good for you, Simon son of John!' answered Jesus. 'For this truth did not come to you from any human being, but it was given to you directly by my Father in heaven. And so I tell you, Peter: you are a rock, and on this rock foundation I will build my church, and not even death will ever be able to overcome it. I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven; what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven.' Then Jesus ordered his disciples not to tell anyone that he was the Messiah." The part "what you prohibit on earth will be prohibited in heaven, and what you permit on earth will be permitted in heaven" feels pretty damning to me and seems like it gives Peter papal supremacy. I googled around a bit and found the translation is a bit awkward. A more accurate version might be "Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven..." This suggests heaven comes first and earth follows. In other words, Petrus' role is declaring the will of heaven, he declares what God’s rules are, he doesn’t determine them.

Second, I was curious if there are any references that Peter transmitted these "powers" to the next pope, and that this pope then transmitted it to the next one, and so on? I feel like this is rather important.

All denominations would generally agree that their view over papal supremacy was believed by at least the apostles, if not the early church (1 st-3rd century). If it can be proven that the apostles believed in papal supremacy then the new testament was written by Catholics, and it raises the question of where they got that doctrine if not from Jesus (“He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me” - Luke 10:16). If the early church fathers believed in papal supremacy then that raises the question of where they got that doctrine, if not from the apostles. Although heresy did exist in the first to third centuries, as proven by the existence of Gnosticism (no other known heresies existed at the time), Gnosticism was the result of outside Hellenistic influence and a minority of the church that believed in it. One could argue that the early church could simply misunderstand the Bible, but that would ruin the credibility of Christianity since the compilation of the Bible and the spreading of the Christian faith would therefore have been done by people who collectively misunderstood a very core aspect to Christianity. The new testament, while written by the apostles and their close associates, was ultimately compiled in the 300s, and one of the factors in compiling books of the new testament was if early Christian writers and the majority of Christian churches accepted those books. This therefore means that the validity of the Bible itself relies on the validity of the early church. Furthermore, God gives humanity free will to be Christian and/or believe whatever they want, but how can that free will exist if all of Christianity was completely wrong for such a long and foundational period of time? The entire religion would have no leg to stand on. This is why God frequently interacted with the Israelites in the old testament. This heuristic therefore concludes with saying that the question of whether Catholicism is true or not rests on the basis of whether the early church believed in papal supremacy

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times... For example, the Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul... has handed down the tradition to us through the succession of its bishops. - Chapter 3, Book III of Against Heresies by Irenaus of Lyons (180 AD) Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who... assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul... and by pointing out the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops.” - Chapter 4, Book III of Against Heresies by Irenaus of Lyons (180 AD) Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called ‘the rock on which the Church should be built,’ who also obtained ‘the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ with the power of ‘loosing and binding in heaven and on earth’? ... Christ Himself delivered to the apostles, and they to the Churches, the tradition of the truth. - Chapter 20, Prescription Against Heretics by Tertullian (200 AD) If you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us. How happy is that Church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! ... Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first bishop] shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men. - Chapter 21, Prescription Against Heretics by Tertullian (200 AD) And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?" - Section 4, On the Unity of the Church by Cyprian of Carthage (250 AD) The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth... If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him [Christ] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." - 1st epistle of Clement of Rome, 1:1, 59:1 (est. to have been made some time before 70 AD) You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first conferred on Peter, the head of the apostles, and that chair is held in unity with all the churches, so that he who breaks this unity is ashamed by his own conscience. - Section 2, Book II, Against the Donatists by Optatus of Milevis (367 AD) The holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church...’ The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church. - Decree of the council of Rome by Pope Damascus I (382 AD)

Third, this is not a counter but something I feel more strongly supports Catholicism over other denominations, and that is ecumenical councils. These are meetings of bishops and cardinals, often by the wish of a pope, to decide Christian doctrine. For example, the Council of Ephesus regarding the issue of the Virgin Birth. I always felt that because the Trinity includes the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is directly with believers, especially in gatherings, like in: "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." Matthew 18:20 And they advise with each other for hours, days, even weeks before coming to a conclusion. The Holy Spirit wouldn’t just stand by and let the decision go wrong. Though to some extent this argument can also be made for the Reformation, though Luther being an individual actor in the beginning makes that claim weaker.

Fourth, since someone brought up Protestants I need to defend my denomination, at least against this claim: "Schismatic/heretic ecclesial communities like the Protestant and Orthodox churches require their members to fully understand the entire Bible for them to be saved." I would say this is the exact opposite of what Luther tried to do with the Reformation, and from which the Protestant movement comes. Though maybe I am a bit biased from my denomination, I always saw the biggest distinction between Catholic and Protestant (besides papal supremacy) as the former believing that good works and faith are required, while the latter believes only faith is necessary (Sola fide). The Protestant position makes a lot more sense to me, since God is so beyond us, we are like ants before him. No amount of good works would ever be enough to justify God's grace. In fact, even thinking that good works have something to do with it seems like blasphemy. You are presuming that it is to some extent in your power to earn God's grace, when clearly, for God to grant grace is in his purview and his alone. Therefore the only way we can be saved is by faith alone. Only God can decide to give us grace and forgiveness.

‘And I heard a voice from heaven saying, “Write this: Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord henceforth.’ “Blessed indeed,” says the Spirit, ‘that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow them!’ – Revelation 14:13 So also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is dead. - James 2:17 You see that a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. - James 2:24 Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. - Matthew 7:21 He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. - Romans 2:6-8 If you love me, you will keep my commandments. - John 14:15

Oh, and since you like writing about Christianity, I have an issue you could either turn into a post or respond to directly. Here's the problem: If we look at the global distribution of Christianity, it's vastly different from country to country. For example, in places like the Vatican, nearly 100% of people are Christian. In countries like France or Germany, it’s around 50%. In places like China, only about 5% are Christians. Why is the distribution so uneven? If God were truly just, wouldn’t everyone have the same chance? Also, why was there only one Messiah in Jerusalem? Why couldn’t there have been a messiah for every country? That would’ve seemed at least a bit fairer. I understand that the Jews had a special connection to God through the Old Testament, but why did they have that connection in the first place? Why were the Jews chosen, and not all of humanity? In general, I struggle with many aspects of Christianity that make God seem unfair. If we imagine God as Anselm describes, the greatest possible being, possessing all properties in their maximal form(although I do not agree with this, see), then especially fairness and justice should be maximized. But they don’t appear to be. And even if we reject Anselm’s thesis and say God doesn't have to be maximally fair and just, that still feels wrong. I haven’t heard a satisfying answer to this yet. Maybe you have one?

Lastly, I had a question. My local church (in fact, all sermons I’ve been to) preaches on how to apply the Bible’s knowledge to daily life. I feel like this is rather boring. I don’t care about the mundane, I am interested in the divine. So I was wondering if you have any resources, sermons or lectures more focused on the divine. What I mean by that is both theological issues and mystical ones, like for example Meister Eckhart?