I will respond to this point-by-point later. In the meantime, some points to consider:
1) You have completely omitted any mention of Christ giving the keys to Heaven to this "mere rock" of Peter
2) You speak at one point with a diminutive tone with respect to tradition ("The weight of tradition is not something I discount, but") - there is no "but". Tradition is that to which any and all opinions must submit entirely. Yes, we have more evidence from the 4th and 5th entry onward than we have in the 1st century of explicit recognitions of the Papacy; and yes, the terminology used to describe it ("pontiff") came from the mesh between pagan Rome and the Church; but I have already addressed the good ways in which the Church baptizes the pagan; and I will point out that there would not snd could not have been such a unity of opinion with respect to Rome if this had not been recognized in the tradition in earlier centuries, albeit in less explicit gorm, or through use of different terminology. The fact is that Peter is the prince of the apostles, and this is clear from Scripture. For Christ to establish a prince among bishops cannot be dismissed as non-meaningful. Finally, it is Tradition that determines what exegesis of Scripture is sound and what is not; whether you find explicitly contained within the cured passages an establishment of the Papacy, again, is irrelevant - what matters is that the early Church did recognize this as the meaning of these Scriptures - and we must remember that, unlike you and me, those doing the early interpretations had access to St. Paul's meat, rather than mere milk.
Those are fair points, and I'm especially interested in (1). I'm not as familiar with this concept scripturally, so I will have to look into it more closely. I will also try to get back to your response later this evening. I don't mean for my tone to tradition to be diminutive. In at least one sense, there is no way for me to challenge any of this without some apparent disrespect - anything less than admitting to its truth is going to net that effect. I'd only stress that I don't do it with any pointed kind of harshness. The objections I have come from an authentic place that doesn't desire to transmit itself as an insult.
I recognize that you aren't approaching this with harshness, but sincerity. Nevertheless, it is a grievous error to reject the role of Rome in the Church, and I can scarcely oppose this error without coming across as hostile - but please understand my hostility is toward the error, not you who consider it.
I'll quote Aquinas in the Summa Contra Gentiles on this error to you later, in addition to more directly addressing your points.
Matthew 16:18 is the verse where Christ names Peter the rock; the very next verse He gives Peter the keys.
Matthew 16:18
What I mean is that I just haven't done enough research on where it might be 'hyperlinked' with other elements of scripture. In 3. of my initial argument, I used another section of Matthew, for example, to try to ascertain the phraseology of 'the rock'. I will spend some time later with this issue of the keys. I firmly believe, on principle alone, that the majesty of the Bible really is that it is self-justifying, insofar as it has this pretty miraculous tendency of typologically referencing one section by another so that the proper exegesis is always possible from within the scriptures. Of course, I haven't personally verified this through comprehensive Bible study, it's kind of a metaphysical 'hunch' I suppose.
(post is archived)