Best Way to Explain Papacy ? Matt 16 Isaiah 22?


Best Way to Explain Papacy ? Matt 16 Isaiah 22 ??

It is common for Catholic apologists to explain the Papacy by going to Matthew 16 and then to Isaiah 22. But as illustrated above the Isaiah passage (in isolation)
is easily misinterpreted.

Everyone has a tendency toward being close-minded when it comes to learning about dying to oneself. So, obviously the Papacy will be problematic for the Protestant. The effects of Original Sin, that is, weakened will and darkened intellect, make it even more difficult. When it comes to learning about religious truth that a person doesn’t already believe most people are about 90 % closed-minded and the other 10 % is closing fast.

One difficulty in using Isaiah 22 to explain the meaning of the Keys is the unfamiliar terms of “master of the palace” or harder still other translations like “over the house.” These unfamiliar terms leave a very foggy notion of what is meant. “Master of the palace” sounds more like the king himself than some other officeholder. But if it is the king then his position is replaced by Christ’s.

And unfortunately only clear thinking will lead to that certainty of conviction that will enable a person to die to himself. [That is why heterodox teaching is so dangerous. The faithful are endangered not only when the faith is attacked outright but also when doubt is cast upon the truths of the Good News.]

When hearing these terms, i.e. master of the palace, the typical Protestant’s mind is quickly closing shut and it moves onto another subject before he really examines the power of these Scriptural verses. This fact will work to the Catholic’s disadvantage when he starts with Matthew 16:19 and then goes to Isaiah 22 to explain the meaning of the keys.

Also, Catholics need to help Protestants overcome their “either / or,” that is, follow Christ or Peter misunderstanding, and help them accept Christ and how Christ works through St. Peter.

The Problem,
Isaiah 22 does not mention King Hezekiah . Therefore, the Protestant will often fail to understand the relationship between King Hezekiah and Eliakim as illustrated by the opening comment.

PS. in chess notation to place a question mark after a move is to imply that it is a bad move. And I do mean that context if a person only goes to Mt 16 and Isaiah 22.

It is much better, in my opinion, to start with the Old Testament and explain who is the “master of the palace” and thereby the meaning of the keys, and only after that go into the subject of the Papacy. By explaining the relationship between King Hezekiah and his chief minister Eliakim in Old Testament first, the ground work is laid for the proper understanding of the relationship between Christ and St. Peter.

For example see article on King Hezekiah

I hope this helps,

Response to MT's post

God has created us with reason, and reason says that every organization will have a visible head, viz. here, the Pope. Every other “church” has a visible head . We should always qualify that Christ is the head of the Church. Omitting that rankles non-Catholics and even some of us Catholics – popes come and go, Christ remains the same.


Saint John Fisher used an analogy of how a tree can be described by its shadow to explain how the Old Testament correlates to the New Testament.


I think the best way is to compel “bible” Christians to actually read their bibles. Consider:

Jesus changed Simon bar-Jonah’s name.
He does that for a reason.
Peter is named 195 times in the NT. The closest is John “whom Jesus
loved” at just 29 times. All of the rest even less. Peter is always
named first, Judas last. Here is a partial list of unique aspects of Peter:
Jesus gave Peter the keys to the gates of Heaven.
Jesus declared Peter to the the rock.
Jesus made Peter shepherd (Feed my sheep).
Jesus told Peter only to strengthen his brothers
Jesus paid the Temple tax only for Himself and Peter.
Jesus preached from Peter’s boat.
Jesus told Peter to “Follow me” at the sea of Tiberias.
Jesus called only Peter to Him across the water.
Jesus predicted Peter’s three-fold denial.
Jesus predicted Peter’s repentance and three-fold affirmation.
Jesus prophesied only Peter’s death.
Jesus taught Peter forgiveness 70 times 7 times.
Jesus spoke only to Peter at Gethsemane.
Peter is always listed first.
Peter alone received the revelation of Jesus as Messiah.
Peter alone spoke at the Transfiguration.
Peter pointed out the withered fig tree.
Peter entered the empty tomb first - John deferring to him.
Peter decided the manner of replacing Judas.
Peter spoke for the eleven at the Pentecost.
Peter was released from prison by the Angel.
Peter spoke for the eleven before the Council.
Peter held sin bound to Ananias and Saphira.
Peter’s shadow healed.
Peter declared the sin of Simony.
Peter explained the salvation of the Gentiles to the Church at Jerusalem.
The Angel told Cornelius to call for Peter.
The Holy Spirit fell upon the Gentiles as Peter preached to them.
At the empty tomb, the Angel said, “Go tell His disciples, and Peter.”
Mary Magdalene ran to tell Peter and the beloved disciple.
The vision of all foods being clean was given only to Peter.
Peter’s words silence the first council in Jerusalem.
Peter alone received the revelation of the end of the world (elements melting).
Peter alone received the revelation of Christ’s descent to hell/sheol.
Paul went to Peter to affirm that his Gospel was not in vain.
And on and on and on.

So, one can deny that Peter was primary, but it takes an amazing
disregard of scripture and history to do so.

There has always been a Pope. There was a Pope for 400 years before we had the bible! Pope Damasus I officially and for all time declared the bible to be the bible.

Fax are fax. Haters will hate.

Full story, bro’


Sometimes I wonder if they only read the verses that make the Church look bad.


Romans Romans Romans.

Paul Paul Paul

Catholic beliefs bad.

Their beliefs good.

Sad to say, it is that simple.


Exactly. I see this a lot on Youtube. James seems to be untouched most of the time.


Some may memorize such ‘proof texts’, but not all. My wife, for example had memorized the book of James as a teen. She is a convert of about 40 years now.

I think much of it is being taught a belief, then learning passages to support what you want.


I should have added what I assumed everyone else would already see as most already do that the most important thing you can do is to pray for them because they need the grace to see the truth of the papacy and die to themselves



It isn’t the fault of John if you find nothing to reflect. It is your response that is embarrassing. John’s response is good theology and well thought out but I have a feeling that it is easier for you to make ad hominem response than to dispute it. John has made nothing personal is that just another way to avoid a belief you can’t defend? Since you can’t refute the keys on scriptural grounds you call others ignorant. I have read your attempts to speak about the keys and it has been woefully lacking in biblical understanding.


This topic was automatically closed 14 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit