A compelling non-Catholic argument

[PC_Master]

1 day or 1 year or 200 years after the incident, the Apostles and their scribes have written most of the NT within that span of time and I see nobody raising a question that some parts of NT are unacceptable on grounds that we have ‘no clear record’ of what Jesus really said.

On much of what Jesus said, we have multiple attestations of it, written by eye-witnesses to the events in question. I don’t understand why there would be a question raised on that account.

Are you saying Ireneaus’ writings and the rest of the ECFs describing the behavior of and stating the succession of popes were spurious simply because it was done 200 years later?

Ireneaus and other early writers wrote about succession of the bishops of Rome. What they do not do is write about these men as leaders of the earthly church.

This is an important distinction that seems to be being ignored. That someone says X was the bishop of Rome does not mean that X was also pope. Ireneaus was not a proponent of Roman primacy in my opinion. Wikipedia’s page on the subject is pretty good in terms of explaining how and why Ireneaus might have written things in the way he did.

The burden of proof is on the accuser.

More appropriately, the burden of proof is on the person making the affirmative claim…usually. However, any claim can be seen as being affirmative, so either side can be seen to hold the burden of proof.

But let’s consider the logic for a moment. Let’s say you’re right. Linus was the pope. Now, if this was so, how might we prove it? There might be oral testimony to the fact, which might survive for generations (as you no-doubt claim). There also might be written records (and in fact, there should be written records).

Now, let’s take the alternate option – if I’m right, and Linus was indeed bishop of Rome, but was not the pope, how might we prove it? What evidence is there that could or more importantly, should exist? I honestly can’t think of any. If the papacy didn’t exist, and if such a heresy didn’t exist at the time, there’d have been no one to write against it, and also there’d have been no one writing in favor of it. And that’s precisely what we see.

So, on the one hand, the papacy existed, unchallenged for hundreds of years. Then, out of nowhere centuries later, people challenge the papacy. How does that make sense? On the other hand, perhaps the papacy developed over time, and the more it developed, the more it was challenged. The latter seems reasonable, and fits with the evidence.

 

[SCALCO]

I would be curious to know who your friend believes holds the “keys…” at present? If they were not passed on, what happened to them?

 

[PC_Master]

I would be curious to know who your friend believes holds the “keys…” at present? If they were not passed on, what happened to them?

Though I’m certainly not the OP, I think there’s a very simple answer to that. The keys were never intended as a literal thing, nor were they to be “handed” to a particular individual.

 

[SCALCO]

Though I’m certainly not the OP, I think there’s a very simple answer to that. The keys were never intended as a literal thing, nor were they to be “handed” to a particular individual.

The keys (not a physical set of keys) were not given to anyone?

You believe they were given to all of the apostles or the church? Were they “handed” down?

 

[EJTMJR]

I have been reading this for about an hour and frankly I am getting a headache.
My relation with God and Church is based on faith because there is so much that can not be PROVED.

I dont understand some of the posters who want PROOF of everything.

Do they want PROOF and all the the events of the OT also?

Come on guys, Christ gave us a Church to guide us and for us to trust. Be a “little child” and trust in HIS Church.

GOD BLESS ALL

 

[EJTMJR]

I hope you’re not being serious. There are eyewitness accounts of the Holocaust. There are no such eyewitness accounts of Linus’ papacy.

So what happens in 30 or 40 years when all the eyewitnesses are
gone. What PROOF will you need?

 

[protestantman]

The pharisees could also trace their authority back to the Levites, who were given authority directly from the mouth of God, and yet Jesus said that their father was Satan.

Here is a more important question. By what authority do you say that only one part of the body of Christ has authority? The Holy Bible says that my authority comes from Christ. If Christ lives in me, then no man nor beast has authority over me. My point is, no matter what denomination a person chooses, we are all one body. Does the left hand have more authority than the right hand? Is the God of Catholics not the God of Protestants? The bible says that these arguments are worldly.

Defend yourself against this.
1 corinthians 3:21-23 ~"So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas(PETER) or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God

Also these
1 corinthians 3:1-9
Romans 15:1-2

 

[jmcrae]

The pharisees could also trace their authority back to the Levites, who were given authority directly from the mouth of God, and yet Jesus said that their father was Satan.

The problem with the Pharisees was not that they were too legalistic, but that they were not legalistic enough. They kept trying to find loopholes in the law, so that they wouldn’t have to actually follow it in the way that God intended. Jesus was not accusing them of following the Law too strictly, but of not following it strictly enough. He told the disciples that they had to be more perfect than the Pharisees; not less.

Here is a more important question. By what authority do you say that only one part of the body of Christ has authority?

According to I Corinthians 12, we each have different gifts. Some have gifts that pertain to authority; others have other gifts. We have to work together as one body, in order to achieve the goals that Christ has set before us.

The Holy Bible says that my authority comes from Christ.

True: any authority that you have comes from Christ. If you are a parent, God gives you authority over your children. If you are a politician, God gives you secular authority over a certain geographical or special-interest community. If you are a teacher, you have authority over your classroom. And so on.

But Christ does not say that all authority comes to you, personally. Otherwise, you would be Supreme Dictator of the World, and the rest of us would be your servants.

If Christ lives in me, then no man nor beast has authority over me.

Actually, they do. If you are a child, your parents have God-given authority over you. If you live in a civilized place, you owe allegiance and obedience to your government. If not, then the authority that God gives to you means nothing. Having authority is meaningless unless there is someone who is supposed to obey you, and with whom you work to accomplish God’s will in the world.

My point is, no matter what denomination a person chooses, we are all one body.

Denominations are actually divisions in the body. Those who are not united together are in schism from one another, and not working cooperatively together like the body in I Corinthians 12. They have become cut off from the head.

 

[protestantman]

Thank you for your reply jmcrae. I hope that we might further our relationship to God by challenging what we believe.

The problem with the Pharisees was not that they were too legalistic, but that they were not legalistic enough. They kept trying to find loopholes in the law, so that they wouldn’t have to actually follow it in the way that God intended. Jesus was not accusing them of following the Law too strictly, but of not following it strictly enough. He told the disciples that they had to be more perfect than the Pharisees; not less.

I think this is absolutely wrong. Galations 4 says that since Christ came, the Law is no longer necessary. Jesus taught the Apostles to live by faith, NOT by the law. Where does scripture ever command them to be more perfect (specifically) I strongly implore you to pray about this and recieve an answer from God, rather than answer based on the stance of the church. I will also meditate and search the scriptures, so that the truth might be revealed.

According to I Corinthians 12, we each have different gifts. Some have gifts that pertain to authority; others have other gifts. We have to work together as one body, in order to achieve the goals that Christ has set before us.

Yes that is true, but where do these gifts come from? Are they handed down from Peter by succesion, or do they come directly from God?

True: any authority that you have comes from Christ. If you are a parent, God gives you authority over your children. If you are a politician, God gives you secular authority over a certain geographical or special-interest community. If you are a teacher, you have authority over your classroom. And so on.

But Christ does not say that all authority comes to you, personally. Otherwise, you would be Supreme Dictator of the World, and the rest of us would be your servants.

This is exactly my point. God gave Christ alone that authority. My authority come s from the fact that Christ lives in me. And if Christ lives in me than no man can judge me.

Actually, they do. If you are a child, your parents have God-given authority over you. If you live in a civilized place, you owe allegiance and obedience to your government. If not, then the authority that God gives to you means nothing. Having authority is meaningless unless there is someone who is supposed to obey you, and with whom you work to accomplish God’s will in the world.

In one sense this is true. I am subject to the authority of the government, just as Paul and Peter were. Yet Paul said in 1 corinthians 4 that no man could judge him, only God. When I say that no man nor beast have authority over me, I mean specifcally the authority to Judge.

Denominations are actually divisions in the body. Those who are not united together are in schism from one another, and not working cooperatively together like the body in I Corinthians 12. They have become cut off from the head.

It is absolutely true that the body is divided. This means the Catholics as much as it means Protestants. When the Bible says we have been cut off from the Head, It is saying we are cut off from Christ. I hope you dont think that Catholosism is the head. I personally feel that regardless of my denomination or spiritual strength, that I am to consider myself the most insignificant part of the body. Only then will Christ make me great.
1 corinthians 3 says that it is not important whether we follow Paul or Apollos,or any of the other Apostles, because they are only SERVANTS.

As a side note I want to say that I am not posting to be anti-catholic. On the contrary I want to strengthen the catholic church. I am here to challenge what you believe, so that you will search the scriptures (NOT YOUR DOCTRINE) and God can reveal truth to you.

 

[protestantman]

Sorry I mixed my responses within the quote. I apologize and will make sure I dont do this on future posts.

 

[jmcrae]

Christ alone has authority to judge, yes - this is a teaching of the Catholic Church. The Catholic Church does not pass judgment on anybody - in fact, it goes well out of its way to avoid doing so. (Sometimes to a frustrating degree - but it is always better to err on the side of assuming that people are speaking the truth as they know it, and have good intentions in everything that they do, than otherwise.)

 

[anthony022071]

The pharisees could also trace their authority back to the Levites, who were given authority directly from the mouth of God, and yet Jesus said that their father was Satan.

The Levites were never told by God that the gates of Hell would never prevail against them,as Christ tolf Peter. They were not told by God that he would be with them always. And they were not given the Holy Spirit to guide them in their teachings.

Here is a more important question. By what authority do you say that only one part of the body of Christ has authority?

We don’t say that. The pope is the head of the Christian priesthood,but he is not the only authority. He is the final human authority in the Church,as Peter was.

The Holy Bible says that my authority comes from Christ.

Christ gave authority to Peter. He made Peter shepherd over the Church. The Bible itself is a product of the Catholic Church.

If Christ lives in me, then no man nor beast has authority over me. My point is, no matter what denomination a person chooses, we are all one body.

The Catholic Church is not a denomination.
The early Church fathers believed in one holy,catholic,and apostolic Church.

Ignatius of Antioch:

“Be not deceived, my brethren: If anyone follows a maker of schism, he does not inherit the kingdom of God; if anyone walks in strange doctrine , he has no part in the Passion [of Christ]. Take care, then, to use one Eucharist, so that whatever you do, you do according to God: For there is one flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the union of his blood; one altar, as there is one bishop, with the presbytery and my fellow servants, the deacons.”
(Letter to the Philadelphians 3:3-4:1 [A.D. 110])

Does the left hand have more authority than the right hand? Is the God of Catholics not the God of Protestants? The bible says that these arguments are worldly.

The head certainly has authority over the body. And Peter was the Head.

Defend yourself against this.
1 corinthians 3:21-23 ~"So then, no more boasting about men! All things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas(PETER) or the world or life or death or the present or the future - all are yours, and you are of Christ, and Christ is of God

Also these
1 corinthians 3:1-9
Romans 15:1-2

Paul belonged to the apostolic Church and he was addressing others who were already part of the same Church as he was. He was not addressing those outside of the apostolic Church and he was not advocating the idea that one is a part of the Body of Christ by belief alone.

 

[protestantman]

protestantman;3363421:

The head certainly has authority over the body. And Peter was the Head.

.

This is a bold statement. Are you saying that Christ is not the head? This statement is also in direct denial of the scripture.Colosians1:15-18 “He is the image of the invisible Godthe firstborn over all creation. For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things are held together.And he is the Head of the body, the Church…”

Does scripture even say that Christ chose Peter over the others?
Even if you assume that this is the meaning of Matthew 16, then why is it that the Apostles were arguing about who was greater on the way to Capernum? If Christ apointed Peter above the others, then it would not have been an issue. Yet Jesus told them, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very least, and the servant of all.” Why didn’t Jesus tell them that Peter was the greatest?

 

[jmcrae]

Why didn’t Jesus tell them that Peter was the greatest?

Because He hadn’t ordained him yet. That happened in John 21:15-19, just before the Ascension into Heaven.

Peter was the least - he denied Christ three times. In doing so, he sinned more grievously than anybody before or since, with the sole exception of Adam.

Unlike Adam, and unlike so many others, Peter repented. So, Christ made him to be the greatest.

 

[protestantman]

Because He hadn’t ordained him yet. That happened in John 21:15-19, just before the Ascension into Heaven.

Peter was the least - he denied Christ three times. In doing so, he sinned more grievously than anybody before or since, with the sole exception of Adam.

Unlike Adam, and unlike so many others, Peter repented. So, Christ made him to be the greatest.

This scripture does not say that Christ ordained Peter. it only states that Jesus told him to feed his sheep. Did he not also give that command to the other Apostles? Also, Peter sin did not make him the least of the Apostles. To be the lowest, one must be the servant of all. That would be like saying that the more I sin, the more I become a servant. To be the lowest, one must be the servant of all.

Also please read Galation 2:7-8

Why why does Paul say that he was given an equal task to Peter?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Does scripture even say that Christ chose Peter over the others?
Even if you assume that this is the meaning of Matthew 16, then why is it that the Apostles were arguing about who was greater on the way to Capernum? If Christ apointed Peter above the others, then it would not have been an issue. Yet Jesus told them, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very least, and the servant of all.” Why didn’t Jesus tell them that Peter was the greatest?

Because Christ had not yet made his appointment as to who would be His Vicar. Christ knew that He was to be crucified. Christ knew that humans without a physical leader would quarrel among themselves just as Moses was God’s earthly leader and the Jews even rebelled against him - multiple times. I always imagined that this quarreling among the Apostles convinced Jesus that He had to appoint one leader. Note that the general pattern of rebellion has always plagued even “God’s People” just as it does today through the protestation of Protestantism. Recall that Moses appointed his succor to be Aaron as High Priest so Israel would always be a Sacerdotal Kingdom to God (just as Catholics are). Again the Jews rebelled against Aaron’s succor (his son Eleazar) which was a vicarious rebellion against God. As the High Priests lost power the Jews “lost their religion” so to speak. From there the Jews used Judges and started further secularizing themselves and then demanded God appoint a King. It should be no surprise that many Protestant sects fall into the same pattern of rebellion and secularizing while often embracing extreme chauvinistic patriotism to king or country rather than to God and Church.

James

 

[jmcrae]

This scripture does not say that Christ ordained Peter. it only states that Jesus told him to feed his sheep.

Did Jesus have a literal flock of literal sheep somewhere?

No - Jesus’ “flock” is the Church. Peter was being commanded to “shepherd” God’s Church. In the time since then, for various reasons, we have come to call the chief shepherd of God’s Church “papa,” or Pope. Pope Benedict XVI, who is our current Pope, can trace his line of succession in an unbroken line, historically, right back to Peter himself.

Why why does Paul say that he was given an equal task to Peter?

Why would Paul boast about it, if it were also equal with the rest of the Apostles, of whom he was already one?

The Holy Tradition places St. Paul to be equal in authority with St. Peter, precisely because of this - the Early Fathers mention their names together, and call them “the glorious Sts. Peter and Paul.” But it was Peter who came first, and it is to Peter that we trace back the succession of the Popes.

 

[Orionthehunter]

As a side note I want to say that I am not posting to be anti-catholic. On the contrary I want to strengthen the catholic church. I am here to challenge what you believe, so that you will search the scriptures (NOT YOUR DOCTRINE) and God can reveal truth to you.

Protestantman, I believe that you are not posting with an intent to be anti-Catholic. And I believe that you believe that you can come here and impart your personal interpretation of the Scripture to make us “stronger” by having us adopt your personal interpretation of Scripture.

But let me give you a little advice (not meant to be anti-anything), the Catholics on CAF will not find you authoritative. We have a 2,000 year history of understanding and implementing Holy Revelation which has never changed and we believe to the depth of our soul is inspired by the Holy Spirit. Every day, we dialogue with people like you who believe that you have found a new insight which is the Truth. Protestantman, we have heard all of these arguments and frankly we find them lacking.

This being said, I welcome you to CAF. As you said on another thread, I also think that we do need to understand those things that unite us. Most importantly, we all believe that Jesus Christ is God, He came among us to teach and preach us the “Way, the Life and the Truth”, and that He is our Savior.

But sometimes threads focus on our differences. The conversation will sometimes come across to someone new to CAF like you as strident and unwielding. Actually, it is just a symptom of communication of strongly held and developed thought.

Because you are new, think of yourself joining a “classroom” where the participants have been together for years and have a similar base of knowledge. Because you have missed many of the previous conversations, you need to “catch up.”

After reading your posts (in this thread and others), it indicates a heart that is not crass or mean-spirited or bigoted, I want you to stick around and not become disheartened. So, I’m going to give you some advice.

Be careful how you say things like “I strongly implore you to pray about this and recieve an answer from God, rather than answer based on the stance of the church.” This implies that the person is just parrotting the teaching of the Church and has not prayed over it. Protestantman, you are quoting jmcrae here. This person is well known on CAF as a prayerful and thoughful person. Your reception will be better if you don’t imply that you have a corner on prayer and thoughtful study of Scripture. We will assume the same of you. Just make your point and ask your questions.

You make a statement that we should dialogue such that we find the Truth that exists in the middle. Catholics will not find such idea of compromising on the Truth as possible. It doesn’t mean we can’t dialogue and find common ground. But we believe that there is one Truth and it is Jesus Christ. It is not possible in His nature to hold multiple contradicting positions. For a Catholic, when we hear “compromise in the middle” we hear just a new new contradicting unTruth formed in an effort to reduce division. We see too much division today. We don’t want a new iteration of division. We believe there is just one Truth for which we are called to find and follow with our body, mind, will, reason, and soul.

Final piece of advice. Don’t quote Scripture and say “it clearly says” this or that especially if it already evident that we have a different understanding. My suggestion is to just quote the Scripture and give your interpretation. It is much more condusive to dialogue and makes us more open to hear what and why you saying what you are as well as to get a better more thoughtful response on the Catholic view. Minds may not be changed but both will gain more understanding.

OK. Final, final comment Authority is a fundamental component of Catholicism. It is intricately weaved throughout our Faith. We believe that this Authority is ordained directly by Christ. If you attempt to subsitute yourself for this authority, the conversation will be less fruitful.

Don’t get me wrong Protestantman. We would love to dialogue with you. You may teach us something. We hope that we might do the same for you. You have a good spirit and disposition. You would be a great addition to CAF. Look forward to seeing you around.

 

[Teflon93]

Did Jesus have a literal flock of literal sheep somewhere?

No - Jesus’ “flock” is the Church. Peter was being commanded to “shepherd” God’s Church. In the time since then, for various reasons, we have come to call the chief shepherd of God’s Church “papa,” or Pope. Pope Benedict XVI, who is our current Pope, can trace his line of succession in an unbroken line, historically, right back to Peter himself.

Why would Paul boast about it, if it were also equal with the rest of the Apostles, of whom he was already one?

The Holy Tradition places St. Paul to be equal in authority with St. Peter, precisely because of this - the Early Fathers mention their names together, and call them “the glorious Sts. Peter and Paul.” But it was Peter who came first, and it is to Peter that we trace back the succession of the Popes.

Why didn’t I think of this?

It’s so odd to attempt to elevate Paul over Peter to try to justify one’s own misinterpretation of Paul. It comes down to having to claim that Christ merely intended Paul to look after his animals after he was gone. This Peter-as-pet-sitter makes no sense whatsoever, and presents huge difficulties for the Orthodox and Protestant when trying to undermine the Catholic Church.

Is the objective to understand Christ and his Church, or to justify Luther, Calvin, Zwingli et al?

It’s particularly laughable when these same folks claim not to hew to traditions of men, but to Scripture, while ignoring the plain meaning of it. How absurd would it have been for the Gospel writers to have taken the trouble to note Christ’s appointment of Peter not because it signified Peter’s leadership of the Church but because Christ wanted to make sure his pets got fed? Even a more curious thing when we see Peter called to Rome. I suppose the flock had either died by that time or Peter brought them with him.

Hint to Christians: wherever Paul and Christ seem to be in contradiction, Christ wins.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Also please read Galation 2:7-8

Why why does Paul say that he was given an equal task to Peter?

Good question. I urge you to read the following from the Catechism of the Catholic Church which explains the relationship of all Bishops and their “equality” as Shepherds. Paul was a Bishop of an area that was predominantly Gentile while Peter’s flock came with a predominant Jewish tradition. After you read it, you will understand that the Church teaches all Bishops are endowed with Apostolic Teaching Authority. It also explains that in certain matters, the Pope is empowered by Christ to speak with universal authority.

Specifically, read paragraphs 871-896.

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p4.htm