A question about Peter being the rock

  • Thread starter Thread starter xmydreamsfadex
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In there is not a single reference to being the monarchial ruler of all Christians everywhere.

What we do see is a threefold confirmation of what Peter was called to do. Peter denied our Lord three times, so our Lord reaffirms Peter three times. Our Lord did this specifically on His third appearance to His disciples after His Resurrection.

But even in this exchange, Peter fails Jesus Christ in a certain respect.

Our Lord specifically asked Peter twice:

"Do you love (agape) Me?"Peter could not agree with our Lord at the time and confirm Him. Peter responded both times:

"You know I love (phileo) You."That is not what our Lord asked both times.

Jesus then brought His question down a notch for Peter and asks Him if he loves (phileo) Him, and to this Peter frustratingly agrees.

But we must remember that it is God’s command that all church elders do just as Peter was called to do. Even Peter tells us so:

1Pe 5:2 "Shepherd the flock of God which is among you"That word “shepherd” there is the same exact word Christ used with Peter.

Peter was not the only one called to feed Christ’s sheep. If we were to look back and find the first reference to these verses as teaching a monachial papacy for all bishops of Rome, we would not be impressed to see how the early church did not see what many in the RCC insist they see plainly today.

This is significant.
…
This is misguided. Consider the Word of God:
"Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift youa] as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:24-32)
First, in the opening portion of this passage, notice that the Apostles themselves are speculating about which of them was the greatest. They have no false ideas that they were all equal; they fully expected that one of them should take the lead.

Second, notice that Jesus does not deny that there would be someone who would be “greatest”…instead, he describes the character of service that such a leader would have.

Third, notice that Jesus confers on the Apostles a democracy…oops…no, make that a kingdom. A kingdom has a king…a monarch. There are dozens of verses referencing the kingdom of heaven…this one clearly refers to the Church. I think this addresses your misunderstanding about the monarchical nature of the Church and the Papacy.

Fourth, notice the language of the final verse. What Jesus says is this: "Satan has aked to sift ALL of you…but I have prayed for you (singular), that when you (singular) have recovered, you (singular) can strengthen your (singular) brothers. Jesus COULD have prayed for ALL the Apostles, BUT HE CHOSE A VERY SPECIFIC COURSE OF ACTION FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON - to establish Peter as the head of the Church.

Atemi, this is a third example of Jesus calling out Peter for the role he would play as leader of the Church.

The preponderance of the evidence in favor of Peter’s primacy is overwhelming…

This is truth.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:
 
=Tomster;2049407
It always comes down to this, doesn’t it? The question you posed, “Again how do “YOU” know what IS and ISN’T a Scriptural revelation?” will never be answered by either Atemi or Apophasis. They can never answer it and remain true to their man made made tradition of Sola Scriptura. It really is incredible after all that has been said, on this thread in particular, that they just do not get it.

On the one hand, they accept the New Testament that was canonized well before Sola Scriptura was ever heard of and then on the other hand deny the very authority that canonized the New Testament.

As has been said so very often on these message boards, by denying Papal authority all they have done is assume the authority for themselves. I really do not even see the need for pastors or elders in these non-Catholic communities.

It would be refreshing to hear either Atemi and/or Apophasis come out and honestly say that they reserve the right to interpret Scripture on their own.
Well said 👍
Unfortunately, they don’t ever answer that question because Scripture doesn’t tell us the criteria; that’s because God didn’t design it that way, hence as you’ve correctly said sola Scriptura is surely a tradition of men.
And, that they know they are to use the personal interpretation method in exegeting Scripture and yet know the Catholic Church is wrong in its theology.
Also,they deny, ignore or take for granted the reality of the Catholic Church condemning the heresies of the early Church, developing the theological truths e.g. the Trinity (homoosius–of the same substance), giving them the canon, guarding and preserving the Holy Scriptures throughout the ages of Christian history during war and strife and most of all standing for orthodoxy even if the heterodox vastly out number them as was the case with Arianism.
 
We know from the language in the Greek that Peter alone is being singled out to receive the "keys to the kingdom…

"Does stewardship of the keys apply to a singular or plural “you” in Mattew 16:19? To a singular “you,” i.e., to Peter. Soi is the singular dative form of “you” in Greek, and the verb forms of bind and loose are in the singular form also.
48. As this promise concerning the keys is made singularly and solely to Peter, **are the other Apostles granted stewardship of the keys of the kingdom of heaven? No.

“That Peter is given these priviliges in an exclusive realm is demonstrated by the use of the Greek singular throughout the passage.** The ‘you’ in the phrases, ‘I [will] give you the keys,’ ‘you shall bind,’ and ‘you shall loose’ are Greek singulars, reffering to one man, namely Peter. In Matthew 18:18, the plural of “you” is used when Jesus is addressing all the apostles. **Peter is the only one of the apostles who is given the keys of the kingdom. These keys are directly related to the power of binding and loosing of which Peter is given a singular prerogative not given to any other apostle. Hence, heaven will confirm the singular decrees [on faith and morals] of Peter and keep him from error, independent of the other apostles. “Robert A. Sungenis, “The Precedent for infallibility,” letters to authors, November 1993,5.” (Jesus, Peter and the Keys, Queenship publishing, pages 61-62)” **
 
Paul recieved his commission from Christ. Out of obedience to Christ and his Church, Paul goes to Jerusalem before being sent out to do the work of Christ: ie the Catholic Church. He did not preach until this visit to Jerusalem, did he?! No!
Yes.

Paul preached all the time during those three years before he went to Jerusalem. That is Paul’s whole point in Galatians.

Right after he received his sight:

Act 9:20 “Immediately he preached the Christ in the synagogues, that He is the Son of God.”

Paul preached immediately and for three years before ever even meeting an Apostle.

Paul surely needed not be sent out by any Apostles as he was previously sent out by Christ Himself and received all his training in the Gospel directly from Christ.
 
"Also a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. You are those who have stood by me in my trials. And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift you[a] as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” (Luke 22:24-32)

First, in the opening portion of this passage, notice that the Apostles themselves are speculating about which of them was the greatest. They have no false ideas that they were all equal; they fully expected that one of them should take the lead.
They were thinking carnally and were corrected by Christ immediately.

The Apostles had made this error again and again, and Christ corrected them again and again.
Second, notice that Jesus does not deny that there would be someone who would be “greatest”…instead, he describes the character of service that such a leader would have.
And says they are not to be like the Gentiles and have any king among them.

As He told them elsewhere:

Mat 23:8 “you have only one Master and you are all brothers.”
Third, notice that Jesus confers on the Apostles a democracy…oops…no, make that a kingdom. A kingdom has a king…a monarch. There are dozens of verses referencing the kingdom of heaven…this one clearly refers to the Church. I think this addresses your misunderstanding about the monarchical nature of the Church and the Papacy.
No. This is most disturbing.

The Kingdom of God, by definition, only has ONE King and that is God.

Peter would deny that he was the King of the Kingdom of God. Peter would reject that he is somehow like God, and he would reject that any RC bishop of Rome is the King of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus told us all clearly who was the King. Again and again…yet you somehow missed it:

Mat 18:23 “the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants…”

Mat 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son”

That King is GOD…NOT Peter or any bishop of Rome. Even Christ is emphatic that the kingdom is His Kingdom (“MY Kingdom”).

The church is plainly monarchial with one King: God Almighty.

1Ti 1:17 “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”

Paul mentions nothing about Peter here.

Even the very idea that Peter or any bishop of Rome is the king of the Kingdom of Heaven is wrought with all sorts of dangerous error.

This may even be worth a thread of its own.
Fourth, notice the language of the final verse. What Jesus says is this: "Satan has aked to sift ALL of you…but I have prayed for you (singular), that when you (singular) have recovered, you (singular) can strengthen your (singular) brothers. Jesus COULD have prayed for ALL the Apostles, BUT HE CHOSE A VERY SPECIFIC COURSE OF ACTION FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON - to establish Peter as the head of the Church.
The language of the final verse is that Satan has asked specifically to sift Peter. That is all this text is speaking about. So much so that Peter is mentioned by name multiple times.

The text does not say what you state.
Atemi, this is a third example of Jesus calling out Peter for the role he would play as leader of the Church.

The preponderance of the evidence in favor of Peter’s primacy is overwhelming…
The preponderance of the evidence is in favor as Peter being a leader of the Apostles, nothing more.

2Cr 11:5 “I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.”

2Cr 12:11 “for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles”

Instead of talking about how Peter is supposedly his leader, nevermind his king, Paul tells us that he is no less than any of the most eminent Apostles…in any fashion.

…
 
They were thinking carnally and were corrected by Christ immediately.

The Apostles had made this error again and again, and Christ corrected them again and again.

And says they are not to be like the Gentiles and have any king among them.

As He told them elsewhere:

Mat 23:8 “you have only one Master and you are all brothers.”

No. This is most disturbing.

The Kingdom of God, by definition, only has ONE King and that is God.

Peter would deny that he was the King of the Kingdom of God. Peter would reject that he is somehow like God, and he would reject that any RC bishop of Rome is the King of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus told us all clearly who was the King. Again and again…yet you somehow missed it:

Mat 18:23 “the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants…”

Mat 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son”

That King is GOD…NOT Peter or any bishop of Rome. Even Christ is emphatic that the kingdom is His Kingdom (“MY Kingdom”).

The church is plainly monarchial with one King: God Almighty.

1Ti 1:17 “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”

Paul mentions nothing about Peter here.

Even the very idea that Peter or any bishop of Rome is the king of the Kingdom of Heaven is wrought with all sorts of dangerous error.

This may even be worth a thread of its own.

The language of the final verse is that Satan has asked specifically to sift Peter. That is all this text is speaking about. So much so that Peter is mentioned by name multiple times.

The text does not say what you state.

The preponderance of the evidence is in favor as Peter being a leader of the Apostles, nothing more.

2Cr 11:5 “I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.”

2Cr 12:11 “for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles”

Instead of talking about how Peter is supposedly his leader, nevermind his king, Paul tells us that he is no less than any of the most eminent Apostles…in any fashion.

…
So what church did Paul start ?
 
Atemi said:
**Third, notice that Jesus confers on the Apostles a democracy…oops…no, make that a kingdom. A kingdom has a king…a monarch. There are dozens of verses referencing the kingdom of heaven…this one clearly refers to the Church. I think this addresses your misunderstanding about the monarchical nature of the Church and the Papacy. **

No. This is most disturbing.

The Kingdom of God, by definition, only has ONE King and that is God.

Peter would deny that he was the King of the Kingdom of God. Peter would reject that he is somehow like God, and he would reject that any RC bishop of Rome is the King of the Kingdom of God.

Jesus told us all clearly who was the King. Again and again…yet you somehow missed it:

Mat 18:23 “the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants…”

Mat 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son”
That King is GOD…NOT Peter or any bishop of Rome. Even Christ is emphatic that the kingdom is His Kingdom (“MY Kingdom”).

The church is plainly monarchial with one King: God Almighty.

1Ti 1:17 “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”
Paul mentions nothing about Peter here.

Even the very idea that Peter or any bishop of Rome is the king of the Kingdom of Heaven is wrought with all sorts of dangerous error.

This may even be worth a thread of its own.

I think he was referring more to the kingdom of the Church, with the pope as it’s earthly head. It truly is wrong to say that Peter is the king of the kingdom of heaven. Although his office holds the keys to the kingdom of God, and so the pope is a prime minister of the Church. I think he got a little carried away, although I think his focus was on the church as his last sentence said that “I think this addresses your misunderstanding of the monarchial nature of the Church and the Papacy.”
 
40.png
Atemi:
No. This is most disturbing

The Kingdom of God, by definition, only has ONE King and that is God.

Peter would deny that he was the King of the Kingdom of God. Peter would reject that he is somehow like God, and he would reject that any RC bishop of Rome is the King of the Kingdom of God.
You misunderstand Catholic doctrine. That is why you left because you never understand it. The Pope is the Stewart or Prime Minister of This Kingdom. Jesus is the Only King, that is what the Catholic Church affirms.

I don’t know what Anti-Catholic literature you been reading by assuming the Pope as King.
Jesus told us all clearly who was the King. Again and again…yet you somehow missed it:
Mat 18:23 “the kingdom of heaven is like a certain king who wanted to settle accounts with his servants…”
Mat 22:2 “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who gave a wedding feast for his son”
That King is GOD…NOT Peter or any bishop of Rome. Even Christ is emphatic that the kingdom is His Kingdom (“MY Kingdom”).
The church is plainly monarchial with one King: God Almighty.
1Ti 1:17 “Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God, be honor and glory forever and ever. Amen.”
Paul mentions nothing about Peter here.
Even the very idea that Peter or any bishop of Rome is the king of the Kingdom of Heaven is wrought with all sorts of dangerous error.
This may even be worth a thread of its own.
The language of the final verse is that Satan has asked specifically to sift Peter. That is all this text is speaking about. So much so that Peter is mentioned by name multiple times.
The text does not say what you state.
The preponderance of the evidence is in favor as Peter being a leader of the Apostles, nothing more.
2Cr 11:5 “I am not at all inferior to the most eminent apostles.”
2Cr 12:11 “for in nothing was I behind the most eminent apostles”
Instead of talking about how Peter is supposedly his leader, nevermind his king, Paul tells us that he is no less than any of the most eminent Apostles…in any fashion.
Wrong again and Again!

Peter is the first to speak during the day of Pentecost in Acts.

Even Paul knows this well that there was already a Christian community in Rome.

Notice what Roman 15:19-25, 28-29, and 32 say:

I have preached Christ’s good news to the utmost of my capacity. I have always, however, made it an unbroken rule NEVER TO PREACH WHERE CHRIST’S NAME HAS ALREADY BEEN HEARD. The reason for that was that I HAD NO WISH TO BUILD ON OTHER MEN’S FOUNDATIONS; on the contrary, my chief concern has been to fulfill the text: “Those who have never been told about Him, and those who have never heard about Him will understand.” THAT IS THE REASON WHY I HAVE BEEN KEPT FROM VISITING YOU SO LONG, though for MANY YEARS I have been longing to pay you a visit. Now, however, having no more work to do here, I hope to see you on my way to Spain and, after enjoying a little of your company, to complete the rest of the journey with your good wishes…So when I have done this and officially handed over what has been raised, I shall set out for Spain and VISIT YOU ON THE WAY…Then if God wills, I shall be feeling very happy when I come to enjoy a PERIOD OF REST among you. – The New Testament of the Jerusalem Bible.

That makes it exceedingly PLAIN – Rome had already been evangelized prior to the writing of the Book of Romans (57-58 A.D.)! And obviously, from what we have seen, the foundation Paul did not want to build on WAS THAT OF PETER’S!
 
I don’t know what Anti-Catholic literature you been reading by assuming the Pope as King.
Atemi wasn’t saying that Catholics think that the Pope is the King. Randy Carson was a little confused and so Atemi was correcting him.
 
You misunderstand Catholic doctrine. That is why you left because you never understand it.
If you actually read my post, you would see I agree with Catholic doctrine on this point.

I can’t win for even defending Catholic doctrine. Understood.
The Pope is the Stewart or Prime Minister of This Kingdom.
Can you please cite the Scripture that mentions the office of “Prime Minister” in the church?

Can you please cite the early church father who said that Peter held this office of “Prime Minister” in the church?
Jesus is the Only King, that is what the Catholic Church affirms.
I don’t know what Anti-Catholic literature you been reading by assuming the Pope as King.
I was merely reading the Catholic post before mine…
 
Atemi wasn’t saying that Catholics think that the Pope is the King. Randy Carson was a little confused and so Atemi was correcting him.
As I said in this post…there was a misunderstanding. Can we move beyond it? Please? 😊
 
If you actually read my post, you would see I agree with Catholic doctrine on this point.

I can’t win for even defending Catholic doctrine. Understood.
Can you please cite the Scripture that mentions the office of “Prime Minister” in the church?
Compare these two passages from the Bible one from the Old Kingdom from the OT, and the New Kingdom established by Jesus when he granted Peter the Keys.

The word prime minister is not worded.

OT Isa. 22:20-Summary Commentary: in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

NT Matt. 16:19-Summary of the Commentary: - Jesus gives Peter the “keys of the kingdom of heaven.” While most Protestants argue that the kingdom of heaven Jesus was talking about is the eternal state of glory (as if Peter is up in heaven letting people in), the kingdom of heaven Jesus is speaking of actually refers to the Church on earth. In using the term “keys,” Jesus was referencing Isaiah 22 (which is the only place in the Bible where keys are used in the context of a kingdom).
Can you please cite the early church father who said that Peter held this office of “Prime Minister” in the church?
“’…thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church’ … It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church’s) oneness…If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?” Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251). ((continue}}
 
((from previous post))

“The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth … But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger.” Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

“Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love…” Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement’s epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord’s holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.’ Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

“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, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, 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; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour’s Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour…Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).
I was merely reading the Catholic post before mine…
Fine.

My resource: scripturecatholic.com
 
40.png
Tomster:
The “keys” - attributed in the New Testament only to Christ (Revelation 1:18; cf. 3:7) and to Peter - are symbols of supreme power and authority (cf. Isaias 22:22).
Randy Carson:
Or the fact that the Apostle Matthew specifically references the keys from Isaiah 22 as a bookmark for his Jewish audience - a clear allusion to the institution of an office?
Actually, I do not at all see Matt. 16:19 as referencing Is. 22:22. Certainly the passage in Isaiah is a prophecy concerning Jesus (Eliakim meaning “whom God establishes”), and we see this borne out in Rev. 3:7"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: "He who is holy, who is true, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, and who shuts and no one opens"Notice in Rev. 3:7 that Jesus still possesses “the key of David.” So obviously the phrase “the keys of the kingdom of heaven” in Matt. 16:19 has no reference to Is. 22:22. They are not the same. “The keys of the kingdom of heaven” does not imply an “office.” A privilege, but not an office. And we see that privilege exercised by Peter later on in two particular instances.
 
Apophasis,

Historically take the many cases of appeals.

Take Pope St. Clement, the third successor of St. Peter, who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his epistles. Some dissension and scandal having occurred in the Church of Corinth, the matter is brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises his supreme authority by writing a letter of remonstrance and admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence entertained for these epistles by the faithful of Corinth that, for a century later, it was customary to have them publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians appeal to Rome, far away in the west, and not to Ephesus, so near home in the east, where the apostle St. John still lived? Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while that of Rome was universal.

About the yeat 190 A.D. the question regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated in the east, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern Church generally celebrated Easter on the day which the Jews kept the Passover, while in the west it was observed then as it is now. St. Victor directs the Eastern Churches, for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the west, and his insturctions are universally followed.

These are just two of many, many examples taken from early Church history where the Papacy preserved the unity of faith and the uniformity of discipline.

Christian communities separated from the Catholic Church deny that Peter received any authority over the other Apostles, and hence the reject the supremacy of the Pope. The absence from the Protestant communions of a Divinely appointed, visible Head is to them an endless source of weakness and dissension. It is an insuperable barrier against any hope of a permanent reunion among themselves, because they are left without a common rallying center or basis of union.

The existence, on the contrary, of a supreme judge of controversy in the Catholic Church is the secret of her admirable unity. This is “THE KEY” that binds together and strengthens the imperishable arch of faith.
 
Apop… I think you have your definitions confused…

An Assertion is a ‘teaching’ or ‘proclaiming’ of an understanding or interpretation…
An “assertion” is a declaration that is made emphatically as if no supporting evidence is necessary.
In other words, to say that we are asserting, but not interpreting is completely wrong… We Assert our Interpretation…
You assert your position without the supporting evidence.
Why are YOU allowed to have head pastors, and the Catholics are not.
If you want to say that your Pope is just your “pastor” as in the Protestant sense, then I have no problem with that. But then you’re agreeing that he is not “vicar of Christ” on earth, or Head of the whole Church of Christ.
What is the problem with Peter being head pastor.
It’s not Scriptural. You and others have yet to show me how the Roman notion of the “Supremacy of Peter,” was demonstrated amongst the other Apostles. You have yet to show me that the other Apostles clearly understood that Jesus in Matt. 16 was elevating Peter to a supreme position over them and all who would believe.

Now this Roman notion has been asserted and repeated on this thread, but no clear evidence has yet been provided.
As mentioned, there are many instances in the bible where Peter by inference was in charge.
“By inference?”
Paul submits to Peter,
Did you read the first couple chapter of Galatians???
Peter is the head of the Apostolic Council in Acts,
Try James.
Christ tells peter to feed his sheep.
Of course, he was one of the chosen Apostle. But this was not restricted to Peter.Acts 2:41-42 "So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and there were added that day about three thousand souls. And they (the three thousand souls) were continually devoting themselves to the apostles’ teaching and fellowship…"Nowhere in Scripture do the other Apostles take their instruction or direction from Peter, or do believers ever look to him only for spiritual teaching and guidance. It’s just not there, (Edited by Moderator).
This is not an apostolic succession issue…
Sure it is.
its a what is so wrong with the biblical understanding that Peter was Head pastor?
That too. They’re part and parcel of the same issue.
Head Pastors are needed… That is in the bible…
And where is the term “Head Pastor” used in Scripture?
 
Apophasis,

Historically take the many cases of appeals.

Take Pope St. Clement, the third successor of St. Peter, who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his epistles. Some dissension and scandal having occurred in the Church of Corinth, the matter is brought to the notice of Pope Clement. He at once exercises his supreme authority by writing a letter of remonstrance and admonition to the Corinthians. And so great was the reverence entertained for these epistles by the faithful of Corinth that, for a century later, it was customary to have them publicly read in their churches. Why did the Corinthians appeal to Rome, far away in the west, and not to Ephesus, so near home in the east, where the apostle St. John still lived? Evidently because the jurisdiction of Ephesus was local, while that of Rome was universal.

About the yeat 190 A.D. the question regarding the proper day for celebrating Easter was agitated in the east, and referred to Pope St. Victor I. The Eastern Church generally celebrated Easter on the day which the Jews kept the Passover, while in the west it was observed then as it is now. St. Victor directs the Eastern Churches, for the sake of uniformity, to conform to the practice of the west, and his insturctions are universally followed.

These are just two of many, many examples taken from early Church history where the Papacy preserved the unity of faith and the uniformity of discipline.

Christian communities separated from the Catholic Church deny that Peter received any authority over the other Apostles, and hence the reject the supremacy of the Pope. The absence from the Protestant communions of a Divinely appointed, visible Head is to them an endless source of weakness and dissension. It is an insuperable barrier against any hope of a permanent reunion among themselves, because they are left without a common rallying center or basis of union.

The existence, on the contrary, of a supreme judge of controversy in the Catholic Church is the secret of her admirable unity. This is “THE KEY” that binds together and strengthens the imperishable arch of faith.
Ah-huh, now can we get back to providing Scriptural proof? Is all this what Heisenburg calls proof “by inference?”
 
Ah-huh, now can we get back to providing Scriptural proof? Is all this what Heisenburg calls proof “by inference?”
Isn’t there Christian history beyond the Apostolic era?

Is “proof” to you limited to the Apostolic era only or does God lead His Church throughout time?

John 14:25-28 (KJV)
"These things I have spoken to you while being present with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you. Peace I leave with you, My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.You have heard Me say to you, ‘I am going away and coming back to you.’

And I suspect you would have to say yes, therefore you should be able to show “proof” of a Church that teaches your version of Christianity sometime after the Apostolic era and before the reformation.
Isn’t that a fair question?
 
Yes, by inference… everything doesn’t have to be explicit, thats part of the whole ‘Thinking’ thing. You are now going beyond your man made doctrine of SS by saying it has to be explicit. Even SS does not demand that it be explicitly. So now… we arent even suppose to contemplate the meaning of scripture, if we do, we are anti-scripture???

That being said…

If no one is suppose to be in charge, why does Jesus say “He who wants to be greatest will be the least and servant of all” Thats the job description of the Pope. Jesus was NOT saying that the person who wants to be first, is going to be slapped down. THis is because he Immediately follows that sentence with ‘Just as the son of man came not to be served, but to serve.’

Sadly, you have displayed your true colors by your response.
  1. You deny what assertion truly means, after being corrected. You want to insist that Assert is an emotional response to something unfounded. That is simply not what it means. I can Assert that 1+1=2. you can assert that 1+1=3 Both are assertions… Why exactly do you say i am wrong in my definition? I dunno, my guess is because a catholic corrected you…
  2. Now you have a problem with me using the word Head Pastor? Is there anything a Catholic can say that is right by you? Apparantly not… So now, not only are catholics not suppose to have someone in charge DESPITE WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS, if we use a different, protestant, word, its still wrong? If you want to be that obstinate, Let me rephrase it… Why are Protestants allowed to have Bishops/Elders/etc…
I agree with all the verses you present, but not your interpretation… Are you saying your interpretation is now perfect???

It seems you are victim to the sickness that says if the CC says it, it must be false!

By your fruits, you have made yourself known. You are not here to learn, but to attack in hatred that which you clearly do not understand. Your twisting what we say displays you as a false prophet. Your insistence that we believe things we don’t shows you to be a barer of false witnessing.

Am I being uncharitable? I hope not. I am just calling out what I see in you. Remove the plank from your own eye my friend before trying to remove the splinter from ours…

I will pray for you apop. I dont know if you were just improperly taught, or if you truly are just filled with hatred, but you will be in my prayers…

IN Christ
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top