Arguments against the Papacy?

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Anyone outside the Catholic Church has a pretty dim view of the fruit of the Catholic Church, which is why it is such as weak argument. Non-Catholics think of the numerous scandals, and the lives of the Catholics they know (typically, ah, non-exemplary), from the corruption of the Vatican bank to other repeated scandals. There are answers, good answers, to some of those issues, but if you just ask someone to look at the fruit of the Catholic Church it is probably going to blow up in your face.

To slightly misquote Yoda, “2000 years old you reach, look as good you will not.”
But, just the highlights: The university system, the salvation of Western Civilization after Rome fell, the Cathedrals of Europe (I’m trying to think if there are any Cathedrals built by Protestants. Not gloating but just stating a fact), Michelangelo, Mother Teresa, Francis of Assisi, Musical notation and the musical revolution of the Middle Ages brought about the symphony…

To say expounding the fruits of the Catholic Church will blow up in your face is slightly absurd. There have been problems I will grant you, but there will always be problems as long as human beings are around.

I don’t think you can prove that a pope was necessary for any of that.

 

[PluniaZ]

PluniaZ:

And the Eastern Orthodox are wrong. They are the ones who innovated with the essence-energies distinction in the 14th century, rejecting the historic teaching of the Filioque,

If the filioque is historic teaching, why was it not included in the creed given at the First council of Constantinople (381)?
Was the first council of Constantinople (381) wrong?

Perhaps because of the same reason that the procession of the Holy Spirit wasn’t mentioned at all at the First Ecumenical Council at Nicaea 55 years earlier - neither council set out define every doctrine of the church in detail.

Also keep in mind:

1. The Council of Constantinople of 381 was a local council of eastern bishops with no western bishop or representative of the Pope present. This council unilaterally changed the Nicene Creed of 325.
2. The Council of Constantinople was not recognized as an ecumenical council until 451 at the Council of Chalcedon. By this time, it was established doctrine throughout the eastern and western Church that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son.
3. The Creed of 381 was first used in liturgy by the monophysite patriarch of Antioch Peter the Fuller in 471 in protest of the Council of Chalcedon. Over time, churches throughout the world made the local decision to add the Creed of 381 to their liturgy. It was a local decision each time, not requiring the consent of an ecumenical council.
4. Western Europe was conquered by Arian Germanic tribes in the 5th Century. In the 6th Century, the Visigoths in Spain converted from Arianism to Catholicism. To make it clear that the Holy Spirit was not less than the Father and the Son, the Visigoths included the established doctrine that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son (the Filioque) in their liturgy when they recited the Creed of 381.
5. Photius, bishop of Constantinople in the 9th Century, accused the Latin Church of heresy for teaching the Filioque, and condemned the Filioque at the Council of 879. Although the council was attended by legates from Rome, the Roman Catholic Church denies that it assented to the condemnation of the Filioque at this council.
6. In 1014, the Church of Rome added the Creed of 381, including the Filioque, to its own liturgy. Constantinople objected and removed the Pope’s name from its diptychs.
7. In 1274, the Council of Lyons between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of Constantinople agreed to the Filioque, but Constantinople later rejected it.
8. In 1439, the Council of Florence, attended by all the churches of the world, agreed to the Filioque, but Constantinople and most of the other eastern churches rejected it again.

 

[PluniaZ]

AlNg:

PluniaZ:

And the Eastern Orthodox are wrong. They are the ones who innovated with the essence-energies distinction in the 14th century, rejecting the historic teaching of the Filioque,

If the filioque is historic teaching, why was it not included in the creed given at the First council of Constantinople (381)?
Was the first council of Constantinople (381) wrong?

Setting the actual issue of the filioque aside as worthy of separate discussions, I would like to point out that Rome’s crude attempt to force it on the East “because he’s pope” was met with a “We never accepted the idea of such a pontiff. First among equals, yes, but not this.” from the East. The split was a clear sign of Roman overreach and that the East had NEVER accepted Rome’s idea of a pontiff. Rome regards it as rebellion, the East regards it as something closer to attempted rape.

That’s not historically accurate. Rome’s claims of primacy over all the churches of the world, east and west, go back to the first century when Pope Clement I authoritatively settled a dispute in the church of Corinth (in Greece). Rome repeatedly intervened in disputes in the eastern churches in the following centuries and throughout the first millennium, and was repeatedly acknowledged as having this authority.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5ry0pk/rome_has_always_been_the_head_of_all_churches

For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.

The Formula of Hormisdas. 519 AD. http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The Formula of Pope St Hormisd

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

AlNg:

PluniaZ:

And the Eastern Orthodox are wrong. They are the ones who innovated with the essence-energies distinction in the 14th century, rejecting the historic teaching of the Filioque,

If the filioque is historic teaching, why was it not included in the creed given at the First council of Constantinople (381)?
Was the first council of Constantinople (381) wrong?

Setting the actual issue of the filioque aside as worthy of separate discussions, I would like to point out that Rome’s crude attempt to force it on the East “because he’s pope” was met with a “We never accepted the idea of such a pontiff. First among equals, yes, but not this.” from the East. The split was a clear sign of Roman overreach and that the East had NEVER accepted Rome’s idea of a pontiff. Rome regards it as rebellion, the East regards it as something closer to attempted rape.

That’s not historically accurate. Rome’s claims of primacy over all the churches of the world, east and west, go back to the first century when Pope Clement I authoritatively settled a dispute in the church of Corinth (in Greece). Rome repeatedly intervened in disputes in the eastern churches in the following centuries and throughout the first millennium, and was repeatedly acknowledged as having this authority.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Christianity/comments/5ry0pk/rome_has_always_been_the_head_of_all_churches

For it is impossible that the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, who said, “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” [Matthew 16:18], should not be verified. And their truth has been proved by the course of history, for in the Apostolic See the Catholic religion has always been kept unsullied.

Following, as we have said before, the Apostolic See in all things and proclaiming all its decisions, we endorse and approve all the letters which Pope St Leo wrote concerning the Christian religion. And so I hope I may deserve to be associated with you in the one communion which the Apostolic See proclaims, in which the whole, true, and perfect security of the Christian religion resides. I promise that from now on those who are separated from the communion of the Catholic Church, that is, who are not in agreement with the Apostolic See, will not have their names read during the sacred mysteries.

The Formula of Hormisdas. 519 AD. http://www.byzcath.org/forums/ubbthreads.php/topics/122063/The Formula of Pope St Hormisd

Clement is not mentioned in 1 Clement. We have been over this before. It is not a papal letter.

 

[PluniaZ]

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus.

Saint Irenaeus of Lyons. AD 190. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

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: Today 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.

Eusebius of Caesarea, early 4th century. http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250104.htm

 

[Entwhistler]

I don’t think you can prove that a pope was necessary for any of that.

You weren’t talking about the Pope. You were talking about the Catholic Church.

But you can argue that a Pope was vital for the salvation of Western Civilization after Rome fell (need a stable leader which was not found in any of the Kings at that time) and the musical revolution (Gregory the Great).

 

[SuperLuigi]

Come on…The Romans eventually converted and so did most of Europe.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus.

I suggest you read what you just posted more carefully, and also read the epistle. Nothing here establishes a papacy in “Clement’s” time. You will observe that both these sources wrote a considerable time after the epistle. It is very possible the idea of the papacy was read back into the letter. Read the letter. It is not from some “father in Rome” to his “errant children”: it has none of the ideas typical in a papal letter. Read it for yourself. Seek the truth, not just Catholic apologetics, which sometimes overstates the case and is even sometimes fraudulent. Perhaps you have heard of the Donation of Constantine? I suspect you are just cutting and pasting from some Catholic apologetic source without checking the actual source documents. Fraud and deceit has a long, long history in Catholic apologetics, which makes the Catholic apologist’s job much worse. Many of the things written about Luther are outright lies, for example, and each should be checked before use.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

I don’t think you can prove that a pope was necessary for any of that.

You weren’t talking about the Pope. You were talking about the Catholic Church.

But you can argue that a Pope was vital for the salvation of Western Civilization after Rome fell (need a stable leader which was not found in any of the Kings at that time) and the musical revolution (Gregory the Great).

You can make that argument. But that does not mean that the office was or is divinely mandated. Schaff, the eminent Protestant historian, recognizes that the papacy basically saved western civilization. It now has an opportunity to do so again, although it is much weaker. And at the same time Protestants should acknowledge that saving. I am not saying that the Catholic Church is uniformly evil. If you ask most non-Catholics today what the fruit of the Catholic Church is they will list things like protecting pedophiles, Vatican bank scandals, Irish orphan abuse, etc. They might bring up the Borgia popes, the triple papal crown, abuse of power, dead and dry religion. In that sense it will blow up in your face. One has to look more deeply to appreciate the beauty and wonder of Catholic thought, some of the spiritual practices, and the holiness of the saints. But for the average non-Catholic who looks at his whoring, gambling, cursing, adultery-practicing, alcoholic non-church attending Catholic neighbor (he may know 100 Catholics, but that is the one he thinks of), that is what he will think of when you ask him what the fruit of the Catholic church is.

 

[po18guy]

For those who deny the concept of a “first among equals” - with the exception of certain Orthodox (not all are in schism), they deny the hierarchy, even though they have established their own! So why, one wonders, do they even bother to raise the issue? In my mind, it is to justify their separation. After all, if there is no fault in the Catholic Church, they must then join in full communion with her.

Still, eliminate the office of Pope and they would not join anyway! These are modern-day murmurers, a group never well spoken of by our Lord.

On which point, with one exception in the scriptures, all murmuring was against the Lord! What is the difference if one murmurers against Christ’s Church - His Mystical Body?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

For those who deny the concept of a “first among equals” - with the exception of certain Orthodox (not all are in schism), they deny the hierarchy, even though they have established their own! So why, one wonders, do they even bother to raise the issue? In my mind, it is to justify their separation. After all, if there is no fault in the Catholic Church, they must then join in full communion with her.

Still, eliminate the office of Pope and they would not join anyway! These are modern-day murmurers, a group never well spoken of by our Lord.

On which point, with one exception in the scriptures, all murmuring was against the Lord! What is the difference if one murmurers against Christ’s Church - His Mystical Body?

Let’s see your references to official Catholic teaching for these statements. Thank you.

 

[eddietoo]

sojourner on earth has already confirmed for us that his opposition to the Roman Catholic Church is purely his opinion formed based on his limited knowledge and understanding.

it is clear he believes that his opinion is more well-founded, rational and accurate than the teachings of those who are ordained successors to the Twelve Apostles. he believes this even though he KNOWS that the teachings of the successors to the Twelve Apostles have been miraculously consistent for nearly two millennium.

knowing this, i doubt there is anything any of us can write that will convince him otherwise.

also, knowing this i doubt there is anything he can write that will convince us to believe his gospel rather than the Gospel handed down to us by the successors to the Twelve Apostles.

finally, all of the above is a good reason to include him in our daily prayers.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Not sure how to answer this. You seem to be putting words in my mouth.

If you have a beef like this with me, you have a beef with every Protestant.

But thank you for the prayers. We all can use all the prayers we can get.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Is there any biblical or historical proof you have to disprove Peter as being the apostle Jesus chose to head his Church as pope?

No one here has provided no biblical or historical proof to disprove Peter as being the apostle Jesus chose to head His Church as Pope.

There is argument to the integrity of the historical bishop’s of Rome acting as men and sinners.

For the first four centuries, the primacy, supremacy of the bishop of Rome does not come into question and is recognized as “the Church for all other Church’s to follow” as the Church Jesus builds upon Peter.

History records the primacy and authority of the bishop of Rome does not come into question until the Roman Emperor Constantine moves his capital city to Constantinople (in the fourth century) and places a Patriarch in Constantinople. The authority of the existing apostolic see’s (Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem) in the East are usurped to the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople, at the behest of the Roman Emperor’s.

It is from this new Imperial influenced Patriarch of Constantinople , history begins to record attacks against the Primacy and or the universal jurisdiction of the bishop of Rome = Peter’s Chair. Keeping in mind, the Eastern Catholic Church’s during these times are suffering from many heretics, heresies and break away Church’s in the East. The power tensions deriving from the East, particularly from the Patriarch’s of Constantinople against the bishop’s of Rome in the West. A schism occurs, which most Orthodox Church’s in East follow the wealthy, powerful, imperial supported Patriarch of Constantinople.

The language spoken from this history is used today, in protest against the primacy or supremacy of the bishop’s of Rome, by Orthodox Patriarch’s and Protestants.

Centuries before this history of Constantinople, the bishop’s of Rome authority does not come into question, but the authority of the bishop’s of Rome is referenced by the early Church Father’s and Saints and Church councils.

The Orthodox and heterodox Church’s all who have valid apostolic succession and valid sacraments, all hold to the apostolic Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, that Peter holds a primacy and is a holder of the divine keys Jesus gives Peter. Albeit, some Orthodox Church’s, who are appointed or approved by their secular Emperor’s, who are out of full communion with the Chair of Peter, has raised their personal opinions of the supremacy of Peter over the whole Church.

cont;

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

cont;

Protestants eleven centuries after Constantinople, also reject any authority today, Jesus gave to Peter and his apostolic successors. In contradiction to holy writ and sacred Tradition.

Although there is ample biblical support and historical proof that proves Peter is the apostle Jesus chose to head His Church as Pope.

Jesus responds to Peter’s faith by saying: “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death [gates of hell] shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” [Mt 16:17-19]

Jesus spoke in Aramaic, which has only one word for rock, Kepha. This is the word used by John in 1:42 and by Paul in 1 Cor 1:12; 3:22; 9:15 and 15:5 as well as throughout Galatians (e.g., Gal 1:18; 2:9; 2:11; and 2:14, here Christ appears as the architect not the foundation, declaring, “On this rock will I build.” A great apologist of the Counter- Reformation, St. Francis de Sales (1567-1622) explains:

By these words Our Lord shows the perpetuity and immovableness of this foundation. The stone on which one raises the building is the first, the others rest on it. Other stones may be removed without overthrowing the edifice, but he who takes away the foundation, knocks down the house. If then the gates of hell [see Mt 16:18] can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head, which they cannot take away and overturn without entirely overturning the whole edifice . . .

The supreme charge which St. Peter had . . . as chief and governor, is not beside the authority of the Master, but it is only a participation in this, so that he is not the foundation of the hierarchy besides Our Lord, but rather in our Lord: as we call him the most holy Father in Our Lord, outside whom he would be nothing . . .
catholicfaithandreason@hotmail.com.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Propaganda. Unsubstantiated, factually wrong and misleading.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Propaganda. Unsubstantiated, factually wrong and misleading

Maybe you should be aware of one rule Judges judge debates. When ever the opposition responds with negative attacks to one’s opponent’s character or commentary without substance to redirect, is a sign that one is losing the debate.

Do you have a question to substantiate your interjection?

I was hoping at best for an easy question by you? as when you asked po18guy for “official Catholic teaching”.

Peace be with you

 

[eddietoo]

when one cannot refute, deny?

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

I don’t have time right now to do a point-by-point, as most of it has been handled elsewhere.

It just looks like you took something from somewhere else and posted it (with no attribution, which is plagiarism). No references, no documentation, just vague, sweeping generalizations.

The FIRST problem is the whole structure of the argument: “Arguments against the Papacy”. It’s a request to prove a negative. It should be “Arguments for the Papacy.”

Show me the word “Pope” in Scripture. Tell me how Jesus told the other apostles to submit to Peter as their high prelate. Tell me how, when Peter asked Jesus, “Lord, what about this man?” Jesus commended him for his pastoral care of John. He got another sort of answer, one not in accordance with the papacy.

Tell me how Jesus’ rebuke of Peter immediately following the “thou art Peter” quote “Get thee behind me Satan! You are a hindrance” is an affirmation of papal primacy.

Tell me how Paul, in describing the structure of the church in Ephesians 4, expounded widely on the great and powerful office of the pope as the unifier of all Christians.

Tell me how Paul, in writing to Rome, somehow neglected any mention of any primacy of that church whatsover or the great rank of its bishop.

That will do for a start.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

when one cannot refute, deny?

Ok, let’s go at it.