Arguments against the Papacy?

[Darryl_B]

As a protestant I had many reasons to discredit the Papacy. “I will not have this man lord over us” was number 1, looking back at myself I had inherited plain and simple rebellion. So I signed up to my protestant pastor, doing exactly the same thing here which I refused to do there. Having read the early church fathers, it became manifestly obvious that the Bishop of Rome was afforded a very special unique “double-portioned” place, and then, and only then did I understand Scripture which expresses the Papacy so obvious to the believer, but ignored completely by my protestant self.

 

[eddietoo]

that is not at all what i am saying. you have completely misunderstood the point i was trying to make, probably because of how poorly i was in making it. so i will try again.

the point i was trying to make is that if our Lord did not create an hierarchical structure in His Church, then no one would be able to know who speaks here on earth with His authority. if His sheep could not know who speaks with His authority, they could not hear His voice. that would make Him the opposite of a Good Shepherd.

for example, since Jesus ascended in to heaven, there have been many, many men who claim to be the authentic interpreters of the Lord’s words and of His Gospel.

from the beginning this is true. st. paul speaks of those who are telling the faithful erroneous doctrines. later we have arius claiming Jesus was not divine. after arius, we had nestorius who claimed Jesus was not one person. still later, we had martin luther, john calvin, henry viii, john knox, all claiming that they were the authentic interpreters of the Lord’s Gospel. yet, they disagreed with each other.

still later came john wesley, mary baker eddy, william miller and joseph smith, all claiming to be the authentic interpreters of the Lord’s Gospel.

i do not believe any of them were because the Holy Spirit will not and cannot contradict Himself. there can only be one authentic interpretation of the Lord’s Gospel and the Holy Spirit is making it clear that that is true and also clear and easy to determine who is responsible for the authentic interpretation.

i reject the idea that Jesus would not have realized that many would follow Him claiming to be authentic interpreters of His Life and Words and that anticipating this He would not create a Church that would oppose them.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

So you think the Holy Spirit is incompetent in making His voice clear? That He cannot authentically speak for Himself?

I don’t think you do, actually.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

I find the ex catedra exception rather specious, since obscure statements in highly dubious documents are taken as infallible

It would appear to me, that most non-Catholics have this misconception and misunderstanding, when ever a bishop of Rome records a commentary or writes an encyclical, that addresses a particular subject, affecting their time period, that it is an infallible statement to all of Christendom. My advice, don’t take all that the bishop’s of Rome writes as infallible, that is a mistake. When the bishop of Rome speaks or teaches infallibly, we will know by One, he will exclaim it from the Chair of Peter, two, all the bishop’s in full communion with Peter’s Chair will be in support, which is a miracle in itself, the infallibility exclamation will not contradict any age in all of Christendom, It will not contradict Sacred Scripture or Sacred Tradition when it only addresses all Christians on faith and morals.

When you can discern the difference between when Jesus commissions St. Peter alone to feed His lambs, tend His flock, feed His sheep and when Peter or the bishop’s of Rome (a Rock that does not change) who resist’s against the gates of hell in every age, that come against the flock of Jesus Christ. It is here, when Peter= bishop’s of Rome who is the visible shepherd on earth binds and looses, in full communion with Jesus Christ who binds and looses in heaven as Jesus exclaims; You are Peter=Rock and I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven, what ever you bind and loose on earth, I will bind and loose in heaven.

Peter is the only apostle to receive the keys to the kingdom of Heaven in the singular person directly from Jesus Christ. Sure the other’s receive the same Keys, while in communion with Peter.

Peter singular the key holder exercises supremacy over the whole flock. While the key holders universal (bishop’s) in full communion with Peter exercises the keys over the flock at the local level.

With the keys of Peter in full communion with college of bishop’s is exercised for example in a council. An infallibility can take place also.

As per your “dubious” quotes, I find no infallible statements or contradiction.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Do you have any sources?

And what are our sources for Peter establishing the Church at Antioch, for that matter? I think the evidence is undeniable he worked in Antioch, for sure, but where do we learn that he established Bishops in Antioch (and Mark in Alexandria)?

Saint Evodius (d. ca. 69) is a saint in the Christian Church and one of the first identifiable Christians.
Very little is known of the life of St. Evodius. However, he was a pagan who converted to Christianity due to the apostolic work of Saint Peter. In the Book of Acts, one of the first communities to receive evangelism were the Jews and pagans of Antioch. The city was opulent and cosmopolitan, and there were both Hellenized Jews and pagans influenced by monotheism. The term “Christian” was coined for these Gentile (mainly Syrian and Greek) converts, and St. Peter became the bishop of Antioch and led the church there. Evodius succeeded Peter the Apostle as bishop of Antioch when Peter left Antioch for Rome. [2]
St. Evodius was bishop of Antioch until 66 AD, and was succeeded by St. Ignatius of Antioch. Catholic tradition says it is likely that St. Evodius died of natural causes, however, the Orthodox tradition holds that he was martyred under Nero in 66 AD.[1] As one of the first pagans to come to the new church, he is venerated as a saint in the Roman Catholic Church as well as in the Eastern Orthodox Church and in Oriental Orthodoxy. His feast day in the Roman Catholic Church is May 6 and in the Orthodox Church it is September 7.

There is no dispute or argument of Peter placing St .Evodius who is recorded in the New Testament as bishop of Antioch. The waters of Antioch after St. Ignatius, begin to get murky in later decades, due to everyone is placing a bishop in Antioch. That said, many heavy weight saints came from Antioch early on. But as John records in revelation, is one of the cities forewarned to return to it’s first love and repent or “it’s light will be taken from them”.

cont;

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

cont;

Most if not all Orthodox Church’s have Peter who placed St. Mark as bishop of Alexandria, who’s light was also taken from them, or fell into heresy at later times.

Most Catholic biblical historians, I have come across do not dispute the Orthodox from their tradition of Mark. Some Latin Catholics historians have difficulty with the Orthodox’s historical time line of Mark being in Egypt, when compared to sacred Scripture and Catholic tradition. see here;

A widespread, if somewhat late, tradition represents St. Mark as the founder of the Church of Alexandria. Though strangely enough Clement and Origen make no reference to the saint’s connection with their city, it is attested by Eusebius (op. cit., II, xvi, xxiv), by St. Jerome (“De Vir. Illust.”, viii), by the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, xlvi), by Epiphanius (“Hær;.”, li, 6) and by many later authorities. The “Martyrologium Romanum” (25 April) records: “At Alexandria the anniversary of Blessed Mark the Evangelist . . . at Alexandria of St. Anianus, Bishop, the disciple of Blessed Mark and his successor in the episcopate, who fell asleep in the Lord.” The date at which Mark came to Alexandria is uncertain. The Chronicle of Eusebius assigns it to the first years of Claudius (A.D. 41-4), and later on states that St. Mark’s first successor, Anianus, succeeded to the See of Alexandria in the eighth year of Nero (61-2). This would make Mark Bishop of Alexandria for a period of about twenty years. This is not impossible, if we might suppose in accordance with some early evidence that St. Peter came to Rome in A.D. 42, Mark perhaps accompanying him. But Acts raise considerable difficulties. On the assumption that the founder of the Church of Alexandria was identical with the companion of Paul and Barnabas, we find him at Jerusalem and Antioch about A.D. 46 (Acts 12:25), in Salamis about 47 (Acts 13:5), at Antioch again about 49 or 50 (Acts 15:37-9), and when he quitted Antioch, on the separation of Paul and Barnabas, it was not to Alexandria but to Cyprus that he turned (Acts 15:39). There is nothing indeed to prove absolutely that all this is inconsistent with his being Bishop of Alexandria at the time, but seeing that the chronology of the Apostolic age is admittedly uncertain, and that we have no earlier authority than Eusebius for the date of the foundation of the Alexandrian Church, we may perhaps conclude with more probability that it was founded somewhat later. There is abundance of time between A.D. 50 and 60, a period during which the New Testament is silent in regard to St. Mark, for his activity in Egypt.

A commentary on this subject from Franciscan University found here;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09672c.htm

Peace be with you

 

[commenter]

It won’t happen. Regardless of how much wrong is done, they have taken the position that the Roman Catholic Church cannot fall into heresy. So whatever is taught is true. They cannot admit error, due to a basic statement of ‘I believe the Catholic Church’. Which includes everything that is taught. They simply refuse to look at the evidence to the contrary, and have already determined that it is not compelling, regardless of how compelling it is.

Without the living Magisterium, you can’t in your argument, point to “how much wrong is done”, because Scripture can be interpreted many different ways. The Lutheran and the Baptist can claim the Catholic yardstick is wrong, but if the Lutheran and Baptist yardsticks differ from each other, then the Catholic yardstick is not disproved.

It is hard to come up with “compelling” evidence of error without some objective living standard of truth, against which the Catholic standard be shown to fall short. It does not prove anything to point to popes who were “bad” because infallibility is not the pope’s moral perfection. Infallibility does not mean the pope will always teach the Truth. He might well be silent. Even if a heretic is promoting false doctrine, and even if (in hindsight) it appears the pope should have said something to clarify, infallibility does not mean he necessarily will.

A pope may remain silent for various reasons. He may not know what to say in this situation, he may be afraid of a popular heretic, he may not foresee the long term implications of the heretical teaching. A later council may well (in hindsight) see the damage done by the pope’s silence, and identify a better course action, after the fact, that the prior pope should have followed.

None of this refutes infallibility. If you want to refute infallibility of a pope, you have to “show your cards”. Show us your yardstick. Justify how your yardstick is authoritative. Mentioning that a council disagreed with an earlier pope is not evidence, unless you show why you think that council is authoritative, what they are authoritative on, and what exact doctrine taught directly and dogmatically by an earlier pope, which they claim was erroneous. You have not done any of that.

 

[qmitchell30]

Going off of what eddietoo stated, if there is not a single of authority instituted by Christ who is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, how do you know who is correct? Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley…? How would you know? If you take each of those teachers at their word, then they are all guided by the Holy Spirit. However, the issue is that there are serious differences in their teachings and the Holy Spirit cannot teach contradiction. So who is right? It cannot be simply you believe the Holy Spirit tells you X-teacher is correct, while I say Y-teacher is correct, then there wouldn’t be a central Christian belief.

Without a position of authority guided by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, we all become our own authority. We decide what is true and what is untrue. Even with interpretation of Scripture, without a position of authority, we are left to be our own interpreter. The very state of Protestant denominations should be a clear example that an authority is needed. Conservative denominations will state Scripture clearly teaches homosexuality is clearly wrong, while liberal deonminations openly except homosexuality and state Scripture meaning changes with the times. Both cannot be correct, so who is right?

The very disintegration of Protestantism is a clear example of why God through he Holy Spirit uses the Pope to be that position of authority and teach the true faith.

So, we think the Holy Spirit is extremely clear in making His voice clear, and the Pope is his microphone.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

It won’t happen. Regardless of how much wrong is done, they have taken the position that the Roman Catholic Church cannot fall into heresy. So whatever is taught is true. They cannot admit error, due to a basic statement of ‘I believe the Catholic Church’. Which includes everything that is taught. They simply refuse to look at the evidence to the contrary, and have already determined that it is not compelling, regardless of how compelling it is.

Without the living Magisterium, you can’t in your argument, point to “how much wrong is done”, because Scripture can be interpreted many different ways. The Lutheran and the Baptist can claim the Catholic yardstick is wrong, but if the Lutheran and Baptist yardsticks differ from each other, then the Catholic yardstick is not disproved.

It is hard to come up with “compelling” evidence of error without some objective living standard of truth, against which the Catholic standard be shown to fall short. It does not prove anything to point to popes who were “bad” because infallibility is not the pope’s moral perfection. Infallibility does not mean the pope will always teach the Truth. He might well be silent. Even if a heretic is promoting false doctrine, and even if (in hindsight) it appears the pope should have said something to clarify, infallibility does not mean he necessarily will.

A pope may remain silent for various reasons. He may not know what to say in this situation, he may be afraid of a popular heretic, he may not foresee the long term implications of the heretical teaching. A later council may well (in hindsight) see the damage done by the pope’s silence, and identify a better course action, after the fact, that the prior pope should have followed.

None of this refutes infallibility. If you want to refute infallibility of a pope, you have to “show your cards”. Show us your yardstick. Justify how your yardstick is authoritative. Mentioning that a council disagreed with an earlier pope is not evidence, unless you show why you think that council is authoritative, what they are authoritative on, and what exact doctrine taught directly and dogmatically by an earlier pope, which they claim was erroneous. You have not done any of that.

You are missing the point. If there is error, it cannot be detected. This is a basic feature of the system in place. 'There cannot be error because we believe it is all true".

My “yardstick” is wholly irrelevant here.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

Going off of what eddietoo stated, if there is not a single of authority instituted by Christ who is protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, how do you know who is correct? Calvin, Luther, Zwingli, Wesley…? How would you know? If you take each of those teachers at their word, then they are all guided by the Holy Spirit. However, the issue is that there are serious differences in their teachings and the Holy Spirit cannot teach contradiction. So who is right? It cannot be simply you believe the Holy Spirit tells you X-teacher is correct, while I say Y-teacher is correct, then there wouldn’t be a central Christian belief.

Without a position of authority guided by the Holy Spirit from teaching error, we all become our own authority. We decide what is true and what is untrue. Even with interpretation of Scripture, without a position of authority, we are left to be our own interpreter. The very state of Protestant denominations should be a clear example that an authority is needed. Conservative denominations will state Scripture clearly teaches homosexuality is clearly wrong, while liberal deonminations openly except homosexuality and state Scripture meaning changes with the times. Both cannot be correct, so who is right?

The very disintegration of Protestantism is a clear example of why God through he Holy Spirit uses the Pope to be that position of authority and teach the true faith.

So, we think the Holy Spirit is extremely clear in making His voice clear, and the Pope is his microphone.

You seem to think the Holy Spirit is not active in the lives of believers. That He will not lead us into truth - despite clear promises in Scripture to do so. Where is the pope mentioned in Ephesians 4? He’s not.

 

[qmitchell30]

I think he is active and truly believe He leads us to the truth. However, you believe the Holy Spirit guides you to believe the Pope is at best an position that is not needed, while I believe the Holy Spirit guides me to believe the Pope is needed and is biblical. So again to my point, the Holy Spirit cannot be teaching both of us because this is a contradiction. Therefore, one of us is incorrect. This is while an authority is needed, because people believe the Holy Spirit is showing them something that the Holy Spirit actually is not showing them. Its protect us from ourselves and from Satan. It is to be a clear guiding path of truth.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

I think he is active and truly believe He leads us to the truth. However, you believe the Holy Spirit guides you to believe the Pope is at best an position that is not needed, while I believe the Holy Spirit guides me to believe the Pope is needed and is biblical. So again to my point, the Holy Spirit cannot be teaching both of us because this is a contradiction. Therefore, one of us is incorrect. This is while an authority is needed, because people believe the Holy Spirit is showing them something that the Holy Spirit actually is not showing them. Its protect us from ourselves and from Satan. It is to be a clear guiding path of truth.

Alternately, that He has not spoken regarding the pope at all (meaning the pope, then, is not something He inspired). There are matters that He has not spoken on, but people presume He has. That is a sin of presumption. We argue that He has been silent on the pope and that you read the Scripture incorrectly as establishing said office. It makes more sense to us that there is no pope in Scripture, as it would be clearly laid out in Scripture.

 

[qmitchell30]

So, we obviously read scripture differently. i.e. Matthew 16:18-19. Further, show me where in the Bible is states that everything that is true must be stated in the Bible. Also, does the way the Church has operated since day 1 have nor bearing on how it should operate today? There is countless testimony to the office of the Pope and the hierarchy of the Church by early Christians. Does that not have any indication on how scripture should be interpreted? Especially, when some of these Christians were disciples the 12 Apostles? Or is the only thing that matters is how you read Scripture?

 

[Entwhistler]

Alternately, that He has not spoken regarding the pope at all (meaning the pope, then, is not something He inspired). There are matters that He has not spoken on, but people presume He has. That is a sin of presumption. We argue that He has been silent on the pope and that you read the Scripture incorrectly as establishing said office. It makes more sense to us that there is no pope in Scripture, as it would be clearly laid out in Scripture.

I would disagree that the Papacy is not laid out clearly in scripture. But not everything is in scripture. The Trinity is never mentioned. If you read the Bible in a vacuum, would you ever think that Christianity held that belief?

 

[AlNg]

One pope approved of torture (with some restrictions); another pope condemned it. Can both be right?

 

[Entwhistler]

One pope approved of torture (with some restrictions); another pope condemned it. Can both be right?

I’m sure there is context needed, but even if not, he was not pronouncing from the Chair of Peter. The Pope is only infallible when speaking on faith and morals from the Chair of Peter. Basically, it is a big deal and everyone will know about it.

 

[AlNg]

I’m sure there is context needed, but even if not, he was not pronouncing from the Chair of Peter.

So a papal bull written by a Pope is not from the Chair of Peter? I thought that any papal bull on morals would be part of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church?

 

[Entwhistler]

So a papal bull written by a Pope is not from the Chair of Peter? I thought that any papal bull on morals would be part of the ordinary magisterium of the Catholic Church?

The bull which you are referring to, Ad Extirpanda is not a bull on faith and morals. It is a bull on practice. Until a teaching is set down infallibly people can disagree about the teaching and the practice. Infallibility has only been invoked around two times in the past 200 years or so. Nevertheless, the Church sounds very concerned about torture which is obvious from the qualifications in the bull. Also, in the context of that age, in which torture was wide-spread, this bull speaking on the abilities of the Inquisition is quite fascinating.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Alternately, that He has not spoken regarding the pope at all (meaning the pope, then, is not something He inspired). There are matters that He has not spoken on, but people presume He has. That is a sin of presumption. We argue that He has been silent on the pope and that you read the Scripture incorrectly as establishing said office. It makes more sense to us that there is no pope in Scripture, as it would be clearly laid out in Scripture.

I would disagree that the Papacy is not laid out clearly in scripture. But not everything is in scripture. The Trinity is never mentioned. If you read the Bible in a vacuum, would you ever think that Christianity held that belief?

Yes, absolutely, because the Trinity can be clearly deduced from Scripture. There are numerous places where all three Persons are referred to as God, for example. In comparison it is a far stretch to read the papacy into Scripture, and those “Biblical defenses” of the papacy stretch credibility to the point those defenses are unbelievable to anyone not Catholic.

 

[qmitchell30]

Does the practices of Christians for the first few centuries not play any factor in understanding the teaching of Scripture and the teaching of the Apostles? Also, where does Scripture state everything must be clearly defined in Scripture?