Arguments against the Papacy?

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Regarding the ‘argument from absence’.

It’s like you say this horse has wings.

I say, where? I don’t see any on the tail. Or the head. Or the sides. In fact, I see no evidence at all that this horse has wings.

And your response is that of course the horse has wings, I am wrong because I am arguing from absence. A thing must be true because you say it is true. You can make an assertion and not be able to prove it, and when I demonstrate its lack of evidence, you respond with this.

It is ridiculous that you attempt to defend this position, @Vonsalza.

Look, you can try to craft a carefully worded apologetic for your rhetorical errors if you want… Arguments from silence and absence are trash arguments. Objectively so. For absolutely any statement, the number of things not-said is nearly infinite. Your imagination is the limit. As such, they’re useless.

Take those “arguments” into “Intro to Logic” at your local U and you will be unable to pass the class. It is unfortunate that the vast majority of your positions seem to be premised on these kinds of arguments.

I am not so insecure that I need to insult the other person every time I post. Childish insults don’t help your case. You must thing your position is very weak if you need these things to buttress it. That is what it communicates.

Prove from Scripture and tradition there is not a dead horse on my living room table. You can’t. Therefore, there must be one.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

The word in the text you referred to is bosko. Not poimaneo. Your argument does nothing to prove that Peter rules because it is factually incorrect at the basis. It’s just non sequitors.

Is this the best you can do?

Your correct, When Jesus spoke the word “Feed” = boskein, Jesus COMMISSIONED Simon-Peter ALONE in the presence of all His disciples after the resurrection, to give His flock “spiritual nourishment”.

When Jesus spoke the word “Tend” = poimanao, Jesus COMMISSIONED Simon- Peter ALONE in the presence of all His disciples (after the resurrection before Jesus ascended into heaven) to RULE His sheep.

Forgive my lapsed attention to the detailed original Greek words for feed and tend.

peace be with you

poimaino has the secondary meaning, by metaphor, of watch out for other people, to shepherd, to protect, rule, govern, foster,. I don’t have time to discuss this much further, but I will say there were far better words, such as arxein and basileuein, that would have been used to clearly mark ruling.

This would have been clear to the apostles. You are extracting far too much out of this one word.

And in reference to the next post, Jesus is frequently if not always the Rock who is referred to. He builds His church on himself, not on a mortal man.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

I have read your argument, let us leave these to board for judgement, should you like to proceed now with Peter exercising his divine keys from the apostolic age and throughout the centuries?

Peace be with you

Shall we rehearse the criminal, persistent, disgusting and shameful neglect and abuse of those presumed powers by the popes? How their arrogant abuses have caused scandals over centuries and are a prime cause of the Reformation? Are you unaware of the Borgias, for example, or that a pope protected the protectors of child abusing priests, causing the scandal that is still unfolding? If they had the keys, they are horrendously guilty.

By the way, the Reformed view the keys as ministerial rather than as magisterial. If you don’t know the difference I can explain it the next time I am here.

I enjoy discussing this with you. The behavior of some others leaves something to be desired.

 

[SuperLuigi]

You are correct that there has been scandal in the past with the Church (also, this is usually the part where the CAF whiners of "you’re insulting the bishops! How dare you!) come in with their appeal to authority and censorship.

However, the proper solution is not to use that as an excuse to leave the Church, namely so one can give more into thinks like power, greed and lust—and we both know those have been powerful forces people have used as excuses to move away from the RCC.

So on the one hand, we have Catholics who think we should blindly follow the USCCB and the Vatican even if we know what they say on things not faith-related are simply WRONG, but on the other hand, people who either see everything through the lens of American politics or the child sex abuse scandal. As you might imagine, they are also morally inconsistent with this. Seen any outrage from the Orthodox, Protestants, skeptics or moderate Muslims on child brides in Europe?

Me either.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

You are correct that there has been scandal in the past with the Church (also, this is usually the part where the CAF whiners of "you’re insulting the bishops! How dare you!) come in with their appeal to authority and censorship.

However, the proper solution is not to use that as an excuse to leave the Church, namely so one can give more into thinks like power, greed and lust—and we both know those have been powerful forces people have used as excuses to move away from the RCC.

So on the one hand, we have Catholics who think we should blindly follow the USCCB and the Vatican even if we know what they say on things not faith-related are simply WRONG, but on the other hand, people who either see everything through the lens of American politics or the child sex abuse scandal. As you might imagine, they are also morally inconsistent with this. Seen any outrage from the Orthodox, Protestants, skeptics or moderate Muslims on child brides in Europe?

Me either.

Probably gonna confuse everyone with this one…

Whatever the proper solution WAS no longer applies. At the time of the Reformation, the papacy, whether good or bad, was the recognized authority over the church - de facto if not de jure. The Catholics excommunicated people, burned people, threatened and angered people, , etc.: in short, the Church was as responsible for the “Great Departure” as much as the Protestants. “Hey come back here so we can burn you at the stake!” really does not have much appeal as an evangelistic tactic.

We are where we are. I submit to my denominational authority in doctrinal matters, and they are not particularly fond of the Catholics, to put it mildly. I note the papal outreaches to the Orthodox and the Lutheran and say this is a jolly decent sort of thing to be doing, what? The high priestly prayer and all that? Getting the Lutherans and the Orthodox into the Big Happy Family of Rome is child’s play compared to reconciliation with the Reformed. If you ask the question “Are Catholics Christian?” you will get heated debate. “Can a pope be saved?” is another one.

My primary purpose on CAF now is to feel out where there is unity between us, where there is commonality, build bridges, explore and understand. In a way I sort of weirdly function as some sort of unofficial liaison with the Reformed.
Maybe someday, there can be reconciliation talks. But not for a long time. A long, long time. In the meantime I try to understand where you guys are coming from, which is confusing to an outsider.

There’s more to it than that, but her’s that.

 

[AlNg]

Prove from Scripture and tradition there is not a dead horse on my living room table. You can’t. Therefore, there must be one.

Your argument fails because indications from Scripture and Tradition are not the only source of evidence that there is not a dead horse on your table. There are other ways of coming to that conclusion.

 

[AlNg]

So on the one hand, we have Catholics who think we should blindly follow the USCCB and the Vatican

I thought that Roman Catholics were obligated to adhere to the teaching of the bishops?
“Lumen Gentium n. 25”. In matters of faith and morals, the bishops speak in the name of Christ and the faithful are to accept their teaching and adhere to it with a religious assent.

 

[AlNg]

At the time of the Reformation, the papacy, whether good or bad, was the recognized authority over the church

That was true in the West, but the Orthodox recognize the pope as having the honorary position as first among equals, but they do not recognize the papal infallibility and the supreme jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

Prove from Scripture and tradition there is not a dead horse on my living room table. You can’t. Therefore, there must be one.

Your argument fails because indications from Scripture and Tradition are not the only source of evidence that there is not a dead horse on your table. There are other ways of coming to that conclusion.

That’s ambiguous. Which argument fails?

and here’s the OP

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

Instead of ‘Tradition’ I should have said ‘history’. Did you see anyone sneak into my living room with a dead horse?

In a court of law, or in history, you determine what you think happened after weighing all the available evidence and evaluating it against all the other evidence.

I consider all Catholic evidence suspect and possibly tainted because of discovered frauds like the Donation of Constantine, other problems with Catholic apologetics, such as often the claim they make does not bear up under the evidence, etc. If they have a case, why do they have to overstate and lie about it? Why is the truth sacrificed for Rome when they claim they have the truth? Seems contradictory. And you see puffed-up pompous, off-putting posters who think they know everything and Protestants know nothing. There is some case (the Catholic Church does exist, and in it are some neat people beautiful thoughts, wonderful spiritualities and uplifting and edifying panoplies, a garden of delights where God has clearly been at work) for Catholicism, it’s just they bury it under all sorts of implausibilities and arguments that don’t work.

 

[SojournerOnEarth]

SojournerOnEarth:

At the time of the Reformation, the papacy, whether good or bad, was the recognized authority over the church

That was true in the West, but the Orthodox recognize the pope as having the honorary position as first among equals, but they do not recognize the papal infallibility and the supreme jurisdiction over the Eastern Churches.

Thank you. I concede your point.

And there are Orthodox in union with Rome.

 

[qmitchell30]

I think there is evidence that Christ would have instituted an authority figure based upon this continued conversation. If Christ did establish an authority upon Peter and his successors, it would be vital to follow that authority because he would defend against erroneous teachings and protect the true faith under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. However, if Christ did not set up an authority he has left us trying to guess what is true and not true. Without someone protected from teaching erroneously we are all left with personal interpretation and all of us claiming our interpretation is based upon guidance by the Holy Spirit. Which in turn solves nothing because we all become our own authority figure choosing what is true for us and unity of believers would eventually become nonexistent.

 

[tgGodsway]

Where did Jesus appoint Peter to be head of the Church? And I do mean called him to be head? What is the evidence that such a position was understood by the apostolic circle?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Conscience comes before that, especially if the Bishops and the Vatican make the stupid move to talk about subjects they don’t investigate thoroughly enough or just don’t have a clue what they are talking about.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I think we both know at the end of the day, a lot of followers of faiths that broke away or misread the Catholic faith did so for selfish reasons.

 

[Vonsalza]

I am not so insecure that I need to insult the other person every time I post.

Whoa, whoa, whoa!

Where are these insults? Do you consider it insulting that I told you “arguments from absence/silence” are blasted in sophomore-level logic classes and that you use these sub-par arguments a lot?

Listen, another important lesson learned in an academic study of logic from the philosophical perspective is this: the man and his argument are two separate things.

So yes, your argument here is literally unacceptable. That doesn’t mean you’re a bad person (you seem reasonably informed, in general). So if you can’t make that distinction, you seriously have no business whatsoever engaging in any sort of apologetics or debate.

I haven’t insulted you once in these last few exchanges. I have, however, gleefully critiqued the rhetoric you’ve proposed. There’s a critical difference.

You must thing your position is very weak if you need these things to buttress it.

And we call this fallacy “poisoning the well”. It’s a form of ad hominem.

Prove from Scripture and tradition there is not a dead horse on my living room table. You can’t. Therefore, there must be one.

Parlaying this into the papacy, you’ve been shown repeatedly in many, many threads where the papacy is supported in scripture and tradition. You’ve just chosen to axiomatically reject the proofs provided. Which is fine. Just don’t make the mistake of thinking your rejection proves Catholics wrong or that rejection of the claim simultaneously proofs any sort of counter-claim. And not just in this argument; in any argument.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

Shall we rehearse the criminal, persistent, disgusting and shameful neglect and abuse of those presumed powers by the popes? How their arrogant abuses have caused scandals over centuries and are a prime cause of the Reformation? Are you unaware of the Borgias, for example, or that a pope protected the protectors of child abusing priests, causing the scandal that is still unfolding? If they had the keys, they are horrendously guilty.

Your negative vent, does no justice to the Truth of this history which involved secular and evil powers and principalities, which the Catholic Church continues to battle since apostolic times. No one denies the negative publicity the Catholic Church has received, in such subjects, which neglects the whole Truth of each particular subject. Your misrepresented one sided view of history does not out weigh the good from the Catholic Saints and blood of Martyrs which civilized the world.

The Catholic Church is over 2000 years old. Since the beginning we have a Judas who betrayed Jesus, Peter who denied Jesus three times and the rest of the apostles abandoned Jesus. I don’t think your misrepresented history can make a worse case than this historical fact.

By the way, the Reformed view the keys as ministerial rather than as magisterial. If you don’t know the difference I can explain it the next time I am here.

That is interesting. Can you name the person, place and point in history, When Jesus gave your Reformed view the authority or “keys” to be exercised “as ministerial”? I have to hand this one to you, this is all new to me, and dare I say to 2000 years of Christian history. I find your Reformed view here very interesting. I hope you can truthfully answer a few of my questions.

What Reformed view constitutes authority over Jesus himself, when Jesus placed the keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth. Yet you deny Jesus Christ by stating your Reformed view exercises the keys as ministerial? Can you name the person who binds and looses upon the earth by a ministerial Reformed view?

Please do, explain who and what is your Magisterium Jesus builds upon His Church and, how your Reformed view Magisterium exercises it’s ministerial duties Jesus calls them to “Forgive sin”, baptize all nations etc.

If your Reformed view possesses keys to ministerial duties. Then which member of your Reformed view has the power to forgive sin?

I await your response.

 

[AlNg]

Parlaying this into the papacy, you’ve been shown repeatedly in many, many threads where the papacy is supported in scripture and tradition

The Orthodox would agree that there was a certain primacy of honor for the pope of Rome. However, they don’t see where infallibility or universal jurisdiction and supremacy are supported. The Council of Constantinople 381 for example, was not called by the pope. When the papal legates excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius, none of the Eastern Patriarchs, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, went along. All of them remained in communion with Constantinople.

 

[OriginalGabrielof12]

The Orthodox would agree that there was a certain primacy of honor for the pope of Rome. However, they don’t see where infallibility or universal jurisdiction and supremacy are supported. The Council of Constantinople 381 for example, was not called by the pope. When the papal legates excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius, none of the Eastern Patriarchs, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, went along. All of them remained in communion with Constantinople.

The Council of Constantinople 381 is considered an Ecumenical council when the Emperor called a church council to settle Eastern heretics and heresies mainly Arianism, which did not infect the West or Bishop’s of Rome.

The reason “All of them remained in communion with Constantinople”, was mainly due to the fact, the Patriarch of Constantinople (supported by the Emperor) usurped the authority away from these original apostolic sees.

When the Emperor and the Patriarch of Constantinople could not usurp the authority from the Bishop’s of Rome.

The council’s third canon of 381 reads:
“The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome because Constantinople is New Rome.”

Which the Bishop of Rome rejected. Pope Damasus I in the following year (382) which opposed the disciplinary canons of the Council of Constantinople, especially the third canon which placed Constantinople above Alexandria and Antioch. The synod protested against this raising of the bishop of the new imperial capital (Constantinople), just fifty years old, to a status higher than that of the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch, and stated that the primacy of the Roman see had not been established by a gathering of bishops but rather by Christ himself.

It is from councils such as these, that were Imperially, politically and power grabbing motivated under the demise of settling real Church matters, that ultimately lead to the great schism of 1054.

It should be added here, that a deposed bishop from Constantinople during these trouble times in the East, Submitted to the authority from the Bishop of Rome to hear his case. Pope Damasus although did not call this council, The bishop of Rome Pope Damasus counsel was sought behind the scenes, from well respected bishops in the East.

 

[po18guy]

You’re trolling, right? You cannot be serious. The Catholic Church does not have an infallible, de fide teaching on everything in the universe. Some things are common sense - and maybe that is the problem.

 

[Vonsalza]

Vonsalza:

Parlaying this into the papacy, you’ve been shown repeatedly in many, many threads where the papacy is supported in scripture and tradition

The Orthodox would agree that there was a certain primacy of honor for the pope of Rome. However, they don’t see where infallibility or universal jurisdiction and supremacy are supported. The Council of Constantinople 381 for example, was not called by the pope. When the papal legates excommunicated Patriarch Cerularius, none of the Eastern Patriarchs, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, went along. All of them remained in communion with Constantinople.

I’ve studied Eastern Orthodoxy quite a bit, but not nearly as much as I should. So with that grain of salt…

A pretty convincing argument can be made for universal jurisdiction from the very earliest days of the Church. A lot of what we see in Paul and his relationship to Peter and the Church in Rome gives much ultra-early support for the claim (albeit this is not the same as unambiguous proof).

If you have a bit of a hang-up with infallibility and (especially) supremacy, I can understand. These have certainly developed over time (“ex-cathedra” infallibility less, supremacy more), just like literally everything else in Judeo-Christianity. But in the same vein, the concept of “primus inter pares” is contradictory if not nonsensical. If a man is your “primus” in any way, then you and he are not actually “pares”.

God’s people have simply always had a high-priest. In the days of the patriarchs it was the patrilineal heir of Adam. Then the order of Melchizedek (perhaps instituted by Shem, of the same lineage) provided one up unto the days of Christ himself. Christ then instituted the Apostles, led by Peter.

At no time since creation was there to be a sole priest-king over all the faithful. But at the same time, there was never a pure egalitarian council, either. The “ruling body” always had a head.

---

As we would probably agree, all of Christendom was pretty well unified on the idea that the guy in Rome had some authority over the Church as-a-whole for its first 1500 years (even if it was just as arbiter of last resort). I guess the question has always been “Just HOW MUCH power should that dude hold?”

If it makes you feel any better about Catholicism, the pope doesn’t have very much effect on my day-to-day life as I function within my parish and the rest of the world.

---

On the last about the excommunication, I wouldn’t imagine they would. The legates didn’t have the authority to spontaneously excommunicate a bishop and the pope was dead at the time, if I remember correctly.