BrianH vs. RyanL Papacy Thread

[RyanL]

How do we know that James didn’t give a dogma, but only a pastoral decision? Because Paul abrogates the discipline in 1 Cor 10:27-30; you can’t change a dogma, you can change a pastoral decision. Further, the pastor of the flock has the authority to dispense with the pastoral decision if he sees fit (for a recent example, see: St. Patrick’s day, Friday abstinence, and the Bishops)

Does history support that authority for the NT parish resides only in the local bishop? If it did, we should expect to see no further ecumenical councils. Is that what we see? Nope. Rather, we see ecumenical councils throughout Christian history, and all of those who attended fully expected the particular matter at dispute to be resolved with finality. (See: ecumenical councils and what they were talking about.) If everyone thought that the ultimate authority for a local parish was with the bishop, why on earth would they have councils? Why would every bishop be expected to uphold the findings of the councils? Why did they? Why is it, if they didn’t, they were casted out as Anathema? Isn’t it their own personal judgment as bishop?

So what have we seen?

1. Doctrine can legitimately develop in Christian thought, as taught by the Bible and early Christian history.
2. Bishops in a council have more authority than an individual bishop, as taught by the Bible and early Christian history
3. Peter made an infallible decree at the Council of Jerusalem
4. James made a pastoral decision based on Peter’s infallible decree
5. The faithful were bound by the pastoral decision until the ordinary decided otherwise
6. All orthodox Christians still believe Peter’s infallible decree

So…far from what you have claimed, the Bible clearly speaks to the Catholic position.

Now let’s turn to your next post…

You have picked verses to support your theology and left out others.

I have given you my reasons why I have selected the verses I examined, and you haven’t disputed the validity of the parallel or provided an alternate and adequate explanation for the parallels. You have to do this to dispute the veracity of the claim. So far you have simply said, “I don’t agree, and I won’t say why you’re wrong.” That’s a child’s argument - I know you’re better than that.

Mal 2…

Who was this addressed to? The NT priesthood (which wasn’t around for a few hundred more years) or the OT priesthood? Is the OT priesthood still around? Met any Levitical priests lately? What does v.1 say (keep in mind that a text without a context is a pretext):

1And now, O ye

priests, this commandment is for you.
Hmmph. Doesn’t seem like you’re applying the verse correctly. In fact, it rather seems like you were deliberately mis-applying the verse. Tsk tsk :tsktsk:

But while we have our Bibles open to Malachi, let’s look quickly at a prophetic verse for the sake of those who, unlike you, don’t believe in the Real Presence:

Mal 1:11 (KJV) For from the rising of the sun even unto the going down of the same my name shall be great among the Gentiles; and in every place incense shall be offered unto my name, and a pure offering: for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the LORD of hosts.

I would ask them (1) when was the last time you saw incense offered during worship, and (2) what “pure offering” is given during your “Worship Service”. But I digress…

The Old Testament priests were never considered infallible. In fact, when they violated Torah, the Lord is quite…graphic about what happened to them.

Three points to make here.

1. I never claimed OT priests were infallible - what I claimed was that the NT reality is always greater than the OT shadow (which you have yet to contest).
2. Foreshadowings don’t need to be a one-for-one comparison. See what I said previously regarding Adam being a foreshadowing of Christ.
3. You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability. Please read this link so that you can see why you’re wrong. BTW, the Pope goes to confession weekly, and I’m pretty sure it’s not for “completely obeying the commands of God”. Again, read the link.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

Regarding Isaiah 22, quite frankly I’m shocked that you reject the whole of Christian scholarship on this issue. What you are doing is saying, “I acknowledge that every scholar, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, comes to the same conclusion on this issue. Further, I won’t address the plain reading of “over the house” within the text; rather, I will presume that you are completely wrong unless you present incontrovertible evidence that you are right, and even then I will deny the conclusion. I will likewise ignore the implications of the “like a father” part of the section, and I also won’t address the marked parallel between Isaiah 22:22 and Matt 16:19.”

Doesn’t that strike you as a bit of a funny way to debate?

Nevertheless, we can see that the practice was firmly established in the region (Joseph was master of the palace of Pharaoh in Egypt (Gen. 41)). You also might consider the following:

One of Solomon’s officials is the first mentioned as occupying this position (1 Ki 4:6), and this office was continued in both the Northern and Southern Kingdom (1 Ki 16:9; 18:3; 2 Ki 10:5; 15:5). Its importance is seen from the fact that after Azariah was smitten with leprosy, Jotham his heir “was over the household, judging the people of the land” (2 Ki 15:5).

(See also 2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 36:3, 22; 37:2)

Further, can we know that Christ was, in fact, intending for Peter to be “over the household” of Christ’s kingdom (with Christ, of course, maintaining His Kingship)? Sure, and the Bible tells us so.

John 21 (KJV):

15So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

16He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

17He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

What’s happening here? Well, there’s the three-fold restoration of Peter (“Do you love me?”) to restore Peter’s three-fold denial of Christ - but there’s something else. There’s a specific, personal commission to Peter alone.

       What's the commission?  To Feed and Tend Christ's flock.

How many sheep belong to Christ? ALL OF THEM.
When Peter dies, will Christ leave his flock without a Shepherd? Doesn’t seem to fit with the promises of Christ that He would be with us always, that He would lead us into all truth, that the gates of hell would never overcome His Church, that “he who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me”, or that as the Father sent Him, so also He would send His Apostles (read: with “all authority in heaven and on earth”). It also doesn’t fit with what the Bible teaches about Apostolic Succession.

That’s probably quite enough for now, but we’re still not through with the Biblical evidence yet. Once we’re done, perhaps we’ll go on to your little Clement/Linus conundrum. Sound fair?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

BrianH:

Yes, individual Catholic scholars contradict the First Vatican Council and other teachings of the Catholic church. This statement is infallible according to Catholic doctrine. None of the people you cited are though,

Oh, and for the sake of intellectual honesty, if you can find a member of the Catholic heirarchy who condemns either author of these long-standing and wide-spread works for teaching something in any way contrary to the faith, I’ll withdraw their statements and find a more reliable source.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[NPS]

If you are not Brian or Ryan and you want to comment on this discussion, please go here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107131

 

[NPS]

NPS:

If you are not Brian or Ryan and you want to comment on this discussion, please go here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=107131

Please disregard this message. NO COMMENTS please. (too late to delete)
Sorry guys

 

[BrianH]

I am working on my response. I did want to point out a tendency in your debating style Ryan:

Really? I see that there are some things I assumed you would “get” that it was wrong of me to assume

Doesn’t that strike you as a bit of a funny way to debate?

That’s a child’s argument - I know you’re better than that

.

Is that going to be your game?

Seems like a petty way to debate…

You are free to comment about how I am debating.
I think I will probably just point them out.

Um…prove it? Prove that the Bishop of Rome was not considered the head of the Church from the very beginning. I have shown that Peter was rightfully given the office, and the office has successors. You have shown nothing.

I will continue to work on my response. I just wanted to clarify a couple of things.
We had agreed you would prove the Papacy, not the other way around. As far as you having proved Peter had successors…
Anyway, I will have something out this weekend to cover your points.
Thanks
BH

 

[BrianH]

I did not ask for the comments thread to be removed. Am I just missing it somewhere?
BH

 

[RyanL]

BrianH:

I did not ask for the comments thread to be removed. Am I just missing it somewhere?
BH

Nah - the OP asked for the commentary thread to be removed, so the mods prolly just yanked it. Ahh…the might and power of a forum moderator…

As for the rhetoric…I’ll do my best to tone it down a notch or three. I grew up in the youngest of three boys in a family full of teasers, so I guess I got used to being aggressive when confronted. I sincerely apologize if it any of it was offensive - that was certainly not my intent. I ask that you forgive me and pray for me that God grant me the wisdom not to blurt out the first daffy thing that comes to mind.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

BrianH:

…As far as you having proved Peter had successors…

Since it seems we’ll have a little bit of time, I’ll recap what I’ve said so far regarding Apostolic Succession, and how St. Peter would have had a successor:

1. Eliacim had successors, and Christ appointed Peter to the same role in Christ’s NT Kingdom that Eliacim had in the OT kingdom. The logical inference is obvious.
2. The OT had a Levitical priesthood, and specifically a judicial authority which is a subset of that priesthood, and these all had successors. The NT provides us with a fulfillment of the OT foreshadowing. Again, the logical inference is not that it would only last for a generation, but rather that it would continue on through successors.
3. The Truth of Christ is proclaimed from the barque of Peter (Luke 5:3). This symbolic passage is hard to fulfill if the barque doesn’t survive Peter’s martyrdom.
4. Peter is given supernatural power by Christ to catch and bring to Christ all species of fish (at least in contemporary understanding), which are symbolic of Christians. This would be excedingly hard to do after he died without successors.
5. Peter writes in 2 Pet 1:12 (I mis-cited earlier - thanks for not calling me on it) that he would “always” remind the recipients of the truth of the Gospel while on his way to be martyred. This is Peter’s last encyclical, so the only logical explanation is that Peter would do something other than write this letter - my answer is that he would appoint a successor, and it’s the only rational answer I’ve yet encountered to explain this verse.
6. Peter, whose primacy you have already conceded, is personally and singularly given a special three-fold commission by Christ to tend Christ’s flock. Peter becomes the shepherd of Christ’s sheep (and again, how many sheep belong to Christ? That’s right, all of them).
7. I also stated the following, which simply recounts many of Christ’s words to us throughout the Gospels (citations available):

When Peter dies, will Christ leave his flock without a Shepherd? Doesn’t seem to fit with the promises of Christ that He would be with us always, that He would lead us into all truth, that the gates of hell would never overcome His Church, that “he who hears you hears me, he who rejects you rejects me”, or that as the Father sent Him, so also He would send His Apostles (read: with “all authority in heaven and on earth”).

Now…part of what I hadn’t covered yet is the following:
8. Acts 1:

15And in those days **Peter **stood up [again, sign of power in contemporary culture] in the midst of the disciples, and said…16…Judas…17…was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this ministry [but he killed himself. However, ] it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, and let no man dwell therein: and his bishoprick let another take. 23And they appointed…Matthias… 25 That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell…26 …and he was numbered with the eleven apostles.

If the office goes vacant, the office gets filled. That’s what Scripture clearly shows, and Peter (who started this whole Apostolic Succession ball of wax in v15) would have known this. Is it then reasonable to think that Peter wouldn’t have thought about a successor while he was knowingly on his way to martyrdom? I, for one, don’t believe so.

Sidenote: why are there more than 12 bishops?
Answer: Paul makes Apostle #13 (and at the direct appointment of Christ Himself), James makes 14, Timothy 15, and therefore the Scriptures show us that we need not be limited to the original 12 offices, but can grow based on the needs of the Church.

1. 2 Tim 2:2 demonstrates Apostolic Succession was implicit in the teachings:

KJV:

And the things that **thou **hast heard of **me **among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach **others **also.

1st Generation - Paul, the author (“me”)
2nd Generation - Timothy, the recipient (“thou”)
3rd Generation - the “faithful men”
4th Generation - “others”

1. The Bible says we’re always going to have the Apostlic office holders with us:

1 Cor 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

This verse makes precious little sense if the apostolic office ends in 105 AD with the death of John.

I suppose 10 is enough, though I didn’t recount Peter’s infallible ex cathedra statements. I assure you, however, we’re still quite a ways from being out of the Biblical evidence…after all, I haven’t even touched on Peter acting as the Vicar of Christ!

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BrianH]

17,963.
That is how many characters you have used for me to respond to.
It is your choice to choose to debate that way. In our PM’s to each other, I thought we had agreed to patience. Nevertheless, I will respond to all your points, unlike the end of this weekend like I had said, your 10 new points, will take us well into next week. You can continue to post but it only delays my responses.
Brian

 

[BrianH]

I have conceded to Ryan. Thanks for reading
BH

 

[RyanL]

Naturally, this was not the end result I for which I was hoping.

In any case, for anyone who would like to hear more about Peter in the Bible and early Christian History, I recommend the following:

Tim Staples - Keys of the Kingdom: Petrine Authority in the Gospels

Ludwig Ott - Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

Tim Staples - Apologetics for the New Evangelization

Some of these are a bit on the pricey side, but remember that you are free to donate them to your local parish when you’re done. Simply ask your priest (1) if he has a lending library and (2) if you can start/donate to it. Then you might ask to place a reminder in the parish bulletin, so that you can help spread this knowledge with your community.

I donated a number of my apologetics CDs that way, and the priest was very pleased to get them. I encourage all of you to help spread the New Evangelization, and really learn the Biblical basis for your faith.

God Bless,
RyanL