BrianH vs. RyanL Papacy Thread

[RyanL]

NOTICE:

BrianH has asked me to join in a two person dialog about the Papacy. I would kindly ask that no one interrupt, please.

Originally, I asked to debate the Eucharist; however, as BrianH holds to the Orthodox view of the Real Presence, it appears that we largely agree with only minor (if any) differences. Therefore, the topic of debate has been changed.

In a PM to me, BrianH (who self-proclaims to be an “Independant Christian” with a Methodist “background”) stated the following:

BrianH:

I am not Sola Scripture, I am not an innerantist. I believe in scripture, tradition, reason, and faith.

Now - I believe in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Reason, and Faith. I am also not a Sola Scriptura-ist. I do, however, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (as well as the material sufficiency, but that’s a different discussion). In order to establish a common ground from which to discuss, however, I am first forced to ask the following question:

BrianH, what do you mean when you say that you are not an “inerrantist”? Do you mean that you’re not a literalist, or do you mean that you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God, containing no error when properly read?

As for me, I would claim the same thing as Dei Verbum, paragraph 11: “We must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the sacred Scriptures.” There are certainly several ways of conveying this truth (primary senses of Scripture: literal, allegorical, anagogical, and moral), but I would affirm that any segment of the Bible is true in at least one (probably more) of these ways.

If, however, you believe that the Bible is “errant”…this will be a more difficult debate, as I first need to establish the inerrancy of Scripture. If you believe it is “errant”, this will prove rather like debating a Muslim on the Divinity of Christ from the Bible - they would say, “I believe all the parts which haven’t been changed,” and when confronted with a difficult passage that directly refutes their claim, they simply default to saying, “it’s obviously been changed.” They will not, however, list for you the “true” parts or the “changed” parts, as something might escape their notice and still prove them wrong. Or, rather, it would be like debating a member of the Jesus Seminar about Christ walking on the water - they simply a priori decide not to believe the text, therefore any textual evidence presented will not suffice.

I have no intention of trying to trap water in a corner with this dialog, so before I begin…what, exactly, do you believe about the Bible? If the Bible shows us a Pope, would you believe it?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[Church_Militant]

http://bestsmileys.com/eating1/4.gif

 

[BrianH]

that we largely agree with only minor (if any) differences. Therefore, the topic of debate has been changed.

In a PM to me, BrianH (who self-proclaims to be an “Independant Christian” with a Methodist “background”) stated the following:

Now - I believe in Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition, Reason, and Faith. I am also not a Sola Scriptura-ist. I do, however, believe in the inerrancy of Scripture (as well as the material sufficiency, but that’s a different discussion). In order to establish a common ground from which to discuss, however, I am first forced to ask the following question:

BrianH, what do you mean when you say that you are not an “inerrantist”? Do you mean that you’re not a literalist, or do you mean that you don’t believe that the Bible is the word of God, containing no error when properly read?

As for me, I would claim the same thing as Dei Verbum, paragraph 11: “We must acknowledge that the books of Scripture, firmly, faithfully, and without error, teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confined to the sacred Scriptures.” There are certainly several ways of conveying this truth (primary senses of Scripture: literal, allegorical, anagogical, and moral), but I would affirm that any segment of the Bible is true in at least one (probably more) of these ways.

If, however, you believe that the Bible is “errant”…this will be a more difficult debate, as I first need to establish the inerrancy of Scripture. If you believe it is “errant”, this will prove rather like debating a Muslim on the Divinity of Christ from the Bible - they would say, “I believe all the parts which haven’t been changed,” and when confronted with a difficult passage that directly refutes their claim, they simply default to saying, “it’s obviously been changed.” They will not, however, list for you the “true” parts or the “changed” parts, as something might escape their notice and still prove them wrong. Or, rather, it would be like debating a member of the Jesus Seminar about Christ walking on the water - they simply a priori decide not to believe the text, therefore any textual evidence presented will not suffice.

I have no intention of trying to trap water in a corner with this dialog, so before I begin…what, exactly, do you believe about the Bible? If the Bible shows us a Pope, would you believe it?

God Bless,
RyanL
I shared a story awhile back. I first read the Bible as a teenager and instantly noticed that authors shared items from their perspective. For example, Paul and James certainly appear to have a different view about works and salvation. In the OT, and in some cases the NT, I believe you have outright contradictions. So, like any, I thought reasonable and obviously still do person, I felt the Bible contained a historical(but not innerant) account of the resurrection of Jesus the Christ. I was never a literalist, I am a Bible reader, I cannot imagine a day without prayer or reading the Bible.

Although this does not seperate me from Catholicism , they also believe that scripture can be interpreted differently. I do attend a house church. I also am a United Methodist. Inerrancy was never mentioned and my first exposure occured while a student in college. I made a choice to attend a fundamentalist school, which was still a good choice, and learned about Sola Scripture, and other fundamentalist evangelical paradigms, which I do not adhere to.

When you speak about the Papacy, you are hitting many different layers. One layer is Peterine supremacy. There are certainly aspects of Peterine supremacy that I adhere to. That does not prove a succcessor, or the very office of the Papacy. I do not think you need to prove innerancy to have this debate. I actually think the debate quickly shifts to history outside of the Bible. I do not believe that Peterine supremacy proves a continous Papacy. I think Ryan for this debate. I entered into because of a perceived slight but am looking forward to the challenge. If you wish to debate inerrancy instead of the Papacy, that is your choice as well. Please seek an follow up you deem necessary to clarify any doctrinal issue.
Brian Howard

I never realized the contentiousness of an adjective until I put “independent” in front of my faith.

I must quit this edit thing. I feel the need to add, that I am a “two source” proponent as well though.
colby.edu/rel/2gh/

 

[RyanL]

OK - headway! Good stuff.

BrianH:

Paul and James certainly appear to have a different view about works and salvation.

Over 1500 years of Christian history would disagree, stating that any apparent contradiction is either (1) out of context and/or (2) a misreading of the text, but that’s a separate issue. Perhaps you know better. Perhaps, however, you should read Paul’s writings in the context he wrote (Rom 1:5, 16:26, standing like bookends is the phrase, “the obedience of faith.”)

I am a Bible reader, I cannot imagine a day without prayer or reading the Bible.

Good for you! I would have you take a higher view of the Bible, but again, that’s not what’s at issue.

I also am a United Methodist.

Can I take this to mean that you will believe all that is contained at the site www.umc.org? I would like access to a source you deem credible, so as not to argue against straw men or make inappropriate assumptions about your beliefs. In a reciprocal manner, I believe all that is in the Catechism (again, properly understood, but believed nonetheless).

There are certainly aspects of Peterine supremacy that I adhere to. That does not prove a succcessor, or the very office of the Papacy.

I will take this as a conceded point - Peter had primacy amongst the Apostles. This is very significant, so please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m thankful that I don’t have to argue against the Primacy of St. Paul (which happened on another thread recently).

I acknowledge that you don’t believe it supports an office - that is a point we will debate.

I do not think you need to prove innerancy to have this debate.

Quite possibly. Would you be able to grant that the Bible is inerrant for the purposes of the debate, and retract that only if it’s apparently contradictory to something else in Scripture?

What I’m asking, more or less, is would you be willing to concede that Jesus actually said the things attributed to Him?

I actually think the debate quickly shifts to history outside of the Bible.

In time, but there’s a lot of Bible to cover first.

I do not believe that Peterine supremacy proves a continous Papacy.

Roger that.

I think Ryan for this debate.

I think you, too!

If you wish to debate inerrancy instead of the Papacy, that is your choice as well.

I would prefer to work with the assumption above, if it’s all the same. The inerrancy debate isn’t nearly as fun, in my opinion - there’s an exceedingly long list of “contradictions”, each requiring quite a bit of text and work to refute. I would prefer to stick to the narrow issue of the Papacy.

I never realized the contentiousness of an adjective until I put “independent” in front of my faith.

Next time try putting “Bible” in front of it - that goes over even better.

I feel the need to add, that I am a “two source” proponent as well though.
colby.edu/rel/2gh/

Interesting - I’ve never seen the idea before. Most folks (historians, believers, and skeptics alike) would claim that Mark was first. I might ask more about it after we’re done here.

To recap:

1. Do you cede the point that Peter was first amongst equals (Petrine Primacy, though not necessarily the office)?
2. Would you agree to assume that Jesus actually said the things which are attributed to Him in the Gospels (and…well…everyone else in the NT said what they are reported to have said, but primarily Jesus’ sayings)?

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BrianH]

RyanL:

OK - headway! Good stuff.

Over 1500 years of Christian history would disagree, stating that any apparent contradiction is either (1) out of context and/or (2) a misreading of the text, but that’s a separate issue. Perhaps you know better. Perhaps, however, you should read Paul’s writings in the context he wrote (Rom 1:5, 16:26, standing like bookends is the phrase, “the obedience of faith.”)

Good for you! I would have you take a higher view of the Bible, but again, that’s not what’s at issue.

Can I take this to mean that you will believe all that is contained at the site www.umc.org? I would like access to a source you deem credible, so as not to argue against straw men or make inappropriate assumptions about your beliefs. In a reciprocal manner, I believe all that is in the Catechism (again, properly understood, but believed nonetheless).

I will take this as a conceded point - Peter had primacy amongst the Apostles. This is very significant, so please correct me if I’m wrong. I’m thankful that I don’t have to argue against the Primacy of St. Paul (which happened on another thread recently).

I acknowledge that you don’t believe it supports an office - that is a point we will debate.

Quite possibly. Would you be able to grant that the Bible is inerrant for the purposes of the debate, and retract that only if it’s apparently contradictory to something else in Scripture?

What I’m asking, more or less, is would you be willing to concede that Jesus actually said the things attributed to Him?

In time, but there’s a lot of Bible to cover first.

Roger that.
I think you, too!

I would prefer to work with the assumption above, if it’s all the same. The inerrancy debate isn’t nearly as fun, in my opinion - there’s an exceedingly long list of “contradictions”, each requiring quite a bit of text and work to refute. I would prefer to stick to the narrow issue of the Papacy.

Next time try putting “Bible” in front of it - that goes over even better.

Interesting - I’ve never seen the idea before. Most folks (historians, believers, and skeptics alike) would claim that Mark was first. I might ask more about it after we’re done here.

To recap:

1. Do you cede the point that Peter was first amongst equals (Petrine Primacy, though not necessarily the office)?
2. Would you agree to assume that Jesus actually said the things which are attributed to Him in the Gospels (and…well…everyone else in the NT said what they are reported to have said, but primarily Jesus’ sayings)?

God Bless,
RyanL

Point one
yes
Point two
yes
I do not imagine the inerrancy part will matter
I do not adhere to everything you find on any UMC site. Because we are discussing the Papacy, and you proving it, I am not sure my particular theology will be a factor. I will not argue that Paul or Jesus did not say anything attributed to them. We are not debating philosophy, what Christ should or should not have done, we are debating what did, or did not happen. Please seek any further clarification if needed. I will strive to have well developed answers. I would suspect a one or two day lag at the least between our responses. So we agree, your burden of proof is to prove the Papacy. How you decide to do that will shape this debate.
There is much
considerable historical support for the primacy of Paul as an equal to Peter. It may, or may not, come up often. I have no way of knowing until I see what you say.
BH

 

[MonicaC]

just on a side note.

I grew up with twins named Brian and Ryan.



Anyway carry on.

I really look foward to this thread.

 

[RyanL]

BrianH:

I do not adhere to everything you find on any UMC site.

Duly noted - I’ll try and ask before making any assumptions about theology (if any are required).

I would suspect a one or two day lag at the least between our responses.

Again, duly noted. This should allow for plenty of time for research/reflection.

So we agree, your burden of proof is to prove the Papacy.

Accepted. I will not, however, attempt to show that the Papacy has always existed in its present form or with a full blown theology behind it. I will also not try to prove that there was only one Bishop in Rome (just one Bishop of Rome, a.k.a., Peter’s successor), or that Rome has to be the locality of the Papacy (see: Pope Clement V). Like the Trinity or the canon of Scripture, some things take time to grow in understanding.

What I will show is that the intent of Christ was to establish a Papacy and that the Early Church recognized it in as much as you would recognize an oak tree from an acorn. The one is only different from the other by natural growth and time.

To start, I first turn (as I always do) to the Old Testament, because I believe, “the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.” (St. Augustine). Or, to put it another way, “I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.” (Jesus - Matt 5:17)

Specifically, I turn to Deu 17 (DRV - 1899):

8 If thou perceive that there be among you a hard and doubtful matter in judgment between blood and blood, cause and cause, leprosy and leprosy: and thou see that the words of the judges within thy gates do vary: arise, and go up to the place, which the Lord thy God shall choose.

9 And thou shalt come to the priests of the Levitical race, and to the judge, that shall be at that time: and thou shalt ask of them, and they shall shew thee the truth of the judgment.

10 And thou shalt do whatsoever they shall say, that preside in the place, which the Lord shall choose, and what they shall teach thee,

11 According to his law; and thou shalt follow their sentence: neither shalt thou decline to the right hand nor to the left hand.

12 But he that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel:

 13 And all the people hearing it shall fear, that no one afterwards swell with pride.

Here we see God establish for His chosen people a judicial authority based in the Aaronic (OT) priesthood. This priestly authority, established by God and vested in specific group of priests (i.e., not “all” or “any”), is to have earthly power over God’s people and the people aren’t to stray from its decisions. In fact, straying from their decrees will result in earthly death at God’s command! Pretty serious stuff, I’d say - I suppose God wanted people to really listen to them and take what they had to say seriously; it’s as if their very lives depended on it.

What more can we gleam from God’s way in the Old Testament? Perhaps Isaiah 22 can shed some light:

20 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call my servant Eliacim the son of Helcias,

21 And I will clothe him with thy robe, and will strengthen him with thy girdle, and will give thy power into his hand: and he shall be as a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Juda.

22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

 23 And I will fasten him as a peg in a sure place, and he shall be for a throne of glory to the house of his father.

24 And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his father’s house, divers kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music.

26 In that day, saith the Lord of hosts, shall the peg be removed, that was fastened in the sure place: and it shall be broken and shall fall: and that which hung thereon, shall perish, because the Lord hath spoken it.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…
Ok - so what happened above? Sobna (Shebna) is to be replaced by Eliacim (Eliakim) as the head of David’s household. It’s a Prime Ministerial position, if you will. He’s not the king, but he is empowered to speak for the king in the king’s absence. That’s the nature of the job. As stated, what he shuts no one shall open, and what he opens none shall shut. The only authority Eliacim will have is that which the king gives him, but the king will give him much authority.

What is the symbol of this office? They Key of the House of David.

Is this Prime Minister position “new”? Is it created with this prophesy? Nope - the “Prime Minister” office had been around for several hundred years at the time of this prophesy.

If the PM dies, is the office left vacant? No. Just as Sobna replaced someone, and Eliacim replaced him, so too Eliacim will be replaced until the end of Israel’s kingdom.

What will Eliacim be like to the chosen people? Like a father.

How many PM’s are there in a kingdom? One, just as there is only one king.

OK. So how does this play out in the NT?
Matt 18:

15 But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

16 And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

17 And if he will not hear them: tell the church. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

18 Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

So there’s to be an authority on earth to decide these matters, an authority vested in Christ’s Church (i.e., the presbyters and episcopoi), which is to decide matters of dispute. Curiously, I feel deja vu. Curiously, I feel deja vu.

Further, the old authority was empowered to end the earthly life of those who wouldn’t obey. Here, it seems, the new authority is empowered to end the spiritual life of those who don’t obey! It’s even worse! Whereas the OT had a finite punishment, the NT has an infinite/eternal punishment! Excommunication! Wow - I guess God really wants us to listen. It’s not so scarey, though, because the Church authority will only bind or loose things which God, the Ruler of Heaven, will permit them to bind or loose - that means no free-shootin’ willy-nilly. God’s in control, and will guide them into all truth (John 16:13). They will, as a whole, be infallible in their collective binding and loosing; if they weren’t, the “bound in heaven” bits wouldn’t make much sense.

And what of Eliacim? Matt 16:19 parallelled with Isaiah 22:22:

19And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.​

22And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Remarkable. If Jesus didn’t mean to convey this authority, he must not have known His OT very well!

Again, this authority isn’t a free-shootin’ willy-nilly, because God’s in control. Just like in Matt 18, we see the “bound in heaven” bits, therefore we can rest assured that he won’t bind error. Further, it’s a singular promise, i.e., made only to Peter and conveyed with the Keys of a Davidic King (King of Kings!). They Apostles in Matt 18 got the binding and loosing power collectively, but Peter gets it individually and only Peter gets the Keys. Oh, and how many PMs were there? One. And what was Eliacim to be? A father to God’s people. And did this office have successors? You bet! And when will it end? When there is no more kingdom.

While there’s plenty more, I’ll pause here and wait for a response.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[BrianH]

Accepted. I will not, however, attempt to show that the Papacy has always existed in its present form or with a full blown theology behind it. I will also not try to prove that there was only one Bishop in Rome (just one Bishop of Rome, a.k.a., Peter’s successor), or that Rome has to be the locality of the Papacy (see: Pope Clement V). Like the Trinity or the canon of Scripture, some things take time to grow in understanding.

What I will show is that the intent of Christ was to establish a Papacy and that the Early Church recognized it in as much as you would recognize an oak tree from an acorn. The one is only different from the other by natural growth and time.

How exactly does that coincide with Catholic theology? By what authority do you make this distinction?

For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the saviour and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the holy Roman see, which he founded and consecrated with his blood

Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the church which he once received [47] .

Therefore, if anyone says that
 it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole church; or that
 the Roman pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema

First Vatican Council

Where is the acorn to oak tree analogy in this infallible decree?

To start, I first turn (
as I always do) to the Old Testament, because I believe, “the New Testament is in the Old Testament concealed, the Old Testament is in the New Testament revealed.” (St. Augustine). Or, to put it another way, “I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them.” (Jesus - Matt 5:17)

What are your criteria for picking certain verses? How do you decide which verses support your thesis and which ones not to use? Do you have a set standard for which verses you use to proof-text your views?

 

[BrianH]

Specifically, I turn to Deu 17 (DRV - 1899):
Here we see God establish for His chosen people a judicial authority based in the Aaronic (OT) priesthood. This priestly authority, established by God and vested in specific group of priests (i.e., not “all” or “any”), is to have earthly power over God’s people and the people aren’t to stray from its decisions. In fact, straying from their decrees will result in earthly death at God’s command! Pretty serious stuff, I’d say - I suppose God wanted people to really listen to them and take what they had to say seriously; it’s as if their very lives depended on it

Using this verse as a foreshadowing of the Papacy poses a few problems. Instead of a one “supreme priest”, if used, it would foreshadow authority in the hands of a group of people(elders?). Do you believe that these verses support the New Testament offices of deacons and elders?

Ok - so what happened above? Sobna (Shebna) is to be replaced by Eliacim (Eliakim) as the head of David’s household. It’s a Prime Ministerial position, if you will. He’s not the king, but he is empowered to speak for the king in the king’s absence. That’s the nature of the job. As stated, what he shuts no one shall open, and what he opens none shall shut. The only authority Eliacim will have is that which the king gives him, but the king will give him much authority.

What is the symbol of this office? They Key of the House of David.

Is this Prime Minister position “new”? Is it created with this prophesy? Nope - the “Prime Minister” office had been around for several hundred years at the time of this prophesy.

If the PM dies, is the office left vacant? No. Just as Sobna replaced someone, and Eliacim replaced him, so too Eliacim will be replaced until the end of Israel’s kingdom.

What will Eliacim be like to the chosen people? Like a father.

How many PM’s are there in a kingdom? One, just as there is only one king.

Although it is common for Catholics to use the word “Prime Minister” in referring to this particular office and to claim that it had been around for hundreds of years, there appears to be no reason for this. One can goggle hundreds of references to this Prime Minister position, inevitably it seems from Catholic sites, but they lack a source for this view. It appears to be one of those things that have been repeated so much that it is believed. When does scripture refer to this position? What does it say about it?

1. Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, [even] unto Shebna, which [is] over the house, [and say],
2. This power was temporary-In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that [was] upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken [it].
3. This position is not infallible. Shebna is replaced because of his actions.
4. The Key of David is shown in the hands of Christ(Revelation 3:7). Although it is common for Catholics to draw the difference between Peter having Earthly keys and Christ having a heavenly key(despite the fact that Christ said what is done here would be done in heaven), how do they know that? Unless there is a clear reason to draw a distinction, it is Christ who is the final possessor of the Key of David. If you assert otherwise, you have the burden of proof in proving there are essentially, two sets of keys.

So there’s to be an authority on earth to decide these matters, an authority vested in Christ’s Church (i.e., the presbyters and episcopoi), which is to decide matters of dispute

The New Testament does give us an authority to settle disputes. They are the presbyters and episcopai of the local churches.
BH

 

[RyanL]

BrianH:

How exactly does that coincide with Catholic theology? By what authority do you make this distinction?

1. It fits quite nicely, I would say.
2. The thing is, I’m not that original. While I claim the authority of the common priesthood of believers in Christ, sacramentally joined to the Church through baptism, confirmation, marriage, reconcilliation and the Eucharist, I do not rely on my own authority. Most everything good I have to say has been said many times before. Example:

We Catholics acknowledge readily, without any shame, nay with pride, that Catholicism cannot be identified simply and wholly with primitive Christianity, nor even with the Gospel of Christ, in the same way that the great oak cannot be identified with the tiny acorn. There is no mechanical identity, but an organic identity.

This was originally penned by Karl Adams. This source document has a bio of Karl Adams in the forward. If you have a problem with the concept, I think it’s from lack of reflection on the development of Christian doctrine/dogma (examples: Trinity, canon of Scripture, hypostatic union, etc.). Here’s some recommended reading: An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, by Henry Cardinal Newman, written when he was still a Calvinist.

Where is the acorn to oak tree analogy in this infallible decree?

Now you’re just being silly. An explanation on the development of doctrine has to be included with every declatory statement of the Church? I have to question you, sir, by what authority do you make this statement?

Further, if you simply reflect on what you have quoted, you’ll see that it’s perfectly commensurate with what I have written.

What are your criteria for picking certain verses? How do you decide which verses support your thesis and which ones not to use? Do you have a set standard for which verses you use to proof-text your views?

1. It’s not very nice to accuse someone of “proof-texting” in such a way.
2. It’s pretty easy, really. What I do is simply read the OT with an eye toward the NT. I look for themes.

Regarding Deu 17, I asked, “How were disputes to be resolved, according to the will of God?” Then, in the NT I did the same and found Matt 18. If you know of another way in which God has decreed a manner for juridical decision making, please let me know.

Regarding Isaiah 22/Matt 16, I though it was pretty obvious - Christ was using almost identical language in an almost identical format. If the parallel wasn’t intentional, Jesus must not have known His OT very well! LOL.

Further, I know that Christ is a King (King of Kings!) in the line of David. So, what should I ask myself when I read the OT? “How is a Davidic Kingdom structured?” What do I find? A Prime Minister, a Queen Mother (1 Kings 2:19-20), a priesthood and a juridical authority within that priesthood to decide matters of dispute. And guess what - when I read the NT I see the same things! It’s almost as if God didn’t have a sudden change of mind and decide to do things differently - it’s rather like He gave us training wheels in the OT and then took them off in the NT. Like He fulfilled the OT, not abolished it. Again, if you see it otherwise, please let me know.

Using this verse as a foreshadowing of the Papacy poses a few problems.

I agree. I’m glad that wasn’t my intent!

Instead of a one “supreme priest”, if used, it would foreshadow authority in the hands of a group of people(elders?). Do you believe that these verses support the New Testament offices of deacons and elders?

Not so much deacons or elders, per se. Rather, I believe they foreshadow the conciliar authority of the Bishops. So you know exactly what I’m claiming regarding the Church’s infallibility, here’s an excerpt:

891 “The Roman Pontiff, **head **of the college of bishops, enjoys this infallibility in virtue of his office, when, as supreme pastor and teacher of all the faithful - who confirms his brethren in the faith he proclaims by a definitive act a doctrine pertaining to faith or morals. . . . The infallibility promised to the Church is ***also ***present in the body of bishops when, together with Peter’s successor, they exercise the supreme Magisterium,” above all in an Ecumenical Council. When the Church through its supreme Magisterium proposes a doctrine “for belief as being divinely revealed,” and as the teaching of Christ, the definitions “must be adhered to with the obedience of faith.” This infallibility extends as far as the deposit of divine Revelation itself.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

So, what I’m claiming is that regarding matters of faith and morals, bindingly taught, the “body of bishops” has infallible protection as a whole, and the Pope has infallible protection as a singular office. Again, it seems rather like both Deu 17 and Isaiah 22.

Although it is common for Catholics to use the word “Prime Minister” …*t appears to be one of those things that have been repeated so much that it is believed. When does scripture refer to this position? What does it say about it?

1. Thus saith the Lord GOD of hosts, Go, get thee unto this treasurer, [even] unto Shebna, which [is] over the house*, [and say],

I’m going to pause here and focus on the part you posted, specifically the bolded section. What does “over the house” mean? Does it mean that there is no authority being imbued in the individual? Nope. Does it mean that the individual has authority over only part of the house? Nope. Does the individual have authority over the whole house? It certainly appears to be the case from the context. Does this individual have authority to burn the house down or completely wreck the place? More in a jiffy…

1. This power was temporary-In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that [was] upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken [it].

Yup, it’s temporary in at least three ways:
(1) It can be ended by earthly death - if that happens, a successor gets named. In the instant case, enter Eliacim stage right.
(2) It can be ended by God or by the King. In the NT, this would be one and the same, and would most likely simply be the death of the Pontiff.
(3) It can be ended with the ending of the kingdom. That’s precisely what happened to the kingdom of Israel, and precisely what won’t happen to the reign of Christ, the new Davidic King and our Messiah.

Moreover, it’s not in any way surprising that the old position passed away - you can’t put new wine in old winskins. The old had to give way to the new; that’s why Christ didn’t assume earthly power as a king (though he could have), but rather assumed heavenly power as the King of Kings (again, the NT reality is always greater than the OT shadow). Make no mistake, the Kingdom of God is at hand!

1. This position is not infallible. Shebna is replaced because of his actions.

Agreed that David’s PM was not infallible, but it’s a point of contention as to whether Shebna was removed because of an error in the exercise of his official duties or a matter if impeccability. Either way it makes little difference, as the NT fulfillment is always greater than the OT shadow. Example: Christ as the New Adam - Adam sinned, and brought us death. Christ did not, and brought us life everlasting. If it was a one-for-one parallel, St. Paul wouldn’t have been able to claim it (1 Cor 15:22, for example).

1. The Key of David is shown in the hands of Christ(Revelation 3:7).

Back to what I was saying in objection 1, supra. Can the PM, who has authority over “the house” burn it down? Nope. That’s a misuse of authority. What about the Christ having the keys? How does this all tie together?

Easy. Let’s take a personal anecdote. When I was the engineering officer supervising nuclear reactor operations on a fast attack submarine, I used to carry the keys to the reactor compartment. I was authorized to use these keys under certain guidelines (reactor coolant leak, for example) to open and shut the reactor compartment door. Only I was authorized to do it - no one else. I held the keys. I determined whether or not to use them. It was up to my personal judgment as to when they should be used. The keys belonged to me, and I would be held accountable for their misuse.
Question: Did the keys belong to me? Yes and no.
The keys rightfully belonged to the Chief Engineer, and he gave them to me (and to the other authorized shift engineers who followed), as required by the nature of the job. Who possessed the keys? In a very real way, both of us did. He was the owner, I was the custodian. They were at once mine and his.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…
Does this apply to Eliacim? Yup. He was “over the house”, and therefore had authority over all within it - in his case, the house was the kingdom. He was, however, responsible for the proper exercise of the keys - the source of the authority was not him, but the king. Likewise, the source of the authority of the keys of the kingdom of heaven is God, but the exercise of the keys is left to Peter. Who owns the keys? Both Christ and Peter, in as much as Christ permits. If this is not the case, why on earth would Jesus bring it up?!?Why would Christ parallel Isaiah 22 when speaking to Peter? This has to be adequately answered to deny the claim.

Now…can we trust that Peter will properly exercise the office? Sure, and the Bible tells us so!

Let’s turn to Matt 14. What happens? We see Jesus walking on the water, an act which can only be done by the power of God. Then what? Peter does the same at Christ’s bidding! Aided by the power of Christ Himself, Peter is granted the ability to do what no man can do! Left to his own, Peter starts to sink…but then what? Christ won’t let it happen, and He aids Peter to continue under Divine power. Symbolic? I’d say so.

But is that all? Not by a long shot.
Luke 5:3http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=49&chapter=5&verse=3&version=31&context=verse
He [Jesus] got into one of the boats, the one belonging to Simon, and asked him to put out a little from shore. Then he sat down and taught the people from the boat.
What’s happening here? Jesus is going to teach the people, but He wants to be better heard. What does He do? He gets into Peter’s boat to proclaim His word! Why would the Gospel writer include this detail? Is it simply a surpufluous “extra”, part of the word of God which is of “no effect” (Matt 15:3)? Hardly! It’s a symbolic detail demonstrating that the Truth is to be heard from the barque of Peter, a.k.a., the Catholic Church founded on Christ, Peter, and the Apostles. Again, you would have to adequately explain why this detail is included if you want to refute the veracity of the claim that the Truth of Christ is to be proclaimed from the barque of Peter.

Anything else? SURE!
John 21 (NIV):

3 “I’m going out to fish,” Simon Peter told them, and they said, “We’ll go with you.”…[then Jesus appears]…Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” 11 Simon Peter climbed aboard and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn.

Again, what happened? Peter decides to go fishing (and the Apostles go with Peter), but they catch no fish (side note: that’s Peter for ya’…a fisherman who can’t fish! LOL!). Christ appears and through His Divine assistance, Christ helps them catch fish. How many? 153. Now, if you’ve ever held up a stringer of even 5 fish, you know how tough it is - Peter hauls 153 single handed, and the net doesn’t break! Again, Peter is given the supernatural ability by Christ to do what no man can do! Is that it? Not by a long shot! What are fish a symbol of? Christians. I trust you’ve seen enough bumper stickers that I don’t have to prove this Biblically. But why 153? It’s not mentioned anywhere in the OT, so what’s the point of this very specific detail? St. Jerome suggested that 153 was the total number of fish species, according to knowledge at the time of Jesus, and therefore this would have the symbolic significance of ALL fish (specifically to the Gentile readers, familiar with Aristotle’s works). I see no reason to disagree, but even if you disagree with St. Jerome you would still have to agree that it’s a bunch!

I suppose that’s enough for this posting, but rest assured there’s plenty more Bible to go…

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Oh, and as for the Prime Minister thingy being a solely Catholic “invention”, please see the following non-Catholic commentaries:

Clark’s Commentary on Isaiah 22:“In allusion to the image of the key as the ensign of power, the unlimited extent of that power is expressed with great clearness as well as force by the sole and exclusive authority to open and shut. Our saviour, therefore, has upon a similar occasion made use of a like manner of expression, Matt. xvi. 19”

ao.net Commentary: “The “day” is the period in which Eliakim is to move into the position of Head of Household to the king, now occupied by Shebna.”

bibleexplained.com Commentary on the “Key of David”: “Eliakim was given supervision over the house of David thus holding the keys.”

Wesley’s Commentary:
The key — The government, the power of opening and shutting, of letting men into it, or putting them out of it, whereof a key is a fit emblem.

Shoulder — He mentions the shoulder rather than the hand, in which keys are commonly carried, from some ceremony then in use, of carrying a key upon the shoulder of the officer of state.

John Calvin’s Commentary: “By the keys, therefore, he means here the government of the king’s house, because the principal charge of it would be delivered to Eliakim at the proper time.”

Fausset’s Commentary: "So keys are carried sometimes in the East, hanging from the kerchief on the shoulder. But the phrase is rather figurative for sustaining the government on one’s shoulders"

That the same wording (i.e., “Prime Minister”) is used is irrelevant - clearly the exact same concept is held across the field of Christian study.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[RyanL]

Ok…I’m impatient, so I just tought I’d shore up the “development of the doctrine of the Papacy” a little bit; I don’t know how much you trust Karl Adam. So I thought I’d use yet another luminary…

Ever hear of Dr. Ludwig Ott? He wrote “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma”, an encyclopedia of the doctrines of the Catholic Church. His work is widely acclaimed as one of the most concise and precise expositions of Catholic dogmatic theology.

Here’s a link to the introduction, so you can get a feel for his writing. Unfortunately, it’s still copyrighted so if you want to read the whole thing you’ll have to buy it - I got my copy used for less than $10 from barnesandnoble.com. Just FYI.

In any case, here’s what he has to say about it:

“The doctrine of the Primacy of the Roman Bishops, like other Church teachings and institutions, has gone through a development. Thus, the establishment of the Primacy recorded in the Gospels has gradually been more clearly recognized and its implications developed. Clear indications of the consciousness of the Primacy of the Roman Bishops, and of the recognition of the Primacy by the other churches appear at the end of the 1st century.” (Ott - p.283)

I will most likely refer to this work again, but will cite it simply as “Ott - p.X” if it’s all the same to you. Again, you’re not likely to find a more scholarly work on the topic - in nearly all of the debates I’ve heard between Protestants and Catholics (and I’ve heard several, this topic included) this source is cited, typically by both parties and typically multiple times. I’d say it’s fairly indicative of the Church’s teaching on the matter, as it also carries the Imprimatur of Bishop Cornelius (1954), and therefore I would again say that my statement was appropriate and remains completely in line with Church teaching.

God Bless,
RyanL

 

[javelin]

Hi everyone!

Sorry to interject here, but this is not on the topic of the debate, but rather the form.

From my experience, debates are generally not formatted such that person A is attempting to prove a position while person B is simply refuting it. Generally the more interesting debates occur when person A and person B have mutually exclusive points that each is trying to establish as the most probable truth. Certainly a part of the debate is in refuting the claims of the other, but when one party has no burden of proof for what they believe, it becomes too one-sided, IMHO.

So, in this case, it would be more interesting to find out what BrianH believes regarding the earthly church structure and earthly authority over it, and have his mission be to prove his construct is more correct than the Catholic idea of earthly authority vested with the communion of Bishops and lead by the Bishop of Rome, the Pope. That way, each would need to provide evidence proving his position while casting doubt on the other’s position.

Just my :twocents:.

Peace everyone,
javelin

 

[BrianH]

you’re just being silly. An explanation on the development of doctrine has to be included with every declatory statement of the Church? I have to question you, sir, by what authority do you make this statement?
Further, if you simply reflect on what you have quoted, you’ll see that it’s perfectly commensurate with what I have written.

Development of doctrine cannot be cited if the development of the document specifically precludes it:

“indeed it was known in every age”……

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,

the Early Church recognized it in as much as you would recognize an oak tree from an acorn

The question that Catholics would have to then ask themselves is; what did Peter convey to Linus, or Clement, depending on which source you believe, about their role? If this had to be developed, what exactly did Peter tell Linus(or Clement)?

Did Peter( and Paul) hand Linus…an acorn?

When you contend your belief was an “acorn”, that is rather hard to argue against. What specifically would be the burden of proof FOR OR AGAINST an acorn? I could easily prove an “acorn of truth” about anything.

No need to belabor this point though. I will simply ask any readers to read the infallible doctrine of the First Vatican Council and see if they see room for development in a phrase, ‘it was known in every age”. You have acknowledged the development of the Papacy. Because we agree on this, with the end results being the source of contention, I think we can move on. For some Catholics, the simple knowledge that the Bishop of Rome was not considered the head of the church from the very beginning, but this belief developed later, will be quite troubling.

Not so much deacons or elders, per se. Rather, I believe they foreshadow the conciliar authority of the Bishops. So you know exactly what I’m claiming regarding the Church’s infallibility, here’s an excerpt:
So, what I’m claiming is that regarding matters of faith and morals, bindingly taught, the “body of bishops” has infallible protection as a whole, and the Pope has infallible protection as a singular office. Again, it seems rather like both Deu 17 and Isaiah 22.

One difficulty is the above statement assumes a great deal. Infallibility, body of bishops over a region or city, as opposed to the New Testament definition which supports a group of bishops and deacons with local control.

**Phl 1:1 ** Paul and Timotheus, the servants of Jesus Christ, to all the saints in Christ Jesus which are at Philippi, with the bishops and deacons:

The conciliar authority of bishops is a later developing Christian tradition. That it developed, does not prove that Christ instituted it anymore than the development of other doctrines prove them.
You are working clearly working backwards Ryan. Instead of proving the papacy, authority of bishops over a region and not a local church, you are finding verses to support your contention and using them. While it might be convincing to people who already hold these assumptions, it does not prove your contentions. So instead of this:

. What I do is simply read the OT with an eye toward the NT

It appears so far should actually read

What I do is simply read the OT with eye toward Catholicism.

 

[BrianH]

You have made a choice to use the OT, so far, instead of the many verses in the New Testament which clearly establish the form of church government, or the hierarchy put in place. You have picked verses to support your theology and left out others. When you were proving the conciliar authority of priests, you did not include this:

Mal 2:1 And now, O ye priests, this commandment [is] for you.

**Mal 2:2 ** If ye will not hear, and if ye will not lay [it] to heart, to give glory unto my name, saith the LORD of hosts, I will even send a curse upon you, and I will curse your blessings: yea, I have cursed them already, because ye do not lay [it] to heart.

Mal 2:3 *Behold, **I will corrupt your seed, and spread dung upon your faces, *even] the dung of your solemn feasts; and [one] shall take you away with it.

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

As far as Isaiah 22, let me further clarify, Once again, you have made the claim this particular position existed prior to this passage, and after it. Any apologist(non-Catholic o Catholic) asserting what this means is irrelevant to me. If I am to accept your contention about what this verse means, I need concrete proof that it was what you said it was. Certainly the text of Isaiah 22 itself, does not clearly elaborate what this position was. It initially refers to it as a treasurer. How do you know it existed, in this form, prior to Shebna, and after Eliakim. When it says “in that day”, in verse 25, what does that mean to you and how do you know that? What you have quoted are simply interpretations of this verse up to this point. The burden of proof is on you to prove the duties or roles and their existence over an extend period of time. Where does this office appear in the OT? What ancient sources support your statements? .
Thank you
Brian

 

[RyanL]

Finally something I can sink my teeth into!

BrianH:

Development of doctrine cannot be cited if the development of the document specifically precludes it:

“indeed it was known in every age”……

The document specifically precludes it? Really? I see that there are some things I assumed you would “get” that it was wrong of me to assume (despite the fact that I included some excellent links for further reading, which you apparently haven’t read). For example, I mentioned the Trinity. Since Christ walked the earth, it has been the case that Christians have believed in the Trinity - a triune God. Indeed this has been known in every age. Does that mean that St. Mark, for example, would have been able to state that the Trinity is three persons, identical in every way but distinct based solely in relation to each other, who share the same divine nature and can thus be called “One God”? Would St. Mark have been able to give a discourse on active spiration and passive spiration and the effect that this distinction has on the Holy Spirit? Quite frankly, I doubt it (though there’s no way to really know). That doesn’t mean that the Trinity was not fully believed “in every age”; that merely means that the doctrine (or understanding, if you will) developed over time.

**“Developed” DOES NOT EQUAL “invented”. **

That seems to be a basic misunderstanding on your part. What it does mean is that (1) the truth of it was present and (2) we grew in the way we understand/describe the truth itself. In like manner, the canon of Scripture developed over time. There were many disputes as to which books were actually inspired, but the truth that some were and some were not was held “in every age” - I can say this despite the fact that the canon wasn’t officially declared until 382 AD. The canon wasn’t “invented” - the understanding of the truth regarding the canon “developed”.

In like manner, the truth of the Primacy of St. Peter and the implications therein to the Papal Office developed over time (read: NOT INVENTED, but rather the truth of it has been held “in every age” but we have grown in our understanding of the reality which has always existed).

Make any more sense?

Yes, individual Catholic scholars contradict the First Vatican Council and other teachings of the Catholic church.

Certainly some “scholars” do contradict VI (Hanz Kung, for example), but the scholars I have quoted do not.

This statement is infallible according to Catholic doctrine. None of the people you cited are though,

Is that going to be your game? I will listen only to decidedly infallible statements, though I will give them no credibility whatsoever? Seems like a petty way to debate…

The question that Catholics would have to then ask themselves is; what did Peter convey to Linus, or Clement, depending on which source you believe, about their role? If this had to be developed, what exactly did Peter tell Linus(or Clement)?

We by no means need to know “exactly” what Peter told his successor, though Scripture implicitly speaks to the subject:

2 Pet 3:12 (NIV) So I will always remind you of these things, even though you know them and are firmly established in the truth you now have.

Peter wrote this letter on his way to be martyred, and yet he claimed that he would “always” remind them of the truth. How? My answer is through his successors. Again, you have to provide an adequate solution to this question to challenge the veracity.

Did Peter( and Paul) hand Linus…an acorn?

Nope - he imparted to him the Keys to the Kingdom.

I could easily prove an “acorn of truth” about anything.

Ahh…but could you do so and be internally consistent with all the writings of Scripture and Tradition? Try this “anything” - Judas was actually the Son of God, and Christ was a usurper with no legitimate authority or power. Remember, it must be internally consistent both with Scripture and Tradition. Good luck!

I will simply ask any readers to read the infallible doctrine of the First Vatican Council and see if they see room for development in a phrase, ‘it was known in every age”.

As shown, if they understand the definition of “develop”, they will.

I think we can move on.

Ok.

For some Catholics, the simple knowledge that the Bishop of Rome was not considered the head of the church from the very beginning, but this belief developed later, will be quite troubling.

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.

…cont’d…

 

[RyanL]

…cont’d…

Infallibility, body of bishops over a region or city, as opposed to the New Testament definition which supports a group of bishops and deacons with local control…The conciliar authority of bishops is a later developing Christian tradition.

I would argue that at the latest, it developed somewhere around Acts 15, though I believe it developed closer to Matt 18.  More on this in a bit...

You are working clearly working backwards Ryan. Instead of proving the papacy, authority of bishops over a region and not a local church, you are finding verses to support your contention and using them.

That’s a valid point - I have not yet proved conciliar authority. I assume it’s an undisputed point that the local ordinary (bishop) has authority over his See (I believe you would limit the jurisdiction to the particular parish - please correct me if I’m wrong) - if you want me to prove the bishop’s authority Biblically, I certainly can, but I plan to do so only if you challenge the proposal. Otherwise, let’s see what happens…

In Matt 18 we are given a way to resolve issues of dispute between believers. Go to them privately, and if they don’t listen then take one or two with you and address the matter. So how does this play out in the NT?

It was the case that the heresy of the Judiazers arose amongst the church members in the diocese of Antioch Acts 15 v.1). We can assume that the believers followed the Biblical pattern, as Christ instructed. The went privately, and when that didn’t pan out they took two with them: specifically, Paul and Barnabas (v2). Personally, I’d say that that’s a pretty good “two” to take with you, seeing as how they were both members of the episcopoi! Does that settle the matter? Hardly. So what happens?
v2: So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.
Ahhh…“tell it to the Church”, just as Matt 18 instructs! Does that mean tell it to the “elders” of Antioch alone? Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and the matter still wasn’t resolved. So what do they do? The convene a council of bishops to decide the matter! It’s like they actually expect a council of bishops to have some sort of “binding” authority!

Now the really interesting thing happens. The question is submitted to the council, and immediately in the narrative Peter stands up (v7) (a position of authority in the contemporary culture) and makes an infallible decree: “No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” (v11) Is there any more debate? Not a jot - Peter has spoken, and the matter is resolved. Is it infallible? Yup. Do all orthodox Christians still believe it? Yup. It is infallibly declared, and Peter is the one who does it. (I might add at this point that this is a development of doctrine - it was always true and always believed by the faithful, but here it’s being more clearly defined.)

But doesn’t James *really *decide the matter? Nope. Let’s look at the first thing James says: (v14 - KJV) “Simeon hath declared…19 Wherefore my sentence is…” Most translations render “wherefore” as “therefore”, and as a textual exegete when you see a “therefore” in Scripture you have to ask yourself what it’s “there for”. BECAUSE of what Peter declared, i.e., Peter’s infallible decree, James is able to make a pastoral decision. This pastoral decision is not a dogma of the faith, but it is still binding on those whom the council decides to bind. The difference between a pastoral decree and a dogma is that a pastoral decree can be changed, while a dogma cannot. The pastoral decree is for the good of the flock (like, for example, fasting on Good Friday and Ash Wednesday are now), whereas a dogma is an article of the faith which must be believed for all times.

…cont’d…