"Got Qusetions" does it again

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valtiel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
V

Valtiel

Guest
Question: "What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?"
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

**Answer: **The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the Pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:
  1. Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19), and in giving him the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority or ex cathedra). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking ex cathedra was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the Church an infallible guide on earth to lead the Church unerringly.
  2. Peter later became the first Bishop of Rome. As Bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the Bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman Bishop.
  3. Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next Bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”
  4. Based upon what they claim is an unbroken chain of Roman bishops (along with other support), they teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the Pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.
Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the Papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “mother Church” as being necessary to guide the Church and use that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, you find the following:
  1. While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, no where declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (having primacy) (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13; primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).
Click to expand...
 
  1. Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”, but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace…” (Acts 20:28-32).
Click to expand...
Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. And while the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel than what had already been given in New Testament times (Galatians 1:8-9).
  1. While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:
(a) infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

(c) the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and Who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have been good and godly men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path as well (Galatians 1:8-9).
 
Also, get Mark Shea’s book: By What Authority? which shows the coherence of Sacred Scripture AND Sacred Tradition as opposed to the deficient Bible-Alone quagmire.

Scott
 
I would also recommend “Four Witnesses: The Early Church in Her Own Words,” by Rod Bennett.

The early Church is not a mystery. It was Catholic from the beginning.
 
Valtiel,

I appreciate the statement that “Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error.” There are a couple of questions about that statement, though, that bear examining.

(1) What Scripture does the Bible mean when it teaches this? When Paul was writing his part of the New Testament, his Scriptures were strictly the Old Testament. Peter talks about Paul’s letters in connection with “the other scriptures,” so we might be able to accept them. But the Gospels and Revelation had not been written at that point. So if we go by the author’s intentions, then at least part of the New Testament is not to be used to determine truth from error.

(2) How are we to use the Bible to determine truth from error? The Bible was written in languages that most of us do not speak, read, or understand, so right away in the process of translation we have human error coming in. The next step is deciding whether a verse applies in a situation or whether it does not. Peter, in II Peter 3:16, warns against private interpretations of Scriptures. If we are not to use private interpretations, then what interpretations are we to use?
  • Liberian
 
did you copy paste this question?:whacky:

on the question about the “infallibility” of Sacred Scriptures:

the Sacred Sriptures is not rightly called “infallible.” If it had been so, then all our interpretations of Scriptures would have been the same in its essence. but history proved that this is not true. we can just look at the facts the so many sects are born everyday because of contradictory interpretations of Scriptures. some say this… some say that… others say this… others say that… blahblahblah… and so on— and voila! i will make my own church because the pastor doesn’t interpret the Scriptures right.

from the very beginning of the birth of the Church, our Lord Jesus instituted the office of the Apostles. He chose 12 to lead His Church with Peter as the head. this headship is not based on some dictatorship, authoritarian rule, but a father figure.

these apostles (and their eventual successors) were the ones tasked to interpret Scriptures authentically. even in the early history of the Church there were already heresies that threatened the unity of faith. so the Apostles, as guardians (episkopoi/bishops) of the faith fought to weed out heresies of various forms. up until now, the pope and the bishops in union with him are the ones tasked to interpret the teachings of Christ. They cannot–and in no way–have the authority to preach doctrines contrary to the Sacred Scriptures and Traditions of the Holy Church. They are tasked mainly to protect the true faith against the attacks of the devil and his army working in the world. But the Holy Spirit will always be with the Church until the end of age.

Pio
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top