Help Refute This Please

  • Thread starter Thread starter TristanCross
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TristanCross

Guest
nicenecouncil.com/media/display.pl?media_file=74

These guys give a bunch of questions I can’t refute. Maybe someone can help.

Question 1. Why do Mark (8:27-30) and Luke (9:18-21), while they also recount the Caesarea Philippi conversation between Jesus and Peter, omit all reference to that part of Jesus’ conversation which grants to Peter his alleged priority over the other apostles, the point which for Rome is the very heart and central point of our Lord’s teaching ministry?

Question 2. Why does the New Testament record more of Peter’s errors after the Caesarea Philippi confession than of any of the other apostles? I am referring to
  1. his satanic and man-minding rejection of Jesus’ announcement that he would die, Matthew 16:22-23;
  2. his leveling or Arian comparison of Jesus with Moses and Elijah on the Mount of Transfiguration, Matthew 17:4-5;
  3. his ignorant and impetuous refusal to let Jesus wash his feet and then his self-willed dictating of the terms according to which Jesus would wash him, John 13:8-9;
  4. his sleepiness while Jesus prayed in Gethsemane, Matthew 26:36-45;
  5. his precipitous use of the sword, Matthew 26:51-54;
  6. his prideful protestation of unfailing faithfulness and then his three denials of Jesus, recorded in all four Gospels;
  7. his impulsive curiosity about John’s future, expressed no sooner than Jesus had restored him to fellowship, which netted him Christ’s stern That’s none of your business, John 21:21-22; and
  8. even after Christ’s resurrection, the Spirit’s outpouring at Pentecost, and the role he played in the Cornelius incident, his betrayal of the truth of the Gospel of pure grace at Antioch by his compromising actions which called for Paul’s public rebuke, Galatians 2:11-14.
Where is the infallibility and the guarantee of the purity and continuity of the Gospel in this man’s actions? It will not do to respond, as Roman apologists do, that Peter was only infallible in what he taught ex cathedra and that these errors on his part only highlight the real oneness of the man with sinful humanity at large. For actions speak louder than words, and surely in the last cited instance Peter’s action, which more than likely was accompanied by some word of explanation from him to the church at Antioch about his action, betrayed the purity of the Gospel of grace, which action warranted Paul’s public rebuke.

Question 3. Why can the disciples after the Caesarea Philippi incident still dispute among themselves concerning who was the greatest (Matthew 18:1; 20:20-28; Luke 22:24)? Apparently they did not understand that Jesus’ statement had given Peter any priority over them. And if Christ had in fact intended by his Caesarea Philippi pronouncement that Peter was to be his vicar and the leader of all Christendom, why did he not clear up the disciples’ confusion once and for all by telling them so straightforwardly?

Question 4. Why was Peter, if he was the head of the church, dispatched by the leaders of the Jerusalem church to investigate what was going on in Samaria (Acts 8:14) instead of sending other apostles to investigate the Samaritan revival?

Question 5. Why did the other apostles and the brotherhood in general feel they could challenge Peter’s involvement in the Cornelius incident if he was in fact the undisputed and infallible head of the church (Acts 11:1-18)?

Question 6. Why does Paul list Peter as only one of the pillars in the mother church of Jerusalem, and second after James at that (Galatians 2:9)?

Question 7. Why at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, over which James quite obviously presided, is Peter merely the first speaker, assuming no special prerogatives in the debate that ensued, and not the president of that Council? Why was the entire matter not simply submitted to Peter rather than to the Council, and why did not the decision go forth as a Petrine deliverance rather than an apostolic decree?

Question 8. Why can Paul say of the Jerusalem leadership (James, Peter and John) who seemed to be something: What they were makes no difference to me; God shows no partiality (2:6)?

Question 9. Why, if Peter was the Bishop and Pastor of Rome, as the Roman Catholic Church maintains, and if it was Paul’s established missionary practice to preach the Gospel where Christ was not known, so that I would not be building on someone else’s foundation (Romans 15:20; see 2 Corinthians 10:16)—why, I ask, does Paul declare that he had longed to come to Rome and had purposed many times to come there (but had been prevented before from doing so) so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong and in

order that I might have a harvest among you, just as I have had among the other Gentiles (Romans 1:11-13)? Would not such activity at Rome on Paul’s part have been both a denial of his own missionary policy and an affront to Peter, whom Rome alleges was pastor there at that time?

Question 10. Why does Peter describe himself as simply an apostle of Jesus Christ, as one among many living stones (lithoi zontes), and the fellow elder (ho sumpresbuteros) with other elders (1 Peter 1:1; 5:1)?
 
Question 11. Why, if Peter was the living, earthly head of the church at that time, does he disappear completely from Luke’s Acts after Acts 15, with very few references to him, apart from his own two letters, in the rest of the New Testament?

Question 12. Why does Peter, if he was the first pope, contradict Roman Catholic teaching that the purchase of indulgences will bring forgiveness of sin for oneself and will deliver one’s loved ones from Purgatory when he declares that it was not with perishable things such as silver and gold that you were redeemed…but with the precious blood of Christ (1 Peter 1:18-19)? <-----this question is stupid. You do not have to answer it, because I know Catholics do not permit the sale of indulgences.

Question 13. Why does Peter, if he was the first pope, contradict Roman Catholic teaching that the laity needs a priestly clergy to mediate between them and God when he teaches that in Christ all his readers are a holy priesthood (1 Peter 2:5, hierateuma hagion) and a royal priesthood (1 Peter 2:9, basileion hierateuma) who have direct access to God through Christ?

Question 14. Why does Peter teach, contra Rome’s teaching, in 1 Peter 2:13 that the authority of the emperor, not his, is supreme (huperechonti) in secular matters?

Question 15. Why does Peter teach, in 1 Peter 3:12, contra Rome’s teaching, that Christians do not need to go to God through the mediation of Mary or any other saint, for God gladly hears the prayers of his true children when they pray: The eyes of the Lord are on the righteous, and his ears are attentive to their prayers?

Question 16. Why does Peter teach, contra Rome’s teaching concerning the Mass as a necessary and essential re-sacrifice of Christ, in 1 Peter 3:18 that Christ died for sins once for all hapax, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God?

Question 17. Why in the earliest Patristic literature is Paul venerated as often as Peter, a fact admitted by Roman Catholic scholars?

Question 18. Would John the beloved disciple and one of the original apostles, who apparently outlived Peter, have been subject to the Bishop of Rome (Linus or Clement?) who allegedly succeeded to Peter’s throne?

Question 19. Why did no Roman Bishop before Callistus I (died c. a.d. 223), who by the way countenanced the heresy of modalism, use the Matthew 16 passage to support the primacy of the Roman bishopric; and when he did, why was he rebuked by such notable contemporaries as Tertullian who totally rejected the notion that Jesus’ saying applied to later bishops at all, and Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, who opposed the notion that the Roman bishopric is entitled by succession to the throne of Peter?

Question 20. This raises the larger question, namely, while the church at Rome was no doubt influential, why is there no

indication in the first two centuries of the Christian era that the rest of the church recognized the Roman church as supreme or that the rest of the church acceded to Rome any claimed or recognized sovereignty over Christendom?

Question 21. Why did the first four ecumenical councils, which were held—two in the fourth, and two in the fifth century (whose doctrinal decisions are generally admitted by Christians everywhere, including Protestants, to have been orthodox)—neither say nor do anything which affords the slightest endorsement of the claim of the Roman Bishop’s supremacy but to the contrary in several instances actually passed decrees or canons which the Bishop of Rome (or his agents) opposed and protested against, with the first such council which explicitly asserts the Roman Bishop’s supremacy being the Fourth Lateran Council held under Pope Innocent III in a.d. 1215?

Question 22. How does Roman Catholic theology in this entire matter avoid the charge of asserting the consequent or of begging the question (petitio principii) when it makes a highly questionable dogma (based as it is upon exegesis which has been approved by only a small minority of fathers in the church), namely, its self-serving dogma of the primacy of the Roman Bishop, the basis for its claim that it alone is justified in proclaiming any dogma whatsoever, including the Roman bishop’s primacy over the entire church?
 
I think this is too much for one post.

Maybe each quesiton should be a separate post.
 
Those questions contain so many contradictions, it blows my mind. I also find it sad that in their attempt to attack Peter’s primacy, they actually attack all of Christianity, to the point where they must believe in an unhistorical Jesus.

I’ll answer the questions as best as I can in the next post.
 
1 For that matter, why do the gospels all apparently have contradicting narratives of the Resurrection? It’s because of human memory, of the audience being written for, and how the author wrote. You must read the Scriptures according to context.
2 Because the gospels are historical, not fictional; it would be damaging to the credibility of the evangelists if they omitted Peter’s errors. Moreover, the charge of “Arian comparison” makes no sense, since Peter was recognizing the messianic age had come.
3 Pride is what caused them to dispute. Jesus made it clear after His Resurrection that Peter was to lead His flock as the vicar of Him the Good Shepherd (“feed my sheep”).
4 I suppose it has to do with Jesus “favoring” Peter, James, and John, though I don’t know for sure.
5 Because they weren’t sure if Jews could eat with gentiles. It has nothing to do with infalliblity.
6 I don’t know. Though I’m sure the answer will answer this question and question #4.
7 It’s a council. I don’t even need to explain that.
8 That makes no sense. (Acts 2:6 “At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.”)
9 Paul preached the gospels to the gentiles, he didn’t preach in areas just where the church wasn’t. He went to Rome, probably, to be with Peter, but I don’t know for sure.
10 Peter didn’t need to explain his office because people already know he is the Pope.
11 Peter isn’t the star of Acts. Luke was a companion of Paul.
12 Simony isn’t the same as indulgences (I felt like answering).
13 We are a royal priesthood, a holy nation. We are all called to share in Christ’s priestly office, but some men are called to be consecrated. There is a difference between the universal priesthood and the ordained priesthood.
14 The Church dosen’t say the Pope is above the emperor. And Peter is correct: when it comes to the law, the lawmaker is supreme in the matters pertaining to the law. Just as when it comes to the Divine Law, God is supreme in the matters pertaining to His Law.
15 Again, this isn’t a contradiction. God answers our prayers as He wills, either directly or through a saint.
16 Because Jesus died to redeem mankind.
17 Because Paul was martyred with Peter at Rome and was a great instrument of God in his life just as Peter was. It has nothing to do with Papacy.
18 Yes, John was subject to the successor of Peter, Limus. All the apostles were bishops, and Paul was a bishop as well, and they were subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
19 Ignatius, if I’m not mistaken, uses that passage in support of Peter’s primacy. As for why bishops oppose the Pope, it’s because they think they know better.
20 “For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence, that every church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree.” - St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lychos, disciple of the Apostle John, and Greek Father, 180 AD
21 The First Council of Nicea did.
22 Here is a tract on the Pope’s authority.
 
My own response to all of those questions would be how I would answer question 18. If this is true, the rest can be treated as some sort of misunderstanding due to ignorance of history and/or authentic Church teaching.

Pope Clement wrote his Letter to the Corinthians probably around 96AD or maybe 97AD in response to an appeal sent to him by the church in Corinth. It’s not Scripture, so let’s view it as a historical document only. Look at the first sentence after his greeting:

Owing, dear brethren, to the sudden and successive calamitous events which have happened to ourselves, we feel that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the points respecting which you consulted us; and especially to that shameful and detestable sedition, utterly abhorrent to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-confident persons have kindled to such a pitch of frenzy, that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be universally loved, has suffered grievous injury.

The calamitous events are most likely the persecutions near the end of the reign of Emperor Domitian, who died in 96AD.

Note the phrasing chosen by Pope Clement, that of turning his attention to the concerns of Corinth. It’s something you would expect to hear from a leader, implying that the bishop of Rome was in the habit of turning his attention to the concerns of other churches. But that’s not extremely convincing by itself.

Back in the time of Saint Paul, when the First Letter to the Corinthians was written around 56AD, Corinth was having problems with dissenters and sent their appeal to authority to Ephesus because that’s where Saint Paul was. As he founded the churches in both Corinth and Ephesus, appealing to Saint Paul made sense. Corinth is in southern Greece and Ephesus on the west coast of modern Turkey, about a 200 mile sail across the Aegean Sea. Not far, but the Mediterranean isn’t exactly the easiest place to sail without modern weather satellites to keep you abreast of changing conditions.

By 97AD, Saint Paul was no longer alive. This time Corinth decided to sent their appeal to Rome, a location over twice as far away as Ephesus and across the Adriatic Sea rather than the Aegean Sea. It would have made more sense to send an appeal to Ephesus again, especially if someone with a great deal of authority resided there.

As it so happens, Saint John appears to have still been alive at the time and living in Ephesus. In his work Against Heresies in 180AD, Saint Irenaeus held up Ephesus as an example to follow in book 3, chapter 3:

Then, again, the church in Ephesus, founded by Paul, and having John remaining among them permanently until the times of Trajan, is a true witness of the tradition of the Apostle.

Emperor Trajan ruled from 98AD to 117AD, coming to power after Pope Clement’s Letter to the Corinthians was written. In fact, Pope Clement died only a couple of years into the rule of Emperor Trajan (101AD at the very latest). The appeal Corinth originally sent to Rome, the one which prompted Pope Clement to write his letter, had to have been sent before or during the troubles which prevented his timely response, not after. It had to have been written before the time of Emperor Trajan, meaning it had to have been written when Saint John was still alive.

Why send an appeal to a man in a far away city who was not one of the original Apostles when you have one of those Apostles much closer? The only reasonable explanation is that the bishop of Rome was recognized to have jurisdiction even if an Apostle was in residence elsewhere.

Additionally, note this among Pope Clement’s answers to the problems in Corinth which he gives in chapter 57 of his letter:

You therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.

Pope Clement obviously believes he has the authority to give this command. The church in Corinth obviously believes Pope Clement possesses that authority as well, else why present any concerns to him in the first place?

This is the second generation Church, led by people appointed by the Apostles rather than being led by the Apostles themselves. The people in Corinth who were formenting sedition were not listening to their own prebysters who were ordained by the Apostles. Pope Clement is another presbyter ordained by the Apostles. His word carries no additional weight unless the bishop of Rome has universal jurisdiction and is recognized by the people to have that jurisdiction.

As it is at least implied that the beloved disciple was consided subordinate to Rome, I think I should be considered subordinate to Rome as well.

It would be extremely unreasonable to claim that there is absolutely no evidence to the authority of Rome in the writings of the Early Fathers of the Church. It is especially telling to find evidence for it among the second generation of Church leaders, men who learned what they learned directly from the Apostles. If the papal authority ascribed to Saint Peter by the Church had not actually been given to him but was being fabricated by his successors, you would not expect to find those who remembered Saint Peter acting as if he had been given such authority. What you would expect to find is the name of a heresy and a lineup of Church Fathers arguing against it. But there is nothing of the sort.
 
TristanCross said:
Question 7. Why at the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15, over which James quite obviously presided, is Peter merely the first speaker, assuming no special prerogatives in the debate that ensued, and not the president of that Council? Why was the entire matter not simply submitted to Peter rather than to the Council, and why did not the decision go forth as a Petrine deliverance rather than an apostolic decree?
Click to expand...
Acts 15:1-11 describes a Jerusalem council that dealt with the question of circumcision. In verses 7-11, Peter spoke… and in verse 12, “the whole assembly fell silent”. In other words, debate over.

Acts 15:13-35 describes a Jerusalem decree dealing mainly with Gentile observance of dietary laws (the same one Paul describes in Galatians 2:1-10). The Apostle James renders his judgement beginning in verse 19.

In rabbinical debates to this day, all listen as one person speaks, then another in turn. Finally, when the debate is finished, those who are to judge announce their individual decisions in inverse order of rank.

That is, the junior rabbi announces his decision first, using the ritual words “It is my decision.” The next senior then announces his decision, and so on. The final decision is pronounced by the senior rabbi, after hearing the decisions of those junior to him.

For James to speak first shows he was junior to the Apostles present. For his decision to be accepted without any further pronouncements shows that his words were fully accepted by those senior to him.

James, by the way, was a Pharasee – and the issue (strict adherence to the outward trappings of the Law) was a Pharasitical issue, so his pronouncement decided the issue, since he set aside all the outward trappings.
 
Eucharisted said:
1 For that matter, why do the gospels all apparently have contradicting narratives of the Resurrection? It’s because of human memory, of the audience being written for, and how the author wrote. You must read the Scriptures according to context.
2 Because the gospels are historical, not fictional; it would be damaging to the credibility of the evangelists if they omitted Peter’s errors. Moreover, the charge of “Arian comparison” makes no sense, since Peter was recognizing the messianic age had come.
3 Pride is what caused them to dispute. Jesus made it clear after His Resurrection that Peter was to lead His flock as the vicar of Him the Good Shepherd (“feed my sheep”).
4 I suppose it has to do with Jesus “favoring” Peter, James, and John, though I don’t know for sure.
5 Because they weren’t sure if Jews could eat with gentiles. It has nothing to do with infalliblity.
6 I don’t know. Though I’m sure the answer will answer this question and question #4.
7 It’s a council. I don’t even need to explain that.
8 That makes no sense. (Acts 2:6 “At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language.”)
9 Paul preached the gospels to the gentiles, he didn’t preach in areas just where the church wasn’t. He went to Rome, probably, to be with Peter, but I don’t know for sure.
10 Peter didn’t need to explain his office because people already know he is the Pope.
11 Peter isn’t the star of Acts. Luke was a companion of Paul.
12 Simony isn’t the same as indulgences (I felt like answering).
13 We are a royal priesthood, a holy nation. We are all called to share in Christ’s priestly office, but some men are called to be consecrated. There is a difference between the universal priesthood and the ordained priesthood.
14 The Church dosen’t say the Pope is above the emperor. And Peter is correct: when it comes to the law, the lawmaker is supreme in the matters pertaining to the law. Just as when it comes to the Divine Law, God is supreme in the matters pertaining to His Law.
15 Again, this isn’t a contradiction. God answers our prayers as He wills, either directly or through a saint.
16 Because Jesus died to redeem mankind.
17 Because Paul was martyred with Peter at Rome and was a great instrument of God in his life just as Peter was. It has nothing to do with Papacy.
18 Yes, John was subject to the successor of Peter, Limus. All the apostles were bishops, and Paul was a bishop as well, and they were subject to the Supreme Pontiff.
19 Ignatius, if I’m not mistaken, uses that passage in support of Peter’s primacy. As for why bishops oppose the Pope, it’s because they think they know better.
20 “For it is with this Roman church, by reason of its more powerful pre-eminence, that every church, that is to say all the faithful everywhere, ought to agree.” - St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lychos, disciple of the Apostle John, and Greek Father, 180 AD
21 The First Council of Nicea did.
22 Here is a tract on the Pope’s authority.
Click to expand...
Thanks Euch. Perhaps our Christian Friend should get a copy of the Catechism & read it before posting such a litany in here. 2nd he can always sign-up for the RCIA class & study & learn there as well…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top