Historical evidence for self-authenticating scripture?

[Ammi]

Luke 12

Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I tell you, he will set him over all his possessions.

John 21

Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep…"

Sounds like universal jurisdiction to me.

 

[mcq72]

Trust me, I do think abuses have run rampant through history of the Bishops of Rome. And Jesus warns about this.

Actually he warns about making an office, of having a visible governance acting in way as worldly governments.

But thank you for your admission of the history. Yet I believe it is not just bad people in a good office. The office itself lends to the abuse.

 

[Ammi]

I think abuses are rife at this present time too.

In the lack of conviction and unity of the Holy See, and in the handling of Annulments.

 

[mcq72]

Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep…"

Sounds like universal jurisdiction to me.

And what did the other apostles do, just eat?

Peter taking initiative is Peter being Peter and the Lord even admonished him to be so, yet never curtailing the initiative of the other 11, even saying whosoever would be the greatest, be the least. Making an " office" impedes whosoever, implying whosoever is elected pope is the greatest / least.

And as Tertullian strongly argued that where did Jesus ever imply that the bishop of Rome automatically has jurisdiction over all, and is a Peter and only holder of keys?

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Jesus said to him, “Feed my sheep…"

Sounds like universal jurisdiction to me.

And what did the other apostles do, just eat?

Peter taking initiative is Peter being Peter and the Lord even admonished him to be so, yet never curtailing the initiative of the other 11, even saying whosoever would be the greatest, be the least.

Why did you cut out Jesus’ words in Luke 12 about universal jurisdiction?

No one claims the Bishop of Rome to be greater than any other Bishop. Or greater than any laymen for that matter.

True greatness has to do with how one walks, not the position they hold.

Peter did not have occassion to “feed” the others with his authority. Expect for when he drew on it during the Counsel of Jerusalem. And James expressed his agreement.

 

[mcq72]

True greatness has to do with how one walks, not the position they hold.

Of course, just that much history of office, even offices, and the desire for it and means to it , says otherwise

 

[Ammi]

Because some abuse their office, does not mean the office doesnt exist.

 

[mcq72]

Why did you cut out Jesus’ words in Luke 12 about universal jurisdiction?

Did not cut them out but responded to them…indeed he did feed sheep…indeed he did strengthen the church…do you infer the other apostles were idle in this matter…did not all but one not get marytered…did not all equally lay foundation…did not all receive same commission to preach and bind or forgive sin

 

[Ammi]

Ammi:

Why did you cut out Jesus’ words in Luke 12 about universal jurisdiction?

Did not cut them out but responded to them…indeed he did feed sheep…indeed he did strengthen the church…do you infer the other apostles were idle in this matter…did not all but one not get marytered…did not all equally lay foundation…

My post showed Jesus explaining how the Master sets a steward over the whole house and over all His possessions and feeds them.

Later, Jesus commissions Peter to “feed my sheep” to Peter specifically, even though the other Apostles were present.

The other Apostles also had divine revelation from Jesus, and unless there is a need to be fed, Peter would not need to step in. Though Peter certainly stepped in at the Counsel. And he drew upon the fact that Jesus singled him out.

 

[steve-b]

steve-b:

For clarification, please explain

Well, you said obey Jesus in doing that, eating Him, as in Last Supper, and I infer CC teaching of such as transubstantiation.

If wrong, please explain what you mean by doing “that” , as in john 6 and last supper.

Yes, the Eucharist. And in extension, looking forward from the Last Supper, the Mass.

Said differently, No council has ever nullified a doctrine.

mcq72:

Right. Now we just dont have full representative, universal, catholic councils.

Of course we do. We have had 21 ecumenical councils. Those who left unity, don’t count as the Catholic Church.

Are you referring to the pope addressing Luther’s errors?

mcq72:

No. Referring to invalidating reformers by pointing to their fruits or negative fruits/ sins, such as division .

OK

 

[mcq72]

My post showed Jesus explaining how the Master sets a steward over the whole house and over all His possessions and feeds them .

Yes, that is the well crafted and Catholic application that came to be after Peter.

Later, Jesus commissions Peter to “ feed my sheep ” to Peter specifically, even though the other Apostles were present.

Yes because Peter specifically denied the Lord and put aside his discipleship, was back to fishing fish.

Yes, was a specific restoration for a specific purpose, but not beyond first amongst equals.

The first council is in the eye of the beholder…you see papacy…i see the opposite.

 

[Ammi]

So how does Jesus’ comment that a steward would be “set over the whole house” be interpreted, in your opinion?

 

[mcq72]

So how does Jesus’ comment that a steward would be “set over the whole house” be interpreted, in your opinion

Well Jesus asks a question of who that steward is , for Peter asks if it is all followers or the twelve. Jesus did not answer specifically. I do not rule out specificity towards apostles but necesity of all believers also to be watchful stewards. Seems presumptuos to answer for the Lord that all the subsequent verses deal with papacy only. Again it is a question from Jesus.

Jesus does not say He would set up a head steward, yet the question is posed as if there could be one but seems to be open ended, like go for it apostles, be the least, be the most watchful, the most doing.

it seems that there are different levels of stewards, that unto whom much is given, much will be required, so an apostle the most required, then a bishop, then perhaps a deacon, then one with the gift of helps, on and on it goes, to every last gifted believer.

No where here does Jesus state to Peter that he shall be head steward, and it would have been a perfect opportunity for Jesus to do so and answer Peters question directly. He does not. A bit like leader is as leader does. Steward is as steward does. The greatest is as the greatest does. Almost like your actions will illucidate your role, your gifting, your office.

Who would deny that the twelve were chief stewards, and who would deny that Peter was first amongst equals in that task?

Just as there was no head tribe of Israel, and although the tribes had some universal roles some served specific roles, Jehovah ruling over all…so too with twelve apostles.

Upon final reflection, Jesus is chief steward for the Lord, and will be given rule over all. The rest of the verses deal with “servants”

Also i think the ruling over all that He has is at end times, not now. The papacy seems to be more ruling over all now, calling it being a servant. Other way around. First be a good servant till His coming then you can rule over all.

Sorry I babble but you bring up a good question requiring reading the complete chapter over and over again.

 

[Ammi]

Sorry I babble but you bring up a good question requiring reading the complete chapter over and over again.

I think you are admirable for searching diligently the Scriptures and father’s of the Church.

I can certainly concede to “excess” of the honor of the Bishop of Rome.

My point in raising the passage from Luke 12 (and in particular verse 42)…

And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward, whom his master will set over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time?

… is to put a context in mind when Jesus commissions Peter to “feed My sheep”.

When Jesus told Peter this, and we have Luke 12: 42 in mind, we can see how Jesus was placing Peter in a position of authority over the whole house.

I can agree with you about excessive “honor” for sure! But I also see Jesus establishing a position/office in which one member of the Church has a unique authority.

It doesnt mean that member is greater than any other member by default! That would be very foolish to think. Greatness is judged by how one manages, not status. Scripture is very clear that we are not to treat others with partiality.

Therefore, I agree with basic Catholic Teaching, that Scripture does indeed reveal a singular position and office in the Church, which is intended to “feed” and “strengthen” all other leaders towards orthodoxy and unity.

I also agree with St John Christendom’s explanation which you posted!

 

[steve-b]

Ammi:

Trust me, I do think abuses have run rampant through history of the Bishops of Rome. And Jesus warns about this.

Actually he warns about making an office, of having a visible governance acting in way as worldly governments.

But thank you for your admission of the history. Yet I believe it is not just bad people in a good office. The office itself lends to the abuse.

Re: history, AND Church governance, AND the office Jesus gave Peter

the office of “leader” that Jesus in scripture describes for Peter,

Lk 22:26, leader ἡγέομαι

definition.

to lead … a) to go before b) to be a leader
to rule, command
to have authority over
a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
the leader in speech, chief, spokesmana)to rule, govern
of rulers
to furnish pasture for food
to nourish
to cherish one’s body, to serve the body
to supply the requisites for the soul’s need

IOW

count up the points

Peter is to lead, feed, rule, command, have authority over the churches, govern, and control in counsels… make stable his brothers, strengthen them, and confirm them…and be the chief spokesman. And it goes without saying, Jesus expects the apostles to follow Peter’s lead. That ends the apostle’s argument they were having over who is the greatest among THEM. AND if it doesn’t end every body elses argument who doesn’t agree, we know who THEY are listening to. It’s SATAN not Jesus.…

And

let’s not forget Jn 17:18-23 Jn 17:18-23 RSVCE - As thou didst send me into the world, - Bible Gateway there is to be zero division in Our Lord’s plan

THAT

should also answer the required communion with 1 bishop.

Then

consider the following phrase "servant of the servants of God"

that’s how Pope Gregory the Great referred to himself. That’s a title popes use today to refer to themselves.

 

[Babaganoush]

I think your question is valid, but it shouldn’t be limited to scripture. The first millennium Christians came to an agreement on doctrine, and that doctrine can only be found in the traditional churches. For a thousand to fifteen hundred years before the reformation Christians agreed on many doctrines that many protest churches rejected after the reformation. The sacraments, honor of the saints, and many other doctrines were universally accepted. So we have the problem that for a thousand years or more no one believe what Protestants later accepted as the true Christian faith. But Christ promised his spirit would lead them into all truth.

There must be continuity or it is all false.

 

[Ammi]

Protestant “churches” hold many of the same doctrines as us.

Even that Scripture is God “breathed”, God inspired, inerrant, and the written revelation of Christ

 

[Babaganoush]

That says nothing. You can find overlap between any two belief systems. There are many things that Christians and Muslims agree about, yet they are radically different systems. Just because there is overlap between what Catholics believe and what Protestants believe doesn’t imply that there isn’t a radical break from the past with the reformation. Many Protestants will deny that Catholics are Christian because Catholics believe what was believed before the reformation. It is a break with the past, and consequently you are confronted with the question, has Christ kept his promise?

 

[Ammi]

Not necessarily. There are very significant overlaps. Ones that’s establish an initiation into brotherhood. Belief in true Baptism being a major one. That the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one God, and accomplished the merits of our salvation.

 

[Babaganoush]

That still isn’t relevant. Just because I can accept Protestants as brothers doesn’t remove the questions legitimacy. Christ promised that the gates of hell wouldn’t prevail over the church and that he would send his spirit to guide them into all truth. For millennia all Christians believed dogmas that Protestants have now declared are at least erroneous and at worst idolatrous. It is a radical break with the past. All Christians in a given time period are declared to be idolators or erroneous. Christ’s promise was false.