P
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Well, I’ll take a stab at the first one.
The Pope as the Vicar of Christ Proven from Scripture
FUNDAMENTALISTS respond to the claim that the pope is the Vicar of Christ by stating, “There is no vicar of Christ on earth except the Holy Spirit!” It is true that the Holy Spirit is a vicar of Christ (John 15:26, 16:12-15), but there may be others also. The term “vicar” means “a substitute; esp. an under-servant [who substitutes].”
“After this the Lord appointed seventy others, and sent them on ahead of him, two by two, into every town and place where he himself was about to come. And he said to them . . . `He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me’” (Luke 10:1-2, 16).
“[Ananias] sold a piece of property, and . . . kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet. But Peter said, `Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land? . . . You have not lied to men but to God.’ When Ananias heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it” (Acts 5:1-5).
“So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:20).
“[A]nd though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus” (Gal. 4:14).
Hope this helps. :tiphat:
P
patrick457
Guest
Okay. Thanks! I’m now on the way to typing up a reply. Thank you very much.
Now how do we answer question B?
Also, how shall we reconcile the fact that the Pope was once called ‘Vicar of Peter’ with his present title?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
First, in what context was the Pope ever called the Vicar of Peter? I don’t recall ever hearing that term before…but then, 2,000 years is a long time…Okay. Thanks! I’m now on the way to typing up a reply. Thank you very much.
Now how do we answer question B?
Also, how shall we reconcile the fact that the Pope was once called ‘Vicar of Peter’ with his present title?
As for the second question, I would begin this way:
Answering the Question, “Where is that in the Bible?”
The Evangelical starts with the assumption that scripture existed first and that tradition was slowly and incrementally added to it as time progressed. However, the original deposit of faith was given to the Apostles years before Scripture was ever penned. The Church was founded on this truth from Christ. Some of this deposit was then written in Scripture, some was scrupulously passed from bishop to bishop as oral tradition, and some was later clarified as dogma by the agreement of the bishops in the councils of the Church.
These sources, of course, should be expected not to contradict each other. If the Church teaches something as true, it is justifiable to check that it is not contradicted by Scripture. But if the Church teaches something and the Bible is silent or ambiguous, that does not mean the teaching is any less truly a part of the original deposit of faith given the Apostles. The focus must shift from what is biblical to what is true. The first is always contained in the second, but all of the second is not necessarily contained in the first.
When an Evangelical asks, “Where is that doctrine in the Bible?”, the correct response is “First show me from Scripture why you believe all Christian doctrines must be in the Bible.” It can be frustrating for Evangelicals to confront this issue, but it is important for them to understand the lack of biblical basis for their question. Truth is at issue here.
Adapted from Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic by David B. Currie, pp.61-62.
As for the bowing thing…your friend suffers from the misunderstanding that BOWING is equal to WORSHIP. We Americans have lost our sense of deference to royalty, haven’t we? Those in Europe might have a deeper appreciation for proper respect in the presence of important people. He might gain some understanding by considering Paul McCartney’s behavior when he was being knighted by the Queen.
C
Catholicdeacon
Guest
A) You’ve considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that’s a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that’s the Holy Spirit)?
You say “Holy Father” is a divine name… prove it. Show me a passage in scripture in which Jesus call his father “Holy Father”.
You can not. Because he never did, he called Him Father or Holy but never “Holy Father” Why? Because the concept of “Holy Father” in the way Catholics use it does not apply to God. This concept was not even invented when Jesus was alive. Just because you do not like it does not mean it is wrong to call the Pope “Holy Father”.
B) Do you really find anything in Scripture whatsoever that would lead you to believe it was Christ’s will that a bishop in a city hundreds of miles away in Rome would not only be the head of His church but would be treated as a king upon earth, bowed down to and treated the way the Roman Pontiff is treated?
Christ designated Peter His successor, Peter became the first Bishop of Rome. It has nothing to do with location and everything to do with the authority given to Peter by Jesus. Peter was bishop of Antioch first before moving to Rome. He was the head of the Church when he was in Antioch and he was the head of the Church in Rome, where his successor still lives. If Rome is destroyed tomorrow, whoever is selected the successor of Benedict XVI will be the head of the Church regardless of were he is. Do you know that at one time in history, the pope lived in France and not in Italy? He was still the pope.
C) Why a great number of the church fathers didn’t consider the person of peter as the rock of mt16,18
Here you will have to provide evidence, not one or two but “a great number” are required to back your statement, and even if you do… So what? What matters is that the Holy Spirit guided the Church to interpret this passage as Peter=The Rock. Other interpretations came much later, (1500 years later to be exact). Who should we trust? 1500 years of teaching or a “Johny come lately” interpretation???
I hope this helps…
Good luck on your blog.
In His love…
Catholic Deacon
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I agree with the post above.
The answer to Question C is “Prove it. Show me a quote from a Father in context which denies that Peter is the rock.” Technically, to back his claim, he’ll have to show you lots of quotes.
And remember, just because some Fathers spoke of Jesus being the Rock, it does not mean that they did not also consider Peter to be the rock as Matthew 16:18 declares. It’s both-and, not either-or.
In the context of their world, the Primacy of Peter was UNDERSTOOD. They did not have to parse their words as carefully as those of us who live in a post-Reformation world do.
The answer to Question C is “Prove it. Show me a quote from a Father in context which denies that Peter is the rock.” Technically, to back his claim, he’ll have to show you lots of quotes.
And remember, just because some Fathers spoke of Jesus being the Rock, it does not mean that they did not also consider Peter to be the rock as Matthew 16:18 declares. It’s both-and, not either-or.
In the context of their world, the Primacy of Peter was UNDERSTOOD. They did not have to parse their words as carefully as those of us who live in a post-Reformation world do.
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
OK:
A) You’ve considered what it means to proclaim a human being the Holy Father (that’s a divine name, used by Jesus only of His Father) and the Vicar of Christ (that’s the Holy Spirit)?## How is this any worse than:
- Excellency
- Honour
- Master
- Judge
- all of which are used:
- in the USA
- for human beings
- by human beings
- even though God alone is Master, Honourable, Judge, & Excellent
The Honourable Judge X. can preside, & be said to: how is that any less abominable than calling a man “Holy Father” ? What about the blasphemy of deifying George Washington with the title “Father of his Country” ? When do Protestants ever denounce that wickedness ? But no - their Father Washington is never criticised for that (heathen) title: but let the Pope be called something in the Bible, & all hell breaks loose
.
There seems to be no positive principle in such an objection - for it tells against others than those negligible idol-worshipping Papists. It proves far too much. It is Americans who sing hymns to the USA “as to a god” - more heathenism; but the Church is supra-national, not confined to one country. It is the Americolaters who sing hymns to their flag, & worship the Almighty Dollar. What Evangelicals speak against these things
?Because he is a man, not a spirit, he has to be somewhere. How does this affect his authority ? Did the Apostles never preach thousands of miles from places in the USA or Europe or elsewhere ? Jesus was not from either: He was a foreigner.
As for the Pope’s treatment, that kind of thing is based on a mixture of Byzantine court etiquette & Biblical theology: Christ is King, so the Pope is his Vizier, as St. Peter was. Much of the objection is nothing but cultural parochialism - the USA has no history to speak of, so its more insular inhabitants know nothing (& care less) of any culture not within easy reach.That is not the same as saying the Rock is:
- Christ
- Peter’s faith
- some such thing
- for those are all related to Peter’s person: they do not contradict that interpretation, but put it in context. If Christ were not Rock, how could Peter be ?
P
patrick457
Guest
Okay; I’ve typed out a bit of my reply, which as of now goes like:
P
patrick457
Guest
To everyone:
Thank you very much for all your help. I have finally come up with a reply (if you all don’t mind, I culled some bits and pieces from your informative answers). Again, may the Lord bless you all.
Thank you very much for all your help. I have finally come up with a reply (if you all don’t mind, I culled some bits and pieces from your informative answers). Again, may the Lord bless you all.
T
Todd_Easton
Guest
In John 17:11, Jesus Christ calls his Father, “Holy Father.”
St. Paul regularly refers to Christians as “Holy Ones” or “Saints.” (Ephesians 1:1; Colossians 1:2; etc.) In Hebrews 3:1, the author calls his Christian readers, “Holy Brethren.” Elsewhere, St. Stephen and St. Paul called the Jews of Jerusalem, “Fathers and Brethren” (Acts 7:2; 22:1). St. Paul is not shy about calling certain Christians, “Fathers.” (Ephesians 6:4; Colossians 3:21). Except for prejudice against Catholic usage, I see no logical reason that would prevent a Christian from calling his biological father, “Holy Father,” or his spiritual father (his priest, his bishop or the pope), in the sense described in 1 Corinthians 4:15, “Holy Father.”
C
Catholicdeacon
Guest
Thanks John, I stand corrected. (Thats what I get for trusting the biblegateway search engine)
In His love…
Catholic Deacon
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
and i would say: why in the world Jesus would get down on His knees and wash the feet of sinful men?
:coolinoff: :dancing:
A
Apologist78
Guest
I need to correct you one one point: It is TRUE that it was only a minority of the Church Fathers interpreted the Rock as applying to Peter. Trust me on this. There is good reason for this, but I do not wish to go into it here. Suffice it to say, this interpretation was not “invented” by the reformers, but very much has historical basis.
However as was pointed out at Vatican I when this very issue was stuided in depth- it doesn’t effect Catholic understanding- hence it is irrelavent. The Fathers held three interpretations of the passage ALL of which protestants who are honest in their scholarship are willing to admit:
- The Rock is Peter
- The Rock is Christ
- The Rock is the Confession of Christ.
They believe the office of apostle to be unique and limited to times of enscripturation. They do not believe the office is handed on. They certainly would hold the apostles delegated leadership in a community to certain people, but they would reject that the actual office is passed on. This follows becasue they reject the ordained priesthood, and only hold to a universal priesthood of all believers. In their minds since all are priests, it is only delegation required to “lead” not “ordination” which passes on an office. This is just a scetch- so forgive me for not being more detailed. I am just speaking in general. Protestants might want to tweak what I have said- or offer clarification, which is fine. I admit I am speaking in general terms here, and hence there will always be someone who says “Well this does not apply to my protestant Church, etc.”
In any case in the mind of the Fathers of Vatican I, since Peter is the one making the Confession, and since it is readily acknowledged that any authority Peter has, even a primacy and infallible authority is based first on Christ, and Peter (the pope) does not function independently of Christ. Peter’s “Rockiness” comes from Jesus “Rockiness.” Hence seen this way, it seems all of the interpreations build upon each other and harmonize. So in this way there is a unanamous agreement of the Fathers. As far as I know the ECF did not seperate the person of Peter from the Confession (since it was he who proclaimed it) NOR from his Faith in Christ, nor does Peter function independently of Christ. So there was no issue in the mind of the Fathers at Vatican I.
- Status