Papacy not scriptural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Valtiel
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
He’s quoting James McCarthy…it figures. :rolleyes:
Valtiel, see this:
catholicapologetics.com/
Their stuff is no nonsense and handles most all you can get.
The only thing that’s actually unBiblical is his contention that all the deposit of faith has to come from the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is the biggest unBiblical doctrine of all and since this and all such arguments are based upon it they all fall with it.

The stuff you’ve been given here is more than enough to blow out this guy.

If he can prove that the early church relied on the Bible alone then maybe I’d listen, but he can’t, and I know it so I just readily blow him off.
Pax vobiscum,
 
40.png
Valtiel:
Please help, a protestant has me cornered…
Click to expand...
Well, since the Catholic Church was the original christian Church, how could it not be in continuity with itself?

Give them this:
Do you have any idea when your faith was founded and by whom? You may find this enlightening:

If you are a member of the Jewish faith, your religion was founded by about 4,000 years ago.

If you are Roman Catholic, Jesus Christ founded your Church in the year A.D. 30.

If you are Eastern Orthodox, your sect separated from Roman Catholicism around the year 1054.

If you are Lutheran, your religion was founded by Martin Luther, an ex-monk in the Catholic Church, in 1517.

If you belong to the Church of England (Anglican), your religion was founded by King Henry VIII in the year 1534 because the pope would not grant him a divorce with the right to remarry.

If you are a Presbyterian, your religion was founded when John Knox brought the teachings of John Calvin to Scotland in the Year 1560.

If you are Unitarian, your group developed in Europe in the 1500s.

If you are a Congregationalist, your religion branched off Puritanism in the early 1600s in England.

If you are a Baptist, you owe the tenets of your religion to John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1607.

If you are a Methodist, your religion was founded by John and Charles Wesley in England in 1744.

If you are an Episcopalian, your religion came from England to the American colonies. It formed a separate religion founded by Samuel Seabury in 1789.

If you are a Mormon (Latter-day Saints), Joseph Smith started your church in Palmyra, N.Y. in 1830.

If you worship with the Salvation Army, your sect began with William Booth in London in 1865.

If you are a Christian Scientist, you look to 1879 as the year your religion was founded by Mary Baker Eddy.

If you are a Jehovah’s Witness, your religion was founded by Charles Taze Russell in Pennsylvania in the 1870s.

If you are Pentecostal, your religion was started in the United States in 1901.
 
What does Cyprian say about the papacy? Part I

“For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there.” - The Seventh Council of Carthage.

Cyprian believed in a primacy of Peter, but explains that the primacy is chronological and symbolic, not jurisdictional:

“The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, ‘I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, ‘Feed my sheep.’ And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, ‘As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;’ yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity.” (On the Unity of the Church, 4)

Cyprian refers to all bishops as successors of Peter, and he refers to all of them possessing the keys and having the words of Matthew 16 applied to them:

“Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honour of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: ‘I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.’ Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers.” (Epistle 26:1)
 
What does Cyprian say about the papacy? Part II

In contrast to what Roman Catholicism teaches, Cyprian tells us that church leaders are to be appointed by laymen:
“a bishop is appointed into the place of one deceased, when he is chosen in time of peace by the suffrage of an entire people, when he is protected by the help of God in persecution, faithfully linked with all his colleagues, approved to his people by now four years’ experience in his episcopate” (Letter 54:6)

“On which account a people obedient to the Lord’s precepts, and fearing God, ought to separate themselves from a sinful prelate, and not to associate themselves with the sacrifices of a sacrilegious priest, especially since they themselves have the power either of choosing worthy priests, or of rejecting unworthy ones…For which reason you must diligently observe and keep the practice delivered from divine tradition and apostolic observance, which is also maintained among us, and almost throughout all the provinces; that for the proper celebration of ordinations all the neighbouring bishops of the same province should assemble with that people for which a prelate is ordained. And the bishop should be chosen in the presence of the people, who have most fully known the life of each one, and have looked into the doings of each one as respects his habitual conduct. And this also, we see, was done by you in the ordination of our colleague Sabinus; so that, by the suffrage of the whole brotherhood, and by the sentence of the bishops who had assembled in their presence, and who had written letters to you concerning him, the episcopate was conferred upon him, and hands were imposed on him in the place of Basilides.” (67:3, 67:5)

The second citation above, from Letter 67, was written in the context of Cyprian opposing the Roman bishop Stephen in a dispute over church government. He criticizes Stephen for supporting the reappointment of a bishop who had been deposed by the people of the church:

“Neither can it rescind an ordination rightly perfected, that Basilides, after the detection of his crimes, and the baring of his conscience even by his own confession, went to Rome and deceived Stephen our colleague, placed at a distance, and ignorant of what had been done, and of the truth, to canvass that he might be replaced unjustly in the episcopate from which he had been righteously deposed.” (67:5)

So, not only does Cyprian think that the approval of laymen is necessary for the appointing of a church leader, and not only does he think that the approval of the bishop of Rome isn’t necessary, but he even thinks that laymen can appoint a bishop in opposition to the bishop of Rome. Compare Cyprian’s comments to the teachings of the RCC:

“‘One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.’ The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church’s ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop. In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome, because he is the supreme visible bond of the communion of the particular Churches in the one Church and the guarantor of their freedom…Since the sacrament of Holy Orders is the sacrament of the apostolic ministry, it is for the bishops as the successors of the apostles to hand on the ‘gift of the Spirit,’ the ‘apostolic line.’ Validly ordained bishops, i.e., those who are in the line of apostolic succession, validly confer the three degrees of the sacrament of Holy Orders.” (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1559, 1576)

“Furthermore, the sacred and holy Synod teaches, that, in the ordination of bishops, priests, and of the other orders, neither the consent, nor vocation, nor authority, whether of the people, or of any civil power or magistrate whatsoever, is required in such wise as that, without this, the ordination is invalid: yea rather doth It decree, that all those who, being only called and instituted by the people, or by the civil power and magistrate, ascend to the exercise of these ministrations, and those who of their own rashness assume them to themselves, are not ministers of the church, but are to be looked upon as thieves and robbers, who have not entered by the door.” (Council of Trent, session 23, chapter 4, “On the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy, and on Ordination”)
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Compare Cyprian’s comments to the teachings of the RCC:

"‘One is constituted a member of the episcopal body in virtue of the sacramental consecration and by the hierarchical communion with the head and members of the college.’ The character and collegial nature of the episcopal order are evidenced among other ways by the Church’s ancient practice which calls for several bishops to participate in the consecration of a new bishop.
Click to expand...
This is essentially the same as Cyprian describes. While, in his day and area, the local laity may have selected who would be bishop, other bishops had to come in to perform the ordination.
40.png
EA_Man:
In our day, the lawful ordination of a bishop requires a special intervention of the Bishop of Rome,
Click to expand...
Note the emphasis. The Catholic Church acknowledges that the method of choosing a bishop was different in the past. However, the doctrinal teaching about Apostolic succession still stands.

It also needs to be understood that other saints directly contradicted Cyprian on his opinion of whether the laity could licitly be in defiance of the Pope on such a matter.

St. Irenaeus wrote Against Heresies (around A. D 180-199), in which he stated, “But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition.” Irenaeus not only points out that authority within each Church (diocese) is entrusted to its bishop based on apostolic succession but that the Church in Rome is the head of the whole Church.

So how do we know which opinion we are to accept? According to which one is consistent with the constant teaching of the church. Saints, even the greatest, can be mistaken. Sts. Augustine and Thomas did. St. Jerome emphasized that in all of his theological disputes, he submitted himself the the magisterium of the church. We do the same because, as I demonstrate in the other thread to which I linked, this is the consistent teaching of the Bible and the Magisterium of the Church from the beginning. Catholics are allowed to disagree with popes on certain issues. I disagree with the liturgical changes ince Vatican II and with the overall direction of the ecumenical movement. Cyprian disagreed on whether or not the Pope should override the decision of the local Church in selecting who would succeed their bishop. This proves nothing.
 
40.png
theMutant:
This is essentially the same as Cyprian describes. While, in his day and area, the local laity may have selected who would be bishop, other bishops had to come in to perform the ordination.
Note the emphasis. The Catholic Church acknowledges that the method of choosing a bishop was different in the past. However, the doctrinal teaching about Apostolic succession still stands.
Click to expand...
However, the points that Cyprian enumerate go beyond mere differences in practice. But are in effect a difference in doctrine.
He says, “the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power”.

If there is unity “from the beginning” of the Church in doctrine and understanding that Peter was the first pope, who would be recognized as the unquestioned authority of the Church, how is it that Cyprian considers all of the apostles equal in “honour and power”?

Saying that Church Fathers X & Y agree that Peter was the head of the Church does not do away with Cyprians’ assertion that all of the apostles were equal.
This proves nothing.
Click to expand...
To say that this “proves nothing” is incorrect. What this proves is that Cyprian has a different understanding of the authority of the Bishop of Rome than what “official teaching” asserts.

He is also saying that the laity can appoint a bishop in opposition to the bishop of Rome.
 
There is no one more blind than he who refuses to see. Also check into the Eastern Catholic churches who are descended from apostles other than Peter, who recognize the Primacy of the seat of Peter. Corraborating evidence.
 
Catholic Dude: Those links that you posted. Are they to show the Protestant arguments or were you posting for the Catholic arguments about the Papacy? These links give the Protestant arguments.

For example, that first link gives all the Scriptural arguments and then concludes with this paragraph:
While there have been good (humanly speaking) and moral 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).
Click to expand...
 
40.png
EA_Man:
Saying that Church Fathers X & Y agree that Peter was the head of the Church does not do away with Cyprians’ assertion that all of the apostles were equal.
Click to expand...
First of all, you must remember that the Catholic Church agrees with much of what you quoted from Cyprian and teaches the same today. All of the bishops are successors of the Apostles and within their own diocese they are all equal. This is true concerning the bishop of Rome’s relationship - as a bishop - with the other bishops. However, the bishop of Rome is the first among equals just as Peter was. The authority of the papacy over the entire Church is not one that is to be (and, in practice, is not) lorded over it Church but one that is to be invoked when necessary. Unless that authority is specifically invoked, the local bishop is autonomous. This is the practice today as it was always.

The fact that one Church Father asserted that particular Churches don’t have to obey Rome in one particular matter does not mean that he asserted they can do so in any matter; nor does it do away with the assertions of the other Church Fathers that the bishop of Rome is the head of the entire Church; nor does it do away with the fact that bishops of Rome have asserted that they have that authority since the Church’s foundation.
 
Church Militant:
He’s quoting James McCarthy…it figures. :rolleyes:
Valtiel, see this:
catholicapologetics.com/
Their stuff is no nonsense and handles most all you can get.
The only thing that’s actually unBiblical is his contention that all the deposit of faith has to come from the Bible.
Sola Scriptura is the biggest unBiblical doctrine of all and since this and all such arguments are based upon it they all fall with it.

The stuff you’ve been given here is more than enough to blow out this guy.

If he can prove that the early church relied on the Bible alone then maybe I’d listen, but he can’t, and I know it so I just readily blow him off.
Pax vobiscum,
Click to expand...
Which one is it???
I can’t find it…
 
hola de nuevo:

I DONT KNOW A LOT ABOUT SOLA SCRITURA (IS THAT WRITEN RIGHT?? BUT ASK THEM THIS:

when did the first bible was made???
did Jesus carry a bible???
internet and cars ARE NOT ON THE BIBLE, SO are they evil???

hope this helps because it has work for me
 
😃 Remember, most of what he wrote is based on a misunderstanding of the role of the Papacy.

The scripture he quotes is quoted out of context. Even when Peter speaks to the others in Jerusalem and there is argument/discussion about Gentiles becoming Christians and being subject to Jewish Law, the last word and final say is spoken by Peter.

Our Pope today consults and asks for study and prayer from the Bishops - just like Our Popes have ALWAYS done when it comes to doctrine, faith, morals etc.

There is a difference between infallible and impeccable. There are many Catholics who do not understand this - which is why we can be the ones who misrepresent the Papcy and do our Church great harm.

Remember, always have the courage to say “I don’t know. I know the Faith and the Church NEVER contradict Scripture, but I am not knowledgeable enough to have an answer for you right now. I will, however, get the answer and get back to you.”

Also, remember, if he or she just wants to ‘prove you wrong’ rather than LEARN, you will be met with some of the most irrational and weird interpretation of scripture you can imagine. There is nothing wrong with saying “I do NOT accept your interpretation. It just sounds weird to me”.
 
miguel delgado:
hola de nuevo:

I DONT KNOW A LOT ABOUT SOLA SCRITURA (IS THAT WRITEN RIGHT?? BUT ASK THEM THIS:

when did the first bible was made???
did Jesus carry a bible???
internet and cars ARE NOT ON THE BIBLE, SO are they evil???

hope this helps because it has work for me
Click to expand...
You can also ask this:

Catholics agree that the Bible is authoritative, but where does it ever say that its authority is exclusive?
 
Take the “Keys” portion of Matt 16:18 and use it like a sledge hammer against him. It is an insurmountable mountain for them to climb. The KEYS = PRIMACY & SUCCESSION

Only Peter is given the “Keys” to the Kingdom. No other apostle, despite receiving the powers to bind and loose, received the “Keys”. Christ is refering to Isaiah 22 in which Eliakim is given REAL, TANGIBLE & EARTHLY Authority of the “Keys” to the House of David. After all, David had been dead for hundreds of years, yet dynastic succession occurs, through the “Keys” to Eliakim. The cadence and tone of Isaiah = that which is given by Matthew. Christ knew what he was doing…they just don’t like it.

Also, one other thing. Simon gets his NAME CHANGED. Ask you buddy to list other name changes in scripture; Abram to Abraham etc. Name changes are a huge sign from Heaven and portend the bequethment of enormous graces & grants of authority from God. No other Apostle received (1.) the Keys & (2.) the Name Change.
Dude, if this was a football game and the scripture above = offensive linemen, you would have guys that weigh 400 lbs, run a 4.5 forty and bench over 500 lbs. In other words, you would simply run the ball down their throat. They only wish that the scriptural hand dealt to us was theirs.
 
Ok Valtiel, the first thing you want to do is calm down and try not to be too hasty in responding to your protestant friend. These things make take time, but always get back to them.

Before sending your rebuttal to his rebuttal on the Catholic position try creating doubt in his position first by asking questions. How do you create doubt? For example, here are some questions I would ask him that would put him on the defensive end? Start with several rhetorical questions. In other words, questions that all Christians should know the answer to questions that you know what answer he’ll give you)! Here you go!

Do you have a Pope? No, Because it is not scriptural. He says.

So if you don’t have a Pope, then it is fair to say that your faith is
shaped by the bible alone? Yes it is, I just go by the bible alone, thats it!

So what you are saying is that all you need in regards to the true faith is just the bible and nothing but the bible, correct? Yes, All I need is just the bible, He says!

(after setting him up with several rhetorical questions, then suddenly drop the bomb or bombs, here they go!)

OK, if all you need is the bible as you say, then why do you need another source other than the bible to tell you what you should or shouldn’t believe in, such a James Macarthy, or much more your Sunday Church Minister???

(he scrambles for an answer)

So which is it? The bible alone or Macarthy?

(remember, by this time they already made there bed, and thus can’t have it both ways)

And since you rely heavily on Macarthy’s interpretations of the bible , prove to me using only scripture that Mcarthy (or Minister’s name here) is a qualified and infallible interpreter???

(And tell him that you will not move into any further questions about the Papacy until he gives you well satisfied answers, and backs them using the man-made doctrine of the bible alone…PS…Don’t let him evade these questions…keep asking them until he gives you a satisfied answer!

One thing I learned is that Protestants do to have a Pope. In fact, they have thousands upon thousands of Popes, whether they admit it or not! They may not call them popes, but they are! Billy Graham, Hank Hanagraaph, Jack Chick, all these guys are Protestant Popes, because they have huge followings that believe every word they say!

I will pray for you and especially your friend! God Bless…
 
Valtiel,

How do you feel about the fact that none of these explanations get at what you are trying to get answered? Does it surprise you? Send me an IM.

Trav
 
40.png
MarilynIN:
Catholic Dude: Those links that you posted. Are they to show the Protestant arguments or were you posting for the Catholic arguments about the Papacy? These links give the Protestant arguments.

For example, that first link gives all the Scriptural arguments and then concludes with this paragraph:
Click to expand...
Check out post 17. I had the same question. And the answer is…

The kid asking these questions is just c&p’ing from this one site. He’s not even reading the reply’s he’s getting, probably.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top