Pope Fiction

[Lazerlike42]

Calling it “anti-papal” will not give support to your argument. It is very clear that “it is my judgement” indicates authoirty.

It surely is not the same as “this is what I think”.

The Greek text does not require an interpretation of authority. It permits an interpretation of either authority, or one of opinion, as I suggested. To settle the ambiguity, we must look at the greater context of Scripture, some of which I have presented, and at the interpretation of the Fathers. I have provided one Father, St. John Chrysostom, who considers Peter the authority in this passage.

 

[scott1228]

I don’t look at that as a reversal out all.

If you look at the Church as the repository of the grace the Lord earned through, His life, death and resurrection, then basically you are saying that one cannot enter heaven except through the merits of the Lord.

Makes sense to me that the Church affirms that it is the vehicle of the normal course of salvation and sanctification, but also that it does not place limits on God’s mercy.

I don’t know why the Church would place limits on God’s mercy. But the Lord did state time and time in the Gospel that there would be a separation of the wheat and the chaff.

 

[Lazerlike42]

Please don’t misunderstand my purpose here. I am not anti-papal. And I am not trying to convert anyone or get into a fight.

I have nothing but love and respect for the Catholic Church and for the Pope.

I simply have a major hang-up with papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. (Otherwise I’d convert to catholicism) My thinking is that, if 100,000 devout Catholics (or however many are on this forum) can’t change my mind, then their case simply isn’t strong enough.

A

The question is, Algernon, are you willing to be convinced? I’m not sure if you are. That’s not a dig at you: it’s human nature. As I said, I myself allowed myself to reach a point where I was unwilling to be convinced of anything other than the path I was on.

Now I don’t know you, but so far in this thread I have provided several pieces of evidence of universal papal jurisdiction, some of which you have failed to comment on, others of which you have seemed to suggest relate only to primacy in spite of their emphasis on jurisdiction.

For example, I provided several quotes from Gregory the Great wherin he taught universal jurisdiction. FCEGM has provided several more. I provided a quote from the Bishop of Constantinople during the time of Pope Leo’s reign in which he asserts that Chalcedon must be approved by Leo’s authority. Here are some more quotations, this time from two Eastern Historians each living before the Council of Chalcedon:
Socrates Scholasticus:

There were present at this Synod ninety bishops from various cities. Maximus, however, bishop of Jerusalem; who had succeeded Macarius, did not attend, recollecting that he had been deceived and induced to subscribe the deposition of Athanasius. Neither was Julius, bishop of the great Rome, there, nor had he sent a substitute, although an ecclesiastical canon commands that the churches shall not make any ordinances against the opinion of the bishop of Rome.

• Ecclesiastical History, Book 2 Chapter 8

Sozomen:

The bishops of Egypt, having sent a declaration in writing that these allegations were false, and Julius having been apprised that Athanasius was far from being in safety in Egypt, sent for him to his own city. He replied at the same time to the letter of the bishops who were convened at Antioch, for just then he happened to have received their epistle, and accused them of having clandestinely introduced innovations contrary to the dogmas of the Nicene council, and of having violated the laws of the Church, by neglecting to invite him to join their Synod; for he alleged that there is a sacerdotal canon which declares that whatever is enacted contrary to the judgment of the bishop of Rome is null.

• Ecclesiastical History, Book 3 Chapter 10

There’s plenty more along the same lines.

My brother, I understand your concerns, but at the same time this is powerful evidence that cannot be simply cast aside.

I urge you to consider the advice I gave you earlier about taking some time away. I shall pray that God lead you to dwell in His House for eternity.

Peace and God bless

 

[FCEGM]

Please don’t misunderstand my purpose here. I am not anti-papal. And I am not trying to convert anyone or get into a fight.

I have nothing but love and respect for the Catholic Church and for the Pope.

I simply have a major hang-up with papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. (Otherwise I’d convert to catholicism) My thinking is that, if 100,000 devout Catholics (or however many are on this forum) can’t change my mind, then their case simply isn’t strong enough.

A

And are 100,00 devout Catholics engaging with you on the question? Could not a Catholic say the same regarding, say, the merits of Photius, on an Orthodox forum? Do not overlook Christ’s essential call to unity epitomized in the person of Peter (and NOT in Photius), no matter how weak or strong a given argument may be.

 

[Alethiaphile]

I don’t look at that as a reversal out all.
If you look at the Church as the repository of the grace the Lord earned through, His life, death and resurrection, then basically you are saying that one cannot enter heaven except through the merits of the Lord.
Makes sense to me that the Church affirms that it is the vehicle of the normal course of salvation and sanctification, but also that it does not place limits on God’s mercy.
I don’t know why the Church would place limits on God’s mercy. But the Lord did state time and time in the Gospel that there would be a separation of the wheat and the chaff.

You are giving a gloss on what you feel is the current Catholic teaching, which is fine, but you are not dealing with what Boniface VIII and Florence actually said many centuries ago. They did not say what you have said here. Please consult what they actually said. Joe

 

[Lazerlike42]

You are giving a gloss on what you feel is the current Catholic teaching, which is fine, but you are not dealing with what Boniface VIII and Florence actually said many centuries ago. They did not say what you have said here. Please consult what they actually said. Joe

Current Catholic teaching not only fits in with what Boniface taught, but does so in so perfect a fashion as to be profound and beautiful. I wrote a piece on it at one time, but unfortunately that piece is on my computer at home. Later tonight I will post it here.

 

[trustinyou]

It is simple

: Christ gave this authority, not to St. Peter alone, but also to the Church (Mt 18:18)
The church,meaning as far as the magestrim(forgive the spelling) or the church,as far as you and I being able to bind and loose??

 

[trustinyou]

Amen, brother!
smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/17/17_1_29.gif

Are you saying the church as far as you and I,have the right to bind and loose?,or the church, as the magestrim(bishops etc,etc.)

 

[Algernon]

The question is, Algernon, are you willing to be convinced? I’m not sure if you are. That’s not a dig at you: it’s human nature. As I said, I myself allowed myself to reach a point where I was unwilling to be convinced of anything other than the path I was on.

You’re right it is human nature and is something I am being as careful as I can to avoid.

Now I don’t know you, but so far in this thread I have provided several pieces of evidence of universal papal jurisdiction, some of which you have failed to comment on, others of which you have seemed to suggest relate only to primacy in spite of their emphasis on jurisdiction.

For example, I provided several quotes from Gregory the Great wherin he taught universal jurisdiction. FCEGM has provided several more. I provided a quote from the Bishop of Constantinople during the time of Pope Leo’s reign in which he asserts that Chalcedon must be approved by Leo’s authority. Here are some more quotations, this time from two Eastern Historians each living before the Council of Chalcedon:

• Ecclesiastical History, Book 2 Chapter 8

• Ecclesiastical History, Book 3 Chapter 10

There’s plenty more along the same lines.

My brother, I understand your concerns, but at the same time this is powerful evidence that cannot be simply cast aside.

I urge you to consider the advice I gave you earlier about taking some time away. I shall pray that God lead you to dwell in His House for eternity.

Peace and God bless

Yes, you have certainly made some compelling, and thought-provoking points. If I haven’t commented on a particular point, it’s not because I’m casting it aside, believe me.
I appreciate your prayers.

A

 

[Alethiaphile]

Current Catholic teaching not only fits in with what Boniface taught, but does so in so perfect a fashion as to be profound and beautiful. I wrote a piece on it at one time, but unfortunately that piece is on my computer at home. Later tonight I will post it here.

That’s fine, as long as it deals with what Boniface and Florence actually said, and not with some reworking or reinterpretation of what they said. I’ve seen the latter too many times. Joe

 

[savedsinner]

Ch. 1 Peter had no Special Authority

Pg. 23 “In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem…he [Peter] delivers apostolic teaching at the assembly of Apostles and disciples that stilled the debates raging back and forth and caused the whole assembly to fall silent."
Was it Peter’s teaching that “stilled the debates,” or the testimony of Paul and Barnabas? “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.” (Acts 15:12)

It seems like you might have been quoting the NIV on this passage, try looking to the Greek and then to the other translations.

The Greek word they are translating to “as” is kai
it’s meanings are - “and, also, even, indeed, but”

When the NIV translates kia to “as” it gives that passage a different meaning if they had translated it to “and”.

Here are the different translations and you might see what I am talking about.

KJV - Act 15:12 - Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.

NKJV - Act 15:12 - Then all the multitude kept silent and listened to Barnabas and Paul declaring how many miracles and wonders God had worked through them among the Gentiles.

NLT - Act 15:12 - There was no further discussion, and everyone listened as Barnabas and Paul told about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

NIV - Act 15:12 - The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.

ESV - Act 15:12 -

And all the assembly fell silent, and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

NASB - Act 15:12 - All the people kept silent, and they were listening to Barnabas and Paul as they were relating what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

RSV - Act 15:12 - And all the assembly kept silence; and they listened to Barnabas and Paul as they related what signs and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles.

ASV - Act 15:12 - And all the multitude kept silence; and they hearkened unto Barnabas and Paul rehearsing what signs and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles through them.

Young - Act 15:12 - And all the multitude did keep silence, and were hearkening to Barnabas and Paul, declaring as many signs and wonders as God did among the nations through them;

Darby - Act 15:12 - And all the multitude kept silence and listened to Barnabas and Paul relating all the signs and wonders which God had wrought among the nations by them.

Webster - Act 15:12 - Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought by them among the Gentiles.

HNV - Act 15:12 - All the multitude kept silence, and they listened to Bar-Nabba and Sha’ul reporting what signs and wonders God had done among the Goyim through them.

 

[Algernon]

Savedsinner,
Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut.
I guess I can cross that item off my list.

A

 

[Lazerlike42]

You’re right it is human nature and is something I am being as careful as I can to avoid.

Yes, you have certainly made some compelling, and thought-provoking points. If I haven’t commented on a particular point, it’s not because I’m casting it aside, believe me.
I appreciate your prayers.

A

Glad to hear it! I will certainly pray for you. Peace!

 

[Lazerlike42]

Here is what I had written about Boniface VIII. I wrote this an awfully long time ago, so it could probably be tidied up. I did tidy it up a little, but I’m tremendously exhausted right now so who knows how it ended up. Note that I was only focusing on Protestants when I wrote this, but I could change it around to fit any non-Catholic.

I wrote it in reference to Boniface’s statement: “Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” If you were referring to something else, sorry, my bad.

The Church teaches the following:

1. There is no salvation outside the Catholic Church - various places
2. It is necessary to be subject to the Roman Pontiff for salvation - Unam Sanctum
3. Protestants can be saved because though it is imperfect, they do have a communion with the Catholic Church - various places

There is no contradiction amongst these.

The question that seems to be raised is, how can Protestants be saved if they are not subject to the Roman Pontiff? The answer is they can’t. There is something very important to note here.

The Roman Pontiff is the leader of the Catholic Church. By definition, all those who are in the Catholic Church are subject to the Roman Pontiff, just like all those who are citizens of England are subject to the Queen, even if for some reason they never become aware that they are in fact her subjects or even mistakenly think they are not. Remember - there is one baptism, which baptizes people into one body of Christ, and that one body of Christ is the Catholic Church, which is subject to the Roman Pontiff. Any person who has been baptized is a member of the body of Christ and by the very fact that he is, is subject to the Roman Pontiff, even if he doesn’t know it. A 3 year old baptized Catholic is a member of the body of Christ even though he has no idea he is subject to the Roman Pontiff.

Now people can either stay in the body of Christ or leave it, and once they have left it they can return. They leave the body by committing mortal sin, and they return by repentance. Mortal sin requires 3 things: 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, and 3) full consent of the will.

Now a Protestant who gains the knowledge that he be Catholic and chooses not to commits mortal sin, and ceases to be a living member of the body. In fact, he ceases to be a member at all insofar as he is rejecting the Church with the knowledge of its veracity. Now a Protestant who never gains the knowledge of the Church’s truth remains a living member of the body, barring some mortal sin which would cause him to be a dead member of the body. Either way, he remains subject to the Roman Pontiff even if though doesn’t know it.

If a Protestant does become aware at some point that the Catholic Church is God’s true Church, he will do one of two things. He will either obey, which will involve becoming Catholic, or he will refuse to obey. If he refuses to obey, he will be committing a sin of grave matter with the necessary knowledge and presumably with full consent of the will. Therefore, he ceases to be a living member of the body, and because he has rejected the Church altogether, he ceases to be a member at all. He is no longer be subject to the Roman Pontiff because he is outside of the body. If he repents of this sin, he will join the Church and make himself once more to the Roman Pontiff.

So what it comes down to is that all Protestants who know of the truth of the Catholic Church are outside of the body and cannot be saved, whereas all Protestants who do not know of the truth may still be members of the body, which is the Church, and since the Church is subject to the Roman Pontiff, so are these Protestants, even if they don’t know it.

 

[steve_b]

Patrick Madrid is a very intelligent apologist, but a close look at his arguments has sent me East.

Let me show you what I mean. In each chapter, he takes on a different “myth” about the papacy and attempts to debunk them with arguments that seem plausible enough…until you look deeper.

Ch. 1 Peter had no Special Authority

Whose comment is this?

Algernon:

Pg. 23 “In Acts 15, at the Council of Jerusalem…he [Peter] delivers apostolic teaching at the assembly of Apostles and disciples that stilled the debates raging back and forth and caused the whole assembly to fall silent."
Was it Peter’s teaching that “stilled the debates,” or the testimony of Paul and Barnabas? “The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the miraculous signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them.” (Acts 15:12)

Acts 15:8 the judeaizers were debating over circumcision for the new gentile converts. After much debate Peter stood up and his teaching ended the debate. Barnabas and Paul talked after Peter spoke, but only to tell about God’s work among the gentiles through them, however, the debate was already over… [Acts 15:12] James implemented what Peter taught.[Acts 15:19]

It should be noted that these trouble makers at the council were from James own party.

Algernon:

Pg. 23 “The Lord delivered special revelation regarding the status of the gentiles to Simon Peter, and it was through Peter that this revelation was given to the Church at the council.”
But it was James, the Bishop of Jerusalem, who, after pointing out that Peter’s statements were in keeping with Sacred Scripture (Acts 15.14-18), made the final decision on behalf of God and of the church: “‘It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God.’” (v. 19)
The evidence in this passage is not of papal universal jurisdiction, but of the authority of the church. Likewise here: “Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas.” (v. 22); “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:” (v. 28)

The Judaizers were from James. If James knew the answer there should have been no debate, and no need for a council, James would have ended all debate himself since they were his people who were causing the trouble… Peter is the one that ends the debate.

Algernon:

Pg. 29 “The risen Christ appeared to him first before he appeared to the other Apostles (Luke 24:34)”
But He appeared to Luke and Cleopas in verse 15: “As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them.”

In vs 15… . There was no mention of an apostle here. Therefore the statement you say was wrong is not wrong.

Algernon:

Pg. 31 “Christ makes him the shepherd of His Church, telling him, again in the singular form, ‘feed My lambs…tend My sheep…feed My sheep’ (John 21:15-17).”
Why wasn’t this simply a three-fold reinstallment of Peter among the shepherds of the flock, mirroring his three-fold denial of Christ? If Peter understood that he was being made Supreme Pontiff, why was he** “grieved**”?

1. 
   *]Peter didn’t need to be reinstalled. He never lost his place. That’s anti Catholic baloney. Peter was the Father’s choice. The Father doesn’t go back on His word. And Jesus reinforces that to Peter in front of the others.
   *]The word for “tend” in that passage, in the Greek, is poimaino, which means rule. And Jesus singles Peter out again just like He did at Ceserea Philippi, in front of all the apostles, and tells Peter to feed and rule His Church
   *]Peter was grieved because he was reminded of what he said to Jesus at the last supper. [Jn 13:36…] that he said he would die for Jesus. And that if all fall away, I will not fall away.[Mk 14:27-29]To which Jesus fortold that all would fall away, and Peter would deny him 3 times. Now, after the resurrection, all that Jesus fortold, has now come to pass, and besides telling Peter to feeds and rule Our Lord’s Church, Jesus then tells Peter how he is going to die for Our Lord.
   
   
   Algernon:
   

   Pg. 31 “In Acts 1:13-26, St Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing Matthias as successor to Judas.”
   It was Peter’s suggestion, but the *church *made the decision: “So *they *proposed two men: Joseph called Barsabbas (also known as Justus) and Matthias.” (vs. 23)

   The point is, Peter initialted the action, establishing succession to an apostle’s “office” once they died.
   
   Algernon,
   
   So far, each of your points is following standard anti Catholic propoganda. I’m sorry you got influenced by that stuff. But I’m glad you’re here raising these issues and now you can get the answers you need.
   
   I’ll leave the other points you make for someone else to answer.

 

[steve_b]

Please don’t misunderstand my purpose here. I am not anti-papal. And I am not trying to convert anyone or get into a fight.

I have nothing but love and respect for the Catholic Church and for the Pope.

I simply have a major hang-up with papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction. (Otherwise I’d convert to catholicism) My thinking is that, if 100,000 devout Catholics (or however many are on this forum) can’t change my mind, then their case simply isn’t strong enough.

A

regarding a strong case,

I’m reminded of the Bread of Life discourse, where Jesus lost many of His disciples over His teaching. In the end they just said to Jesus, “this is a hard statement, who could listen to it” and they left Jesus never to follow him again [Jn 6:60…66]

It sure wasn’t because God Almighty teaching face to face, didn’t have a strong case.

free will is an awesome power, which God won’t violate.

 

[Algernon]

Ch. 1 Peter had no Special Authority

Whose comment is this?

Sorry. That’s the title of the chapter.Madrid goes chapter by chapter, taking apart “myths” about the papacy. That’s the first myth he addresses.

A

 

[Algernon]

The Judaizers were from James. If James knew the answer there should have been no debate, and no need for a council, James would have ended all debate himself since they were his people who were causing the trouble… Peter is the one that ends the debate.

But James didn’t know the answer until the Church sorted it out.
If Peter, as infallible Pontiff, had the answer, why was there any debate in the first place? Or a council?

A

 

[Algernon]

In vs 15… . There was no mention of an apostle here. Therefore the statement you say was wrong is not wrong.

You’re absolutely correct. Good point.
However, it looks like Christ chose two non-Apostles to reveal himself to before Peter and the rest. How does this bolster papal papal infallibility and universal jurisdiction?

1. 
   *]Peter didn’t need to be reinstalled. He never lost his place. That’s anti Catholic baloney.

1. 
   I am not anti-Catholic
   

   Peter was the Father’s choice. The Father doesn’t go back on His word.

   This is true. But people can (and the Catholic Church teaches this) turn their back on Him.
   
   A

 

[Algernon]

*]The word for “tend” in that passage, in the Greek, is poimaino, which means rule. And Jesus singles Peter out again just like He did at Ceserea Philippi, in front of all the apostles, and tells Peter to feed and rule His Church

This may be so but (and I’m truly not trying to be difficult here):

1. I have difficulty understanding how Peter being the leader of the Apostles translates into universal jurisdiction and papal infallibility
2. Why does this charge to “feed and rule” apply only to Peter’s successors in Rome, and not his successors in Antioch, where he was bishop first?

So far, each of your points is following standard anti Catholic propoganda. I’m sorry you got influenced by that stuff. But I’m glad you’re here raising these issues and now you can get the answers you need.

I have stated several times before–and will continue to state as many times as necessary–that I am not anti-Catholic. The “propoganda” you’re referring to are my own honest objections or concerns.

You’re right, it does take faith, but it also takes descernment.
That’s what I’m working on right now

A