Romans 16:20: Fatal to Protestantism?

[raumzeitmc2]

Wouldn’t you say it is true that all of Pauls letters had an overriding message for all of the local churches, which made up the one holy catholic and apostolic Church?

Well of course! But I think you would agree that some things are clearly intended only for specific individuals or particular churches as for example, when the Virgin declares that “all generations shall call me blessed.” Who would deny that this is a *singular prophecy *meant for her alone? Or another example: In Romans 16:16, St. Paul says to the Church at Rome, “all the churches of Christ salute you”. This is a unique greeting, found nowhere else in the entire New Testament! Only the Roman Church is greeted this way. Think of the significance of these sacred words: “all the churches of Christ salute you.”

You know, most people who read these words, I dare say, give them virtually no thought whatsoever. But if they would seriously, prayerfully, mediate on them every day for say, a week or two, I believe they’d be in for some amazing insights!

“All the churches of Christ salute [the Church at Rome].”

Think about this. Pray about this.

My question, however, was regarding “Rome alone”. You said:

“Thus we see that the Roman Church alone, of all the churches, has been given a unique and prophetic destiny to fulfill!”

I think your reading into the scripture more than is there.

Well, there goes the so-called “right of private interpretation” !!

But seriously, I’m not appealing here to my private or personal interpretation anyway. And even if I were, I would certainly *not insist on my opinion *; rather, I would wholeheartedly submit it to the judgment of the Church.

But is the apostle really addressing only the Roman Church when he speaks this prophecy? Well, that’s the opinion of one highly respected *Protestant *Bible scholar Alexander Souter (1873 - 1949) (who was a student of F. F. Bruce btw - see p. 4 here).

Souter writes:

“I am equally certain that the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of Romans could not have been addressed to any other community than the Roman community, and that they are an authentic part of at least one form of the Epistle to the Romans.”

The *Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul; A Study *(1927), Introduction, p. 4.

Now there’s some Scriptural data regarding authority vis a vis Rom 16:20, but I’m just too tired to post any more for now. Try again in a day or two.

God bless. Talk to ya later.

 

[JonNC]

Jon - what **paragraph number **did you get your quote from in the CCC ? “The CCC seems to indicate that, even if you are right, that her place as the one True Church extends salvation granting grace to all Christian Churches. Were reconciliation to to happen, and Rome ended up being the central seat of Christendom, so be it.”

I must have missed it. I do not remember seeing this. Appreciate your assistance.
I read paragrahs 813 through 822.
Grace comes from God. - see definition in Catechism.

I suggest that Catholics and non-Catholics read these sections of the CCC, 2nd Edition. Please do not take anything out of context.

Those churches that support/teaches the good of abortion, gay marriage (sodomy), divorce and other grave sins that violate Gods laws are impediments for ecumenism, since they are not following “HIS” teachings. Chistian in name only is not true Christian.

I don’t think I’m out of context,
My quote was: The CCC seems to indicate that, even if you are right, that her place as the one True Church extends salvation granting grace to all Christian Churches. Were reconciliation to to happen, and Rome ended up being the central seat of Christendom, so be it.

819 "Furthermore, many elements of sanctification and of truth"273 are found outside the visible confines of the Catholic Church: "the written Word of God; the life of grace; faith, hope, and charity, with the other interior gifts of the Holy Spirit, as well as visible elements."274 Christ’s Spirit uses these Churches and ecclesial communities as means of salvation, whose power derives from the fullness of grace and truth that Christ has entrusted to the Catholic Church. All these blessings come from Christ and lead to him,275 and are in themselves calls to "Catholic unity."

Jon

 

[Hesychios]

…what other “Church” existed at the time of St. Paul? There was only one …

Read “the Churches the Apostles left behind” by Father Raymond Brown.

 

[Bluegoat]

Jon, what other “Church” existed at the time of St. Paul? There was only one. I would agree, however, that while we may be in imperfect communion, God certainly , although not to all who claim to be Christian Churches.

If this were true it makes Paul’s usage rather awkward and superfluous.

There were many churches founded in the early years of Christianity, which were all understood to be part of the One Church. The church at Rome wasn’t even the earliest.

 

[Big_Dummy]

St. Paul writes to the Church at Rome:

“The God of peace will soon crush Satan under* your* feet.” Romans 16:20.

This is an astounding prophecy!

Here, the word of God explicitly teaches that Satan will be crushed under the feet of the Roman Church! Thus we see that the Roman Church alone, of all the churches, has been given a unique and prophetic destiny to fulfill!

So what then are the implications of this prophecy for Protestantism?

other christians see Romans 16:20 as the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15 hardly the wild interpretation you have privately given to the text,

Genesis 3:15 (New International Version)

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and **hers;
he will crush your head, **
and you will strike his heel."

 

[StillWondering]

Hi raum,
What evidence do you have that St. Paul was referring specifically to Rome, and not a general “you” for the Church? Is there anything in the early councils that states that The Rome Church alone is the true Church?

The CCC seems to indicate that, even if you are right, that her place as the one True Church extends salvation granting grace to all Christian Churches. Were reconciliation to to happen, and Rome ended up being the central seat of Christendom, so be it.

Jon

Since the CCC is a Catholic document, the context would be in the Catholic mindset. As far as I can tell, the Catholic mindset of the Church is the visible Catholic Church, not the invisible or greater catholic Church that are taught and believed in other Christian communities. I do understand that all who are baptized are brought into the Body of Christ, but that body is visibly the Catholic Church. All who choose not to incorporate themselves into the One Church while recognizing there is only one Church founded by Christ is visibly denying to be a grafted branch.

In that context, I believe that God offers salvation to all, but calls all to share One Faith in One Body.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

No, I don’t acknowledge Paul as an Apostle let alone put any Apostle over the core teachings of Jesus and the cntinuous revelation of Truth from God who is the only true authority a Christian should look to.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

other christians see Romans 16:20 as the fulfillment of Genesis 3:15

Genesis 3:15 (New International Version)

15 And I will put enmity
between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and **hers;
he will crush your head, **
and you will strike his heel."

Well of course Gen. 3:15 and Rom. 16:20 are related prophecies, I never said or implied otherwise. But that’s hardly the issue. What is the issue is that the ***Roman Church *** has been elected to play a leading role in the crushing of Satan. Naturally, Protestants will find this very unpalatable, but nevertheless there it is, right their in Scripture, right there in Romans!

Now while it is certainly true that Christ has already won the victory over Satan at Calvary, there is still the ***historical working out * **of what took place at the cross. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would not have inspired Father Paul to prophesy that the Catholic Church at Rome would crush Satan! In short, the victory is assured, but it has not fully occurred! The Church then - most particularly the Roman Church - has a God-ordained role to play in the defeat of evil.

hardly the wild interpretation you have privately given to the text

1. No, it’s most certainly not my private interpretation; what makes you think that it is?
2. Even if it were (which it isn’t), the “other Christians” you mention are certainly *privately interpreting * these passages, are they not?
3. Can you name any Christians who actually believe Satan has already been crushed??

 

[Mikeoffaith]

oh please my friend. do we really need to go there? shall we also bring up the persecutions of Catholics in protestant nations? or how about the salem witch trials? come now let us reason together. both sides are guilty of misdeeds. i think tho that this is a good example of why sola scriptura does not work. here we have a person that has taken a verse and attached his own meaning to it, without the guidance of the magesterium. he sees a “prophecy” where none is evident. just as the prostestants have been doing for centuries. its kinda off topic and just an observation. peace to you and yours

I think if we are going to keep beating each other over the head with bible verses to prove our points. I think in this situation the most appropriate verse is John 11:35 “Jesus wept.”

Bendict, I have to say I think you are one of the most reasonable people on here who really has a heart for ecumenism.

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;6700800]Well of course Gen. 3:15 and Rom. 16:20 are related prophecies, I never said or implied otherwise. But that’s hardly the issue. What is the issue is that the ***Roman Church *** has been elected to play a leading role in the crushing of Satan. Naturally, Protestants will find this very unpalatable, but nevertheless there it is, right their in Scripture, right there in Romans!

Only “a” leading role, raum? I think the early Church was in agreement that it was the
leading role, but not in the way Rome has sometimes delegated for itself in later centuries.

Now while it is certainly true that Christ has already won the victory over Satan at Calvary, there is still the ***historical working out *** of what took place at the cross. Otherwise, the Holy Spirit would not have inspired Father Paul to prophesy that the Catholic Church at Rome would crush Satan! In short, the victory is assured, but it has not fully occurred! The Church then - most particularly the Roman Church - has a God-ordained role to play in the defeat of evil.

The key to having “the” or even “a” leading role, is to convince others to join forces. It seems since Vatican II that that is more the case than it used to be.

1. Can you name any Christians who actually believe Satan has already been crushed??

I love the words to “This Little Babe”, from Britton’s “A Ceremony of Carols”.
This little Babe so few days old,
Is come to rifle Satan’s fold;
All hell doth at his presence quake,
Though he himself for cold do shake;
For in this weak unarmed wise
The gates of hell he will surprise.

With tears he fights and wins the field,
His naked breast stands for a shield.
His battering shot are babish cries,
His arrows looks of weeping eyes,
His martial ensigns Cold and Need,
And feeble Flesh his warrior’s steed.

His camp is pitched in a stall,
His bulwark but a broken wall;
The crib his trench, haystalks his stakes;
Of shepherds he his muster makes;
And thus, as sure his foe to wound,
The angels’ trumps alarum sound.

My soul with Christ join thou in fight;
Stick to the tents that he hath pight.*
Within his crib is surest ward;
This little Babe will be thy guard.
If thou wilt foil thy foes with joy,
Then flit not from this heavenly Boy.

Jon

 

[Metamorphoo]

here we have a person that has taken a verse and attached his own meaning to it, without the guidance of the magesterium. he sees a “prophecy” where none is evident.)

I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement. If the statement is prophetic, it is either to the local church gathered at Rome (to whom Paul’s letter was originally written), and/or for the Body of Christ as a whole (which includes all who are joined to Christ by faith in Him). It certainly cannot be cited as “proof” in support of the ultimate victory of Roman Catholicism in contrast to the “defeat” of Protestantism.

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The key to having “the” or even “a” leading role, is to convince others to join forces. It seems since Vatican II that that is more the case than it used to be.

The “key,” I should think, is whether or not God ordains it!

I love the words to “This Little Babe”, from Britton’s “A Ceremony of Carols”.

I’m not sure I see your point…

I would wholeheartedly agree with your statement. If the statement is prophetic, it is either to the local church gathered at Rome (to whom Paul’s letter was originally written), and/or for the Body of Christ as a whole (which includes all who are joined to Christ by faith in Him).

Father Paul is specifically addressing the Roman Church. He is *specifically applying *this prophecy to the Roman Church, not to the “Body of Christ as a whole.”

Moreover, that the Roman Church is “catholic” is easily proven from Scripture. Father Paul says of it,

“your faith is spoken of throughout the whole world.” Rom. 1:8

And,

“all the churches of Christ greet you” Rom. 16:16

Here, I think we could agree, the phrases “throughout the whole world” and “all the churches” clearly teach the the catholicity of the Roman Church. So right there in Scripture we have a witness to the fact that the true Church is indeed the “Roman Catholic Church” !

It certainly cannot be cited as “proof” in support of the ultimate victory of Roman Catholicism in contrast to the “defeat” of Protestantism.

Well, consider: The very Church which Protestants condemn and call the “Whore of Babylon” and “Synagogue of Satan,” Scripture,

a. praises (Rom. 1:8). (and If God praises it, how the devil must despise it!)

b. teaches will crush Satan (which is why the devil makes such furious, unrelenting war against this Church!).

Protestantism, therefore, to the extent that it opposes and seeks to defeat the Roman Church, is itself defeated by the very Epistle to the Romans which it holds so dear!

Ironic.

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;6704431]The “key,” I should think, is whether or not God ordains it!

The key, raum, is whether or not Rome follows through.

I’m not sure I see your point…

We were talking about crushing Satan… Sorry, it just seemed to fit.

Father Paul is specifically addressing the Roman Church. He is *specifically applying *this prophecy to the Roman Church, not to the “Body of Christ as a whole.”

Do you have a catechism quote or something that prooves this is Catholic teachings?

Well, consider: The very Church which Protestants condemn and call the “Whore of Babylon” and “Synagogue of Satan,” Scripture,

a. praises (Rom. 1:8). (and If God praises it, how the devil must despise it!)

b. teaches will crush Satan (which is why the devil makes such furious, unrelenting war against this Church!).

Protestantism, therefore, to the extent that it opposes and seeks to defeat the Roman Church, is itself defeated by the very Epistle to the Romans which it holds so dear!

Ironic

What is ironic, raum, or maybe perplexing is you skipped right over my comment that Rome has “the” leading role", then followed it with this.

Please define “Protestantism”, as you seem to speak of it here as a monolith or institution.

Jon

 

[raumzeitmc2]

The key, raum, is whether or not Rome follows through.

Do believe Rome is in charge of her own destiny, or that God is?

We were talking about crushing Satan… Sorry, it just seemed to fit.

Course you know what they say, “If the shoe fits…”

Re my comment: “Father Paul is specifically addressing the Roman Church. He is specifically applying this prophecy to the Roman Church, not to the ‘Body of Christ as a whole.’”

You asked: “Do you have a catechism quote or something that prooves this is Catholic teachings?”

Not a specific passage, but there are many passages in the Catechism that deal with the Church and could be brought together to make the case. But we don’t need to bother with all that, because I think you missed my point. Let me give you an example of what I meant.

In Isaiah 7:14 we read:

“Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel.”

Clearly, even though this passage is meant for the “Body of Christ as a whole,” it refers specifically ONLY to the Blessed Virgin and Christ! It does not apply to the Church as whole.

Similarly, Luke 1:48 has the Virgin saying,

“From now on all generations will call me blessed.”

This is* meant* for the whole Church, but it applies ONLY to her!

Same with Romans 1:8

“your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world.”

Meant for the whole, Church, but applicable ONLY to the Church at Rome.

Again, Paul to Timothy (2 Tim. 3:16-17):

*All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.*

Addressed to Timothy, a celibate Catholic bishop. It is not addressed to the laity, though intended also for them.

I might also note that the term “man of God” refers only to bishops in the N.T.; never to the laity. The term “man of God” is also used in the O.T., but there also, never for a lay person!

What is ironic, raum, or maybe perplexing is you skipped right over my comment that Rome has “the” leading role", then followed it with this.

My mistake, Jon. Sorry!

Please define “Protestantism”, as you seem to speak of it here as a monolith or institution.

Well, from the very beginning there have been countless groups that have broken away from the Church. But I’m am speaking primarily of the Protestantism which arose in the 16 century, which held as part of their very creeds that the Roman Church was the apostate church. Let me quote from one website:

Ever since the Reformation, Protestant thinking and attitude towards the Catholic Church has been poisoned by the belief that the Pope/Papacy is the Anti-Christ and the Catholic Church is the Whore of Babylon. This belief was virtually written into the creeds of the various Protestant Churches to justify their break from the Church, and has been passed down over the past 400 years in their various traditions to the present day.

This belief not only explains the general hatred towards the Catholic Church, but it has resulted in a vicious propaganda campaign against Catholicism, a campaign that cares little for truth or reasoned discussion. Whatever their differences (and they are many and serious) far too many Protestants unite in opposition against the Anti-Christ and the Whore and relish and enjoy portraying the Church’s teachings in a distorted and caricaturized manner. This surely rates as one of the longest, most sustained propaganda campaigns in History.

Examining Protestantism.

In any event, the Scriptural pattern the N.T. does show that “all the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16) were in communion with the Church at Rome.

So I guess technically - Scripturally - one might say that any church that is willfully not in communion with Rome could qualify for the term “Protestant.”

 

[JonNC]

=raumzeitmc2;6705224]

Well, from the very beginning there have been countless groups that have broken away from the Church. But I’m am speaking primarily of the Protestantism which arose in the 16 century, which held as part of their very creeds that the Roman Church was the apostate church.

In any event, the Scriptural pattern the N.T. does show that “all the churches of Christ” (Rom. 16:16) were in communion with the Church at Rome.

So I guess technically - Scripturally - one might say that any church that is willfully not in communion with Rome could qualify for the term “Protestant.”

There have certainly been ugly words in both directions. Let’s look at today; even the LCMS, which is less prone (unfortunately) to dialogue than the ELCA, has clearly stated that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church - no more apostacy stuff (don’t think there ever was with Lutheranism).

I suspect your broad definition of Protestant might leave some Orthodox folks here a bit, em, responsive.

Perhaps it is safe to say that all churches of the NT were in communion with each other, a pattern we should try to emulate.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

Agreed. Orthodox wouldn’t be pleased. Their beards will be tied in knots!

JonNC:
There have certainly been ugly words in both directions. Let’s look at today; even the LCMS, which is less prone (unfortunately) to dialogue than the ELCA, has clearly stated that the Catholic Church is a Christian Church - no more apostacy stuff (don’t think there ever was with Lutheranism).

I suspect your broad definition of Protestant might leave some Orthodox folks here a bit, em, responsive.

Perhaps it is safe to say that all churches of the NT were in communion with each other, a pattern we should try to emulate.

Jon

 

[gurneyhalleck1]

I still say that Jon and company are correct in saying that Romans 16:20 is not a direct and unique prophecy for the church at Rome herself but rather for all of Christendom in all parishes and dioceses.

Maybe the Protestants here could start a new thread entitled:
Romans 3:27: Fatal to Catholicism?

 

[raumzeitmc2]

I suspect your broad definition of Protestant might leave some Orthodox folks here a bit, em, responsive.

Perhaps our Orthodox friends could appeal to the Pentarchy, though Rome probably wouldn’t accept it. Still, there’s a lot to be said for all of the principle Sees. But that’s another thread…

Perhaps it is safe to say that all churches of the NT were in communion with each other, a pattern we should try to emulate.

Can’t argue with that!

I still say that Jon and company are correct in saying that Romans 16:20 is not a direct and unique prophecy for the church at Rome herself but rather for all of Christendom in all parishes and dioceses.

Maybe the Protestants here could start a new thread entitled:
Romans 3:27: Fatal to Catholicism?

Boasting?? No, the Church is not boasting for simply proclaiming that which Scripture itself proclaims! And what Scripture proclaims seems to offend some peoples* pride*! Seems the ol’ green-eyed monster is still alive and well in Protestantism!

But now if you want to talk about boasting, this is boasting!

“For since I am certain of it, I shall be your judge and even the angels’ judge through this teaching (as St. Paul says [1 Cor. 6:3]) so that whoever does not accept my teaching may not be saved - for it is God’s teaching and not mine.”

Martin Luther, Against the Spiritual Estate of the Pope and the Bishops Falsely So Called, July 1522.
Luther’s Works, Church and Ministry I, Eric W. Gritsch, Helmut T. Lehman eds., Fortress Press, ISBN 0800603397, vol. 39, p. 249.

And in his book against Henry VIII - “Antwort deutsch auf König Heinrichs Buch” “German Answer to King Henry’s Book,” 1522 - Luther writes:

“Wer Anders lehret, denn ich hierin gelchret habe, oder mich darin verdammt, der verdammt Gott und muß ein Kind der Hölle bleiben”

“He who teaches otherwise from what I have taught, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.”

Dr. Martin Luther’s Sämtliche Werke i.e., Dr. Martin Luther’s Collected Works, Johann Konrad Irmischer, Erlangen, 1840, vol. 28, 347.

Volume 28 at the Internet Archive.

English translation online here. (Rev. Buchanan omits Luther’s words: “He who teaches otherwise from what I have taught, condemns God, and must remain a child of hell.")

And again,

“Now I or anyone who speaks the Word of Christ may freely glory that his mouth is the mouth of Christ. I am sure that my word is not mine but the Word of Christ. Then my mouth must also be His whose Word it speaks.”
Luther’s Works, American Edition, vol. 45, p. 67.

Also in, What Luther Says, Volume 2, p. 1018.

Maybe what’s really needed is a thread called: ***Romans 3:27: Fatal to Luther? *** LOL!