Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[PJM]

Or he could have meant the common christian beliefs, couldn’t he? just wondering

Reply to “Sothern Christian”

Yes, Jesus “could have, but He clearly did not.” Please take the time to read the explaination:

Catholic Answer on Primacy of Peter

The question before us is “can there be ‘an infallible proclamation’ out side of the bible?

The short answer is yes.

The RCC teaches and has always taught (and has almost always had deserters, even in the present age), understood and put into practice that the Supreme Pontiff, whether alone or in “communion with the Magistrium” (the body of bishops world wide that are supporting the Pontiff,) may and can make an official pronouncement from the “chair of Peter” on matters of Faith and or Morals (only), intended for world wide application, and if all above conditions are met, it is understood to be an “infallible pronouncement.”

As a secondary note: All teachings are the Holy Father, relating to the RCC, are to be given assent and acceptance of faith, by all Catholics. In other words we are to accept and live his teachings.

Why is this? Why does the Pope have the right, indeed the mandate to speak to Gods children, on behalf of God Himself?

Because I am limited to the number of words that I can use, I will in this post only reference one bible passage, perhaps at a later time, I will post additional verses supporting the Primacy of Peter? They are quite numerous *** a “body of work.”

Matt. 16:013-19
13 Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” 14 And they said, “Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

We have to establish two platforms for our discussion. First: we accept the fact that word’s have specific, “common” meeting to those giving utterance and to those being spoken to. Second: We acknowledge that both those giving utterance, and those who have done the transcribing, are inspired by The Holy Spirit, (Jesus exempted because He too is God), to use specific words, phrases and locations. In other words, mere coincidence has no place in our discussion. We accept the facts that Jesus knew what He was doing, and that as God, He was incapable of lying.

Point One: Why did Jesus select the area of Caesarea Philippi, to make this enormously important appointment?

Reply: Caesarea Philippi is located in the northern part of Judea. The above quoted passage took place on a large hill, and was the location of a very large, and locally famous, Pagan Temple. As a “safeguard” the temple was build behind a huge protective ROCK.

Point Two: In O.T. biblical days it was common for cities to be walled and fortified. Further, they really did have a main gate, and there was a Key to the City, that really locked and unlocked the main gate.

Point Three: In the quoted bible passage: “I,” “you,” “my,” and “church” are all singular for very specific reasons. “Church” for example clearly, indisputably, shows God’s intent to start and Shepherd only “one church.”

Point Four: In every walled city there was a “King” which is the role Jesus assumes in this story. “Hail King of the Jews!”

Point Five: As one might expect, actually running the city was a whole lot like real work, so it was delegated to another, usually called the “Prime Minister.” So we will use that term for the one who actually ran the city, day in, and day out. The P.M. answered ONLY to “the King.” What the PM ordered done, was done, and what the PM forbid, was legally forbidden, and violators were punished by the PM.

Point Six: The terms, “To Bind and or To Loose” were legal and binding at law, Rabbinical Terms, known and accepted by all those Jesus was speaking too as authority to Govern.

Point Seven: Just as Jesus is the King in this story, Simon, Now “Peter” (Greek for “rock,”) is the new Prime Minister! As such he in given total and complete autonomous rule and daily governance of the New Church that Jesus has just created. “On this “rock” meaning the very person of Peter himself, “I” will build “my” church. Again Words Mean Something!

Point Eight: “I will give you” Peter the Key to the Kingdom of Heaven. PERIOD! This is God telling us this fact.

Point Nine: The power to govern is immediate, total, complete, unlimited and binding on all. Amen!

Point Ten: God knew what He was doing, Jesus knew what He was setting up, Peter and the Apostles understood exactly what was meant and accepted and lived in obedience, what God had ordained. We, my friend are to do no less. “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against Her,” does not mean that sin cannot or for that matter, does not exist within Her. No, what is promised by God is two-fold. First, sin will not prevail! Second, God promised to send the Holy Spirit, as the guarantor of TRUTH, that any official pronouncement from “the chair of Peter,” on matters of Faith and or Morals, cannot, I repeat, cannot be in error, because God Himself say’s so.

God’s continued Blessings,

PJM m.c.

 

[PJM]

Jesus does want us all to be one – so let’s all be Presbyterian

After all we are the one true church & everyone else is wrong. The only requirement for admission is having been predestined by God. Sorry – none other need apply.

Reply:

My dear friend in Christ, do I detect a bit of “tongue -in-cheek” in this post?

Predestination is at best a myth propagated by the man himself, Satan!

Yes, I am aware of what Paul say’s, I’m also aware of what He was really telling us.

God’s continued Blessings,
PJM m.c.

 

[twb1621]

Regarding the Catholic church becaming doctrinally corrupt in the Middle Ages, necessitating the Protestant Reformation?

Christ solemnly pledged that the gates of Hell would never prevail against His Church (Matt. 16:18), and He solemnly promised that after His Ascension into Heaven He would send His Church “another Paraclete… the spirit of truth,” to dwell with it forever (John 14:16-17), and He inspired the Apostle Paul to describe His Church as “the pillar and ground of the truth.” (I Tim. 3:15). If the Catholic Church (which Protestants admit was the true Church of Jesus Christ before Luther’s revolt) became doctrinally corrupt as alleged, it would mean that the gates of Hell had prevailed against it – it would mean that Christ had deceived His followers. Believing Christ to be the very essence of truth and integrity, Catholics cannot in conscience believe that He could be guilty of such deception. Another thing: Catholics cannot see how the division of Christianity into hundreds of rival camps and doctrinal variations can be called a “reformation” of the Christian Church. In the Catholic mind, hundreds of conflicting interpretations of Christ’s teachings do not add up to a true interpretation of Christ’s teachings.

 

[twb1621]

we (protestants anyway) know certain doctrines are extremely problematic and do not enjoy apostolic support, we have irrefutable historical records showing the many poor (most would say bad) past practices of Rome, so that really is enough (I’m a lawyer I know).

A careful, objective investigation of Catholic history will disclose these facts: The so-called worldly popes of the Middle Ages – three in number – were certainly guilty of extravagant pomposity, nepotism and other indiscretions and sins which were not in keeping with the dignity of their high church office – but they certainly were not guilty of licentious conduct while in office, nor were they guilty of altering any part of the Church’s Christ-given deposit of faith. The so-called bloody Inquisitions, which were initiated by the civil governments of France and Spain for the purpose of ferreting out Moslems and Jews who were causing social havoc by posing as faithful Catholic citizens – even as priests and bishops – were indeed approved by the Church. (Non-Catholics who admitted they were non-Catholics were left alone by the Inquisition.) And the vast majority of those questioned by the Inquisition (including St. Teresa of Avila) were completely cleared. Nevertheless, the popes roundly condemned the proceedings when they saw justice giving way to cruel abuses, and it was this insistent condemnation by the popes which finally put an end to the Inquisitions.
The so-called selling of indulgences positively did not involve any “selling” – it involved the granting of the spiritual favor of an indulgence (which is the remission of the debt of temporal punishment for already-forgiven sins) in return for the giving of alms to the Church for the building of Christendom’s greatest house of prayer – St. Peter’s Basilica in Rome. One must understand with regard to indulgences that there are always two acts to be fulfilled by the one gaining the indulgence: 1) doing the deed (e.g., alms-giving) and 2) saying of some prescribed prayers with proper spiritual dispositions. In the case in point, the first act for gaining the indulgence was “giving alms.” If the almsgiver thereafter failed to say the requisite prayers, he would not receive the indulgence because he had failed to fulfill both required acts. The indulgences therefore were not “sold”; the very giving of money was itself the first of two requisite acts for gaining the indulgence in question.
The so-called invention of new doctrines, which refers to the Church’s proclamation of new dogmas, is the most baseless and ridiculous charge of all – for those “new” dogmas of the Church were actually old doctrines dating back to the beginning of Christianity. In proclaiming them to be dogmas, the Church merely emphasized their importance to the Faith and affirmed that they are, in truth, part and parcel of divine revelation. The Catholic Church followed the same procedure when, in the fourth century, she proclaimed the New Testament to be divinely revealed. Hence it is obvious that the Catholic Church did NOT fall into error during the Middle Ages as some people allege, for if she had, she could not have produced those hundreds of medieval saints – saints the caliber of St. Francis, St. Bernard, St. Bonaventure, St. Clare, St. Anthony, St. John of the Cross, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Elizabeth and St. Vincent Ferrer (who performed an estimated 40,000 miracles).

stas.org/apologetics/church/General/CatholicChurch_has_answer.shtml

 

[twb1621]

Regarding the Pope and Infallibility

The doctrine of Papal Infallibility does not mean the Pope is always right in all his personal teachings. Catholics are quite aware that, despite his great learning, the Pope is very much a human being and therefore liable to commit human error. On some subjects, like sports and manufacturing, his judgment is liable to be very faulty. The doctrine simply means that the Pope is divinely protected from error when, acting in his official capacity as chief shepherd of the Catholic fold, he promulgates a decision which is binding on the conscience of all Catholics throughout the world. In other words, his infallibility is limited to his specialty–the Faith of Jesus Christ.
In order for the Pope to be infallible on a particular statement, however, four conditions must apply: 1) he must be speaking ex cathedra . . . that is, “from the Chair” of Peter, or in other words, officially, as head of the entire Church; 2) the decision must be for the whole Church; 3) it must be on a matter of faith or morals; 4) the Pope must have the intention of making a final decision on a teaching of faith or morals, so that it is to be held by all the faithful. It must be interpretive, not originative; the Pope has no authority to originate new doctrine. He is not the author of revelation – only its guardian and expounder. He has no power to distort a single word of Scripture, or change one iota of divine tradition. His infallibility is limited strictly to the province of doctrinal interpretation, and it is used quite rarely. It is used in order to clarify, to “define,” some point of the ancient Christian tradition. It is the infallibility of which Christ spoke when He said to Peter, the first Pope: “I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven.” (Matt. 16:19). Certainly Christ would not have admonished His followers to “hear the church” (Matt. 18:17) without somehow making certain that what they heard was the truth – without somehow making the teaching magisterium of His Church infallible.
For a complete understanding of the Pope’s infallibility, however, one more thing should be known: His ex cathedra decisions are not the result of his own private deliberations. They are the result of many years – sometimes hundreds of years – of consultation with the other bishops and theologians of the Church. He is, in effect, voicing the belief of the whole Church. His infallibility is not his own private endowment, but rather an endowment of the entire Mystical Body of Christ. Indeed, the Pope’s hands are tied with regard to the changing of Christian doctrine. No Pope has ever used his infallibility to change, add, or subtract any Christian teaching; this is because Our Lord promised to be with His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:20). Protestant denominations, on the other hand, feel free to change their doctrines. For example, all Protestant denominations once taught that contraception was gravely sinful; but since 1930, when the Church of England’s Lambeth Conference decided contraception was no longer a sin, virtually all Protestant ministers in the world have accepted this human decision and changed their teaching.
Additionally, regarding private interpretation ,
Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20). Was individual interpretation of Scripture practiced by the early Christians or the Jews? Again, “NO” (Acts 8:29-35). The assertion that individuals can correctly interpret Scripture is false. Even the “founder” of Sola Scriptura (Martin Luther), near the end of his life, was afraid that “any milkmaid who could read” would found a new Christian denomination based on his or her “interpretation” of the Bible. Luther opened a “Pandora’s Box” when he insisted that the Bible could be interpreted by individuals and that It is the sole authority of Christianity. Why do we have over 20,000 different non-Catholic Christian denominations? The reason is individuals’ “different” interpretations of the Bible.

 

[CWBetts]

Is it just me, or does it seem that when a “Sola Scriptura” Protestant is faced with opposition to his flase doctrine, he disappears?

 

[ron77nyc]

Doctrine has never changed. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would be most interested to hear it. So far, you have only raised the point that man can be corrupt which no one disputes

This is what changed. I’m not complaining about it. I’m very glad about it. If John Paul ll told these popes what he was thinking they would have given him a blanket party.

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A. D. 1302)

“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino; Council of Florence; A. D. 1442)

“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A. D. 1215)

 

[sola_scriptura]

Is it just me, or does it seem that when a “Sola Scriptura” Protestant is faced with opposition to his flase doctrine, he disappears?

Or it could be that I have other things to do other than blog on CAF all day? Uhhhh …

 

[twb1621]

This is what changed. I’m not complaining about it. I’m very glad about it. If John Paul ll told these popes what he was thinking they would have given him a blanket party.

“We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is wholly necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff. The Lateran, November 14th, in our eighth year. As a perpetual memorial of this matter.” (Unam Sanctam, A. D. 1302)

“It [the Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church] firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that none of those outside the Catholic Church, not only pagans, but also Jews, and heretics and schismatics, can become participants in eternal life, but will depart “into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels” [Matt. 25:41], unless before the end of life they have been added to the Church; and that the unity of the ecclesiastical body is so strong that only to those remaining in it are the sacraments of the Church of benefit for salvation, and do fastings, almsgiving, and other functions of piety and exercises of Christian service produce eternal reward, and that no one, whatever almsgiving he has practised, even if he has shed [his] blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” (Cantate Domino; Council of Florence; A. D. 1442)

“One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved.” (IV Lateran Council, A. D. 1215)

I don’t understand your point, this is not a change in Doctrine.

 

[distracted]

Is it just me, or does it seem that when a “Sola Scriptura” Protestant is faced with opposition to his flase doctrine, he disappears?

**It is NOT just you… NOT EVEN!!! **

I can always tell when i’m doing something right - its’ when the Protestants don’t answer my posts any more…

(which doesn’t bring me any great joy because… well, i know what thye are missing out on in not being Roman Catholic… )

***The Real Presence ***

 

[guanophore]

Where we differ, in a nutshell, is in the character, the nature and the calling of the Church. Your view sees the Church, primarily, as an institution.

This is not the case. There are four marks of the true Church, handed down to us from the Apostles. None of them is “institutional”. I can’t deny that some things have been instituted in the secular realm, but the Church is the Body of Christ.

You see that God willed, planned and founded the Roman Catholic Church with Peter as its first pope.

Actually, there was nothing about Rome at the time.

If this is the correct view, then it is not difficult to understand that the testimony of the Church is needed to establish the authority of scripture.

Maybe I do not understand what you are saying. The reason that scripture is authoritative is because it was produced by the authority appointed by Christ, the Church.

The difficulty with this view, is that the authority of scripture becomes dependent on a merely human authority. I reject this position. Let me explain why.

Catholics reject this postion also. We believe that Jesus breathed on the Church, empowered them, and gave them the HS to lead them into all Truth. We believe the Church is infallible because she has Jesus as her Head, and is ensouled by the HS. It is the divine elements of the Church that give rise to the authority of the things (including scripture) that she produces.

The difference between us comes down to this:

'Where does true authority lie?"

The Roman Catholic Church, of course, considers that scriptures testimony depends on the authority of the INSTITUTIONAL ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH.

This is false. Authority comes from God. God gave authority to His apostles. None of them were Roman.

The person who accepts sola scriptura (scripture alone as the source of all doctrine) with conviction is diligent, however, to guard this principle, viz: that the scripture’s authority is absolute.

If a person abandons the sola scriptura principle, then scriptures authority is no longer absolute and it is vitiated. This is why I am so dedicated in upholding this principle and living by it. In doing this, though, I maintain strenuously that true Catholics who practise their faith are part of the Church Militant (on earth) and the Church triumphant (in heaven). I do not consider myself superior to my Roman Catholic brothers and sisters who see these things differently; however, I cannot relinguish my convictions either. Do you understand?

It is hard to relinquish convictions, even after we learn we have clung to them erroneously.

When Christ gave instruction in Matthew 18:15-20 on how to deal with sin in the Church, He did so entirely in accordance with the sola scriptura principle I have been outlining.

Sorry, but not so. There was no NT, and the Church had not yet been born. Jesus gave authority to the Apostles, and they exercised that authority to produce, protect, canonize and promulgate the NT. Her authority did not somehow mysteriously vanish once this was done.

The Church Christ founded was not the Roman Catholic Church as an institution,

We are in agreement on this point. The Roman Rite did not emerge till later.

as that is so comprehended today. He was referring, of course, to the universal (catholic) church as a SPIRITUAL ORGANISM; not as an INSTITUTION!

This is a common protestant error. The use of the formula “this AND NOT that”. It is both. Jesus intended for HIs church to be in the world, and to function in the world, certain intsitutions are necessary.

He encouraged and taught the disciples that when they had to deal with sin in the church, that they did so in accordance with the binding authority of the word of God. This is the binding and loosing of which is spoken of in the text.

It is spoken of in the text, but at the time, it was not written. The text did not ‘replace’ what Christ gave to the Apostles.

 

[distracted]

BibleOnly:
Even the devil can quote scripture…

One has to not only read the entire Bible but also understand waht one is reading and be able to connect / relate one passage to another…

I am thankful i have a Church founded by Jesus Christ himself, to show me the true interpretation of scirpture… because there are some passages that are not easy to understand and the Bible says this… in 1 or 2nd Peter… where it also says that no interpretation of scripture is up for personal interpretation…

We humans NEED a Church… and Christ established one…

Why is that so hard to understand? Why would Jesus NOT establish ONE Church??? Why would Jesus start one and then (as some think) let it fall into apostacy???

Makes NO sense whatsoever… and if you think YOUR church is the right one… just remember that any and all but the Catholic Churchc were started by MEN… late in the game (1520s…)…

 

[Chaldean_Rite]

			* 				“…**through the Church*** the manifold wisdom of God might now be  				made known to the principalities and powers in the heavenly  				places.”
			
			 				                        - Ephesians 3:10

http://kaldu.org/Diocesan_Theology_Course/2008/Oct15_08L3.html

 

[ron77nyc]

I don’t understand your point, this is not a change in Doctrine.

One pope inspired by the Holy Spirit declares all non-Catholics eternally damned and another pope inspired by the Holy Spirit says they are not. It doesn’t change “Church Doctrine” but it changes belief and teaching.

 

[Cinette]

Or it could be that I have other things to do other than blog on CAF all day? Uhhhh …

Hi Sola!

All diamonds big or small have flaws but these flaws do not take away from their beauty.

The Catholic Church has many flawed people and clergy - the Church has a history of them. Yet, is it not a strong evidence - does this not testify to the truth of the Church that she is able to shake this off and become more beautiful and stronger - that she can overcome all the interference of the devil and other evil spirits that attack her constantly.

Ever noticed that it is always the Catholic Church that is under attack? The devil’s aim is sure and straight because he believes in God and he knows where to find God’s Church.

 

[guanophore]

Sure.

Paul said:

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (2 Timothy 3:16).

For any who have any inclination to believe only the Old Testament is “scripture” Peter said:

as also in all his letters, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the untaught and unstable distort, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction (2 Peter 3:16).

So Peter, “the rock” called Paul’s letters “scripture” & 2 Tim. 3:16 (written by Paul) forms the central basis for the doctrine of sola scriptura – case closed.

How does Peter recognizing Paul’s letters as scripture equate to sola scriptura? How does that form any “central basis” for this doctrine?

If anything abrogates scripture then it’s heresy, pure and simple.

This is true, but the problem is how is that abrogation determined? Since we have so many different people interpreting and arbitrating, we end up with all kinds of “heresy”.

Indeed, fortunately I am very confident saintly intercession,

Do you really believe that we are not supposed to intercede for each other?

Mariology,

Why would they need to “study” her, since they had her right there with them? whenever they wanted prayer, I am sure she accomodated them.

venerating icons,

Do you think they threw the sacred objects in the trash?

and works based righteousness was never taught by any apostle, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

It is very Catholic of you to say this.

I remind you of what Jesus stated:

They worship me in vain;
their teachings are but rules taught by men.’ You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men" (Mark 7:7-8).

I also remind you of the second commandment:

You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth (Deuteronomy 5:8).

Your use of these quotes seems to imply that you do not recognize the Sacred Traditions as coming from the Apostles, and that you mistakely believe Catholics worship objects.

Again, I’m well aware of how the RCC justifies intercessory prayer.

They are not “Roman”. These practices are retained by all the Churches founded by the Apostles, including those not in communion with Rome.

Moreover, in no case will you find any apostle advocating the idea of venerating or asking the departed faithful to intercede on our behalf. In every case they call for asking a living person to pray for us and call on us to pray for others.

These are the traditions of men and have nothing in common with God – simple.

I am curious what you think about Jesus conversing with Moses and Elijah about his upcoming crucifixion.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Posts 932, 933 and 937 also await a response. Just saying so so they don’t get lost in this extremely rapid discussion .
Craig Kennedy:

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
These quotations from the Early Church Fathers show the great ancient authority of the bishops of Rome. These writings are history. If some modern scholars want to disagree with the ancient writers about Early Church practice, that’s their problem.
catholic.com/library/Auth…ope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Auth…ope_Part_2.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp
catholic.com/library/Orig…er_as_Pope.asp

The authority of the Papacy is also Biblical.

The Biblical Basis for the Papacy

Peter is always listed first among the Apostles except in Galations 2:9.

Places where Peter is listed first:
Matthew 10:2
Mt 26:37 Jesus takes Peter (listed first) and the two sons of Zebedee with him during the Agony in the Garden.
Mk 1:16 Peter listed first among the call of the first disciples
Mk 1:36 Peter, listed first, is the one to find Jesus leaving Capernaum
Mk 3:16 Peter listed first in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas mentioned last).
Mk 5:37 Jesus does not allow anyone to accompany Him inside the synagogue except Peter (listed first), James, and John.
Mk 9:2 Peter listed first among the 3 disciples to witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Mk 13:3 Peter listed first among disciples
Mk 14:33 Peter listed first among the disciples in the Garden
Lk 6:14 Peter listed first among apostles in the Mission of the Twelve (Judas is listed last).
Lk 8:51 Peter listed first among disciples allowed to enter the synagogue with Jesus.
Lk 9:28 Peter listed first among disciples who witness the Transfiguration of Jesus
Jn 21:2 Peter listed first among the seven disciples in the resurrection appearance in Galilee
Acts 2:37, 1:3, Peter mentioned first among the apostles.
Acts 3:1 Peter listed first
Acts 4:13 Peter named first
Acts 4:19 Peter named first, and again speaks before the Sanhedrin
Acts 5:29 Peter named first among apostles and speaks as leader
Acts 8:14 Peter named first
1 Cor 15:5 Jesus, after the Resurrection, appears first to Peter, then to the rest of the Apostles

Also, the scripture refers to “Peter and the rest of the Apostles” or “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32, Mk 16:7, Acts 2:37), revealing that he had a special position of authority amongst them.

Craig:

To say that Peter had a special position among the Apostles on the basis of the scriptures you have quoted is quite a stretch.

Furthermore, to go on to find in these verses some sort of justification for Peter as the first Pope is importing into scripture a meaning that the Holy Spirit did not intend for these verses.

The Roman Catholic claim concerning Peter as the first pope sets aside the scripture principle. I reject this claim because it places the authority of the pope above scripture.

It puts the authority of the pope above the interpretive authority of other individual Christians. The views of the Pope expressed as dogma do not clash with the words of Scripture.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Craig Kennedy:

Quite honestly, Lief, to list these verses to find evidence for your claim that the pope alone is the infallible interpreter of scripture is a huge call; it is a call that I do not in my deepest conscience accept. For you to imply that the pope’s pronouncements, definitions of dogma and theology, and public utterances are said to be inerrant is excessive. For you to imply that when the pope speaks ex cathedra he declares final and unalterable doctrine is an entire exaggeration, in my opinion. Peter, in the verses you quoted, does not fit in any way the description of a pope as you understand it.

The scripture list I quoted above (not including the second list I offered you) does not appear to me to describe the Pope’s role as infallible presenter of dogma. However, it does show his authority over the other apostles. How else would you interpret the choice of Scripture writers to list Peter first of all the apostles every time they wrote a list of the apostles? How else would you interpret their referring to the apostles as “Peter and his companions”? Or, “Peter and the rest of the apostles”? Their choice to single him out so frequently and clearly demands an explanation.

There is strong support here for the idea of Petrine primacy.

The other scriptures I listed also confirm the Petrine primacy and authority over the whole Church. They don’t get explicitly into the details you talk about, such as speaking ex cathedra, and they don’t talk explicitly about infallible interpretation of scripture. They do talk about Peter as spokesman for Christ and spokesman for the apostles, and his scriptural role as spokesman for Christ suggests that he has the capacity of infallible utterance.

Peter’s special role as spokesman for Christ is revealed in the following passages:

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus’ tax, instead of going to Jesus directly. Peter is therefore clearly known to be the spokesman for Jesus.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. He would only pay for Peter’s tax as well, specifically, if Peter is Christ’s personal representative on earth. Jesus does not here pay the tax for any of the other disciples except Peter.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus therefore guides the Church through Peter into all truth.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus says He builds the Church on Peter, the Rock. If the Church, the “foundation and pillar of truth,” is built on Peter, how clear and total must that truth be in Peter?

Peter’s special role as spokesman for Christ to the Church strongly suggests that he has the capacity of infallible utterance. Though clearly, as we see in Galatians, popes can make mistakes. Therefore you and I can come through scripture to the logic of ex cathedra.

Peter’s authority over all the other apostles is extremely clear from the multitude of passages I showed. Both the list above, which writes of Peter first among the apostles, and the following:

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.
Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.
Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the “fisher of men.”

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.
Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.
Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter’s formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.
Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the “barque of Peter”) is a metaphor for the Church.
John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.
John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus “more than these,” which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.
John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to “feed my lambs,” “tend my sheep,” “feed my sheep.” Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

I have yet to see an attempted refutation of the Petrine Primacy suggested in these verses. Though why you’d want to refute it, I don’t know. It would clearly be incredibly beautiful and wonderful if Heaven had offered the Church Peter and his successors as a Rock on which the whole Church is built and can rest in confidence. And that is the most reasonable interpretation of these passages.

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Craig Kennedy:

On your view, scripture becomes subject to the authority of the pope as its interpreter and no one can appeal to scripture against the pope.

Scripture does not oppose the Pope. They complement one another. They are forever unified. Private interpretation is subject to error, though. This is clear from the fact that Jesus predicted that many “false teachers” will enter the Church and deceive many. So Scripture shows itself that private interpretation is fallible and can lead people astray, but Peter is Christ’s spokesman and all the Church rests on him, the Rock. Therefore by uniting ourselves to him rather than trusting our own interpretive talents, we are secure. Amen.
Craig Kennedy:

It is my deeply held conviction that the pope must either make his pronouncements in accordance with scripture or against scripture.

I agree absolutely. And his infallible declarations are always in accordance with scripture, not “above” it.
Craig Kennedy:

Now if the pope speaks in agreement with scripture he differs in no way from any other minister of God’s word.

Where does the Bible say that?
Craig Kennedy:

I believe the claims of papal infallibilty are extravagant claims and I reject them entirely. Popes have arisen in the course of church history as something that developed historically; they are not God’s perfect will for the governance of His Church. Church councils are subject to the authority of scripture; their testimony is only human and no human testimony can be a source of divine truth.

Their place of authority over the Church is clearly described in Acts 15, as I pointed out in one of my most recent previous posts, which I’ll await your response for .

The scripture itself recommends that Christians follow the Pope (under whose authority it says all the Church lies), Sacred Tradition and the Magesterium. It actually clearly describes each of these roles. I await your responses to the scriptures I cited in my last few posts, in reference to each of these roles .

And please prayerfully try to get around the traditions of men that originated in the Reformation, as you consider these passages.

 

[CWBetts]

Or it could be that I have other things to do other than blog on CAF all day? Uhhhh …

Ummm I am a full-time student and I work a job and volunteer at my parish…so I don’t live on the forums. Another thing…you still didn’t defend the heresy you are clingong to…:tsktsk: