Split: Boettners claims about the Papacy

  • Thread starter Thread starter MariaG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MariaG

Guest
This is from this thread Catholic heresies? posted by hoosierdaddy. (You know, everytime I have to post your username Brian, I have to laugh. )

Brian posted a list, Boettner’s list and asked us to show us why they are not heresies as Boettner claims.

So this thread will specifically address Boettners claims about the papacy.

610The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title “pope.”

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; I Cor. 3:11).

Note:-- Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."
originally posted by MariaGAha! I found it. It was in the thread you thought it was in Corvidae:tiphat: I should have known Church Militant was the one to place a link to it:)
Click to expand...
The Boettner list
Click to expand...
Although I will say the above is more a refutation to the dates rather than specifics against why the beliefs are not heretical.
Click to expand...
 
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; I Cor. 3:11).
Click to expand...
I would specifically like to explore this statement more in depth.

Let’s look at what Luke 22:24-26 says.

24]
A dispute also arose among them, which of them was to be regarded as the greatest.

25] And he said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors.
26] But not so with you; rather let the greatest among you become as the youngest, and the leader as one who serves.

These verse do not forbid any sort of headship. They do however, try to teach the apostles on what it will be like for the one who is leader. The leader will serve all, not be greater than all.

So Boettner’s claim that Christ forbid leadership is in fact false.

God Bless,
Maria
 
Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; I Cor. 3:11).
Click to expand...
Let’s look at Eph 1:22 - 23

22] and he has put all things under his feet and has made him the head over all things for the church,
23] which is his body, the fulness of him who fills all in all.

These verse seem to have slightly more merit on the surface.

However the problem here is that the Catholic Church does teach that Christ is the head of the Church.

669 As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body.552 Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. “The kingdom of Christ [is] already present in mystery”, “on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom”.553

But we also believe that Christ established Peter as the first man who would serve Him and be the visible head of His church after His ascension. The Pope is the Steward, whom the master gave the keys to. This also is in harmony with Christ trying to teach the apostles that the leader will serve.

So, we do not claim that the pope has replaced Christ as the head of Christ’s Church. Christ is and this is a teaching of the Catholic Church. To understand the papacy, one first much understand that the Catholic Church 100% believes and teaches that Christ is the head of the Church

Col 1:18 is also about Christ being the head of the Church. Again, this is the teaching of the Catholic Church.

God Bless,
Maria
 
MariaG said:
This is from this thread Catholic heresies? posted by hoosierdaddy. (You know, everytime I have to post your username Brian, I have to laugh. )

Brian posted a list, Boettner’s list and asked us to show us why they are not heresies as Boettner claims.

So this thread will specifically address Boettners claims about the papacy.

610The Papacy is of pagan origin. The title of pope or universal bishop, was first given to the bishop of Rome by the wicked emperor Phocas
Click to expand...

That’s in Boettner.​

This he did to spite Bishop Ciriacus of Constantinople, who had justly excommunicated him for his having caused the assassination of his predecessor emperor Mauritius. Gregory 1, then bishop of Rome, refused the title, but his successor, Boniface III, first assumed title “pope.”
Click to expand...

Part of this is in Boettner - FWIW, “Ciriacus” is a Latin spelling, & not in Boettner: though it may be in one or other of the many plagiarised lists based (with varying degrees of faithfulness & intelligence) on his work.​

Jesus did not appoint Peter to the headship of the apostles and forbade any such notion. (Lk. 22:24-26; Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; I Cor. 3:11).
Click to expand...

That’s in Boettner​

Note:-- Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."
Click to expand...

This is mangled - in addition, Clement says this:​

  • ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.xii.iv.v.html
    Boettner’s book can be read in five sections, at:
  • americanpresbyterianchurch.org/roman_catholicism.htm
    As the reviewer on that site says:
  • “Dr. Boettner’s careful and accurate review of Roman Catholic theology and his thorough and Biblical refutation of it has long been a masterpiece on the subject. The nineteen chapters cover every aspect of Romish belief and are presented here in five sections for the reader’s convenience. Combined with Hislop’s work, no more comprehensive review and exposure of the errors of Rome, their origin and their significance, exists in print.”
    And the sooner we benighted Romanists realise this, the better. These nice men are telling us that we only have our funny ideas about their perfectly accurate accounts of our religion because they - unlike us - are sufficiently detached to see our religion as it really is. It’s ridiculous of us to think we know anything about Catholicism - we can’t see it properly, because we are far too closely involved in it.
 
“Catholicism and Fundamentalism”, by Karl Keating, punches holes in Boettner’s theories and discredits his scholarship. Boettner’s book may be the “bible” of anti-Catholics … but it’s all bark and no bite. In the end, it’s just another testament to the abiding truth of Catholicism and how the Church founded by Christ and led by the Holy Spirit cannot be destroyed.
 
Wolseley said:
Ah! The Boettner List rears its ugly head once again! 🙂

Please see my short book, located here:

angelfire.com/ms/seanie/boettner_list.html
Click to expand...
or here:

blackieschurchmilitant-apocalypsis.blogspot.com/2007/07/boettner-list-fact-or-fiction.html

or here:

christianforums.com/t922262-the-boettner-list-fact-or-fiction.html

The best refutation I have found anywhere. Short sweet and to the point. 👍 :clapping: :clapping: :clapping:

That’s why the second link is to my blog, so I can readily access that whenever needed.
 
I just wanted to add a point about St. Gregory the Great denying the title universal bishop. The way it was being used then it meant that the universal bishop was the only bishop with authority and all other bishops were essentially his delegates. This, of course, is false. However, what he did not deny was that the care of the whole Church was especially committed to one to be chief. Here’s an excerpt of a letter he wrote about that controversy:

For to all who know the Gospel it is apparent that by the Lord’s voice the care of the whole Church was committed to the holy Apostle and Prince of all the Apostles, Peter. For to him it is said, Peter, do you love Me? Feed My sheep . To him it is said, Behold Satan has desired to sift you as wheat; and I have prayed for you, Peter, that your faith fail not. And thou, when you are converted, strengthen your brethren . To him it is said, You are 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 you the keys of the kingdom of heaven and whatsoever you shall bind an earth shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven .

Lo, he received the keys of the heavenly kingdom, and power to bind and loose is given him, the care and principality of the whole Church is committed to him, and yet he is not called the universal apostle; while the most holy man, my fellow-priest John, attempts to be called universal bishop. I am compelled to cry out and say, O tempora, O mores!
newadvent.org/fathers/360205020.htm
 
Note:-- Nor is there any mention in Scripture, nor in history, that Peter ever was in Rome, much less that he was pope there for 25 years; Clement, 3rd bishop of Rome, remarks that there is no real 1st century evidence that Peter ever was in Rome."
Click to expand...
Gee, I wonder if it had anything to do with the persecution of Christians and a sizable bounty on the head of whoever was the ringleader of this radical “cult” accused of burning down Rome.

If John had to write Revelation in code in the event it fell into the wrong hands (read: the Romans), why on earth would Paul or James tell everyone, “yep - he’s in Rome!”

It’s amazing how just a pebble of common sense can put to rest this kind of nonsense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top