J
joe371
Guest
Agreed. SS is taught nowhere in scripture, therefore it’s a non-biblical practice.
- Status
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Joe371: I agree with your statement! It seems to me that in many of the threads I've been on where the Keys have been discussed so many think the keys were given to all of the Apostles. However, that was not the case so far as I have been able to read in the NT. What I do see is that the keys were or are shared by all with Peter holding the keys. IOWS, the power of the keys belong to Peter, who then shares that power with the other Apostles, who are the Bishops and so is passed on. Peter and his successors are the holders of the keys, and can decide who can be sharers of the power of the keys.
J
joe371
Guest
Wasn’t St. Thomas a locksmith?
N
Nicea325
Guest
My friend,but the papacy is an office,which is mentioned. And who founded the office? Christ Himself who had apostles who were the first overseers (bishops) of the church. As for councils? You mean the Council of Jerusalem in the Acts of the Apostles does not count?
BTW:
If councils are not there as you mention, then I am curious to know, if you have any rejections to all doctrines defined and defended at ecumenical councils? Has it occurred to you as to why they were convened? I thought SS resolves all doctrinal matters? What about faith and morals? I thought SS is the “mother” of all practices? Why convene councils if Scripture-alone is sufficient? Evidently it is not!
T
Traverse
Guest
Nicea, the papacy is not mentioned in the NT in the way it exists today. Peter’s special authority IS mentioned, but not in any way that makes him more authoritative than the other apostles or in such a way that he holds an office that must be continued. I think that’s what Ben Hur is trying to get at.
Despite what Christ said to Peter in Matthew, you don’t find him claiming an authority over all the churches, nor putting out any teaching that is more or less authoritative than Paul or John. You can find some similar stuff in the ECFs, but not only are those writings not inerrant, but they are in some cases written a couple hundred years later or more. The earliest ECF writings, to my knowledge, do not mention anything like a modern day papacy.
Despite what Christ said to Peter in Matthew, you don’t find him claiming an authority over all the churches, nor putting out any teaching that is more or less authoritative than Paul or John. You can find some similar stuff in the ECFs, but not only are those writings not inerrant, but they are in some cases written a couple hundred years later or more. The earliest ECF writings, to my knowledge, do not mention anything like a modern day papacy.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
This is not a very effective argumentation.
That is has to be explicit in the NT is not in the NT either. Neither is that there should be many different Churches running in all directions and different doctrines. What you see in the NT is that there should be one Church in the same direction and with the same doctrine.
T
Traverse
Guest
Indeed. I completely agree. One church. One mission.
Although one could certainly argue that because the organization of the church is recorded in scripture you’d think omitting the rules and conditions for the papacy is a glaring omission. It’s not so much that instructions on the papacy are missing, but that instructions on so much else are present.
Although one could certainly argue that because the organization of the church is recorded in scripture you’d think omitting the rules and conditions for the papacy is a glaring omission. It’s not so much that instructions on the papacy are missing, but that instructions on so much else are present.
N
Nicea325
Guest
First and foremost, the NT was never written for the sole purpose of explicitness-error one. First of all, the office of the bishopric is mentioned. Second the papacy of today of course has developed and grown in duties over the years. And why? Because as in all organisms, it grows and expands. Do really believe Christ intended His church and bishopric office to remain hidden and out of sight? Is the office of the U.S. president the same today as in 1800? Did the president in 1800 have to deal with other entities such as the FBI,Secret Service,CIA, etc?
N
Nicea325
Guest
And why would the authors of the NT find it necessary to explain all the assigned duties of the papacy to make legit? The NT was not written for that specific reason.
J
joe371
Guest
Papacy is clear within the pages of scripture, as you have stated by suggesting that the instructions are not missing. That said - the same logic applies to every single Protestant Church, in terms of church leadership, as well - the difference being: when we talk about the historicity of Jesus’ church we are only talking about the Catholic Church born on Pentecost, as opposed to any of the Protestant churches that didn’t exist until the 16th century, at best - correct?
J
joe371
Guest
Name of that one church, and let’s pretend for the moment that it’s not the Catholic Church? Calling Jesus’ church the Christian church will not work as an answer for obvious reasons.
J
joe371
Guest
If you show me where sola scriptura is explicitly or implicitly taught within the pages of scripture then I will show you explicitly where the rules and conditions for the papacy are found. Keeping in mind: For us the rules and conditions do not have to be explicitly found within the pages of scripture. For you, the practice of sola scriptura must be found within the pages of scripture.
J
joe371
Guest
Hard to reach any other conclusion when deferring to either sacred scripture, or church history.
Petrine office + Ecumenical Council.
B
Bernard_Lyons
Guest
Luke 24:45-49
"Then opened he their understanding,that they might understand the scriptures,
And said unto them,Thus it is written,and thus it beloved Christ to suffer,and to rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name among all nations,beginning at Jerusalem .
And ye are witnesses of these things."
( verse 49). "And behold I send the promise of my Father upon you:
Code:
But tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem ,until ye be endued with power on high"(KJV)As I have stated previously; and with all respect and humility,it was the prerogative of he who had personally chosen the other eleven,to select ,for himself,the (replacement) twelfth .
It is true this was after the ascension ;but before the Holy Ghost ,of whom it was said in John 14,when he comes:“he shall teach you all things”(verse 26)
To me it is “above the brightness of the son” ,as to who the risen Lord,chose as a replacement!
Who else ,I say excelled in the ministry ,and is testified of the Spirit( in written record) ,than Saul of Tarsus ,the very last one that men ( without the Spirit) would see.
J
joe371
Guest
He is talking to the apostles.
Talking to the apostles - agreed.
OK. Did you read this clear assessment of apostolic succession. Did Paul say the following:
What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to all who God would call, even those after your death?
Or did he say:
“What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also” (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
We see in 1 and 4 Timothy (1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14) where Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. Notice in 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role.
S
spina1953
Guest
It seems to me that when Jesus founded His Church through Peter by giving him the keys, which is shared by the other Apostles, though not the holding of the keys since Jesus give the keys to Peter alone and not to the rest of the Apostles. This can be seen in that Jesus prays that Peter will strengthen the rest of the Apostles. However, no where in the NT will one find anything where Jesus gave instructions on how His Church is to run or developed. That being said, it appears that it was up to peter with the rest of the Apostles on how to develop the Church and run it in whatever manor they thought best. Also the rest of the Apostles where generally always in agreement with Peter because they saw Peter as their leader, which is mentioned so many times in the NT.
In Like’s account of the Council of Jerusalem, we do not know if it was the Apostles who were arguing and fell silent and Peter spoke. It was implied that it was the Pharisees who were arguing because they thought that one had to be circumcised in order to be Christians. it is rather doubtful that the Apostles thought as those Pharisees were trying to claim had to be done, since they were teaching and preaching what they were taught by Jesus and the Pharisees were trying to claim that that in essence that Christian gentiles had to become Jews before becoming Christians which Paul argued against with Peter discourse laying the foundation that no one need to be circumcised in order to be Christian, IOWS to be a follower of Christ. So while councils can be important, it is really what Peter and his successors who determine what is to be believed and taught with the rest of the Apostles in union with Peter, which are the bishops as successors of the rest of the Apostles.
In Like’s account of the Council of Jerusalem, we do not know if it was the Apostles who were arguing and fell silent and Peter spoke. It was implied that it was the Pharisees who were arguing because they thought that one had to be circumcised in order to be Christians. it is rather doubtful that the Apostles thought as those Pharisees were trying to claim had to be done, since they were teaching and preaching what they were taught by Jesus and the Pharisees were trying to claim that that in essence that Christian gentiles had to become Jews before becoming Christians which Paul argued against with Peter discourse laying the foundation that no one need to be circumcised in order to be Christian, IOWS to be a follower of Christ. So while councils can be important, it is really what Peter and his successors who determine what is to be believed and taught with the rest of the Apostles in union with Peter, which are the bishops as successors of the rest of the Apostles.
B
benhur
Guest
Don’t know about the “all” . Some may copycat or take it on another’s illumination, or not thought about it and just pick and follow what they were taught. Having said that, if a church does have the correct interpretation it is by divine illumination and grace. Same for an individual. I thought we know that most churches are claiming such “illumination” for their belief’s.
B
benhur
Guest
Thank you . Hey I went to an old Catholic church today right by my brothers house with my 18 month old grandson. I saw the doors were open and they have stations of the cross on their walls (it is Good Friday) which I wanted to show him. A couple of people were inside preparing for night service. One was an older gentleman in street clothes .Turns out he is the priest , with his wife . He is a converted baptist/Anglican who became a Catholic priest under the Catholic/Anglican agreement that I have heard about . I said you are like a Cardinal Newman. He laughed and I suggested he should be more like CS Lewis. One of the helpers said if he were alive today he would be Catholic. I asked has the church changed that much (in 60 years ?). Anyways we had interesting 20 minute chat, much like we do here. How can you not like an Irish Priest ?
J
joe371
Guest
Let me approach it from a different angle: does the Catholic Church in your opinion, possess the correct interpretation about the Eucharist, via divine illumination and grace?
- Status