The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

You twist everything around to fit your theology. Please provided documents from anyone to support what you’re saying.

Robert Eno, professor of theology at Catholic University, wrote a book in my possession titled “The Rise of the Papacy.” He documents it very well.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Robert Eno, professor of theology at Catholic University, wrote a book in my possession titled “The Rise of the Papacy.” He documents it very well.

That’s your proof? Is that what you consider providing sources?

You’ve already proven yourself to read things out of context.

 

[James224]

Hi Daniel Keeran,

[SIGN]
If the keys means Peter is appointed head of the church on earth, there should at least be some reference to this after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, but there is absolutely NOTHING.
[/SIGN]

So Jesus gives the keys to Peter but, because this came prior to Pentecost, it doesn’t mean anything. Is that what you’re saying?

May God bless,

James224

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

That’s your proof? Is that what you consider providing sources?

You’ve already proved yourself to read things out of context.

The burden is upon you to prove the papacy continued from Peter onward; such proof is lacking for this “voice of Christ.” In spite of rampant heresy and persecution, if there was such a voice needed, it would be during the period before Constantine. But there appears to be a deafening silence: not a word of assurance from the following:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97) (no singular bishop in the letter by his name)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199) (a word of excommunication)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257) (first claim to be head of all bishops)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus (366-83) (first claim to be head of the whole church)

There was no singular bishop in Rome for at least 100 years after Peter.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Hi Daniel Keeran,

[SIGN]
If the keys means Peter is appointed head of the church on earth, there should at least be some reference to this after the day of Pentecost in Acts 2, but there is absolutely NOTHING.
[/SIGN]

So Jesus gives the keys to Peter but, because this came prior to Pentecost, it doesn’t mean anything. Is that what you’re saying?

May God bless,

James224

I am not saying it does not mean anything. I am saying if the meaning is papal, it must be played out after Pentecost.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The burden is upon you to prove the papacy continued from Peter onward; such proof is lacking for this “voice of Christ.” In spite of rampant heresy and persecution, if there was such a voice needed, it would be during the period before Constantine. But there appears to be a deafening silence: not a word of assurance from the following:

St. Peter (32-67)
St. Linus (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
St. Clement I (88-97) (no singular bishop in the letter by his name)
St. Evaristus (97-105)
St. Alexander I (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (125-136)
St. Hyginus (136-140)
St. Pius I (140-155)
St. Anicetus (155-166)
St. Soter (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (175-189)
St. Victor I (189-199) (a word of excommunication)
St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
St. Callistus I (217-22)
St. Urban I (222-30)
St. Pontain (230-35)
St. Anterus (235-36)
St. Fabian (236-50)
St. Cornelius (251-53)
St. Lucius I (253-54)
St. Stephen I (254-257) (first claim to be head of all bishops)
St. Sixtus II (257-258)
St. Dionysius (260-268)
St. Felix I (269-274)
St. Eutychian (275-283)
St. Caius (283-296)
St. Marcellinus (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (308-309)
St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (314-35)
St. Marcus (336)
St. Julius I (337-52)
Liberius (352-66)
St. Damasus (366-83) (first claim to be head of the whole church)

There was no singular bishop in Rome for at least 100 years after Peter.

Maybe you misunderstand the fact that you’re on a Catholic forum and we’ve stated our position, with specific sources and not a guide to “look it up for yourself”. You have made accusations against what we’ve stated. The burden of proof is on you my friend and so far you’ve only offered your interpretation of scriptures and your opinion, which appear to be faulty in my opinion.

Not only do you take the attitude that we must prove what you say wrong, you failed to address many questions put forth to you.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Robert Eno, professor of theology at Catholic University, wrote a book in my possession titled “The Rise of the Papacy.” He documents it very well.

Dan-

No one disputes that the papacy has developed over time.

Peter was in charge of a few apostles and several hundred disciples when he first took over as the vicar of Christ. Today, the Pope oversees a worldwide Church with a billion members.

What points do you expect to score by claiming that the papacy has grown in stature, power and significance over time?

None of this is a surprise to God who appointed the first pope and knows all things.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The burden is upon you to prove the papacy continued from Peter onward;

Nice try, Daniel.

This is a Catholic forum, and we have home court advantage.

What we believe is common knowledge, and we have not asked you to come here in order to convince you to change your views. To the contrary, you have come here voluntarily in an attempt to convince us that Catholicisim is wrong. If you dispute any of our beliefs, then the burden of proof is on you.

Good luck.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I am not saying it does not mean anything. I am saying if the meaning is papal, it must be played out after Pentecost.

Okay.

You have taken the affirmative position that the papacy and the keys must be evident in scripture. The burden of proof is on you to prove the affirmative position.

Let’s begin with your underlying assumption; theology must be done from scripture alone.

In the Catholic-Protestant controversy it at least could be agreed upon that Scripture itself is relevant to the question of how we do theology. If it indicates that we should do it one way, then we should. If it indicates we should not do it a particular way, then we shouldn’t.

Things begin to look bad for the Protestant case, then, when we find Scripture saying positive things about the role of Tradition in the Christian life (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:2). Things look even bleaker when it is realized that there is an absence of verses that teach Scripture alone.

The coup de grace comes when one realizes that if sola scriptura were true then there would* have* to be such verses. If all principles of theology must be established by Scripture alone, and sola scriptura is a principle of theology, then it must be established by Scripture alone. If it can’t be, then it is shown to be false by its own test.

Realizing this, one discovers that the advocate of sola Scriptura doesn’t have to prove a universal negative; he has to prove a “particular positive”—namely, “Scripture teaches sola scriptura.”

So here’s the question, Daniel:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[paul_c]

By the fall of adam all have the opportunity to sin and do sin, but no scripture teaches that babies are sinful. Luke 18 teaches their innocence not their sinfulness. There is no evidence of infants in any of the household baptisms, (see Acts 16) or Terullian would not have encouraged delay of baptizing children till they are old enough to learn and decide for themselves.

So you believe that everyone is immaculately concieved?

 

[paul_c]

Daniel,
you constantly make the point that the Papacy isn’t clearly annunciated in scripture. But you know, this isn’t surprising given that it was written in an ancient language 2000 years ago. Jesus knew this would be a problem so instead of leaving a written record, he left a verbal one where people could explain exactly what he meant to the audience. Further, he often gave his lessons as stories that relate well in any language and in any time. This is because we can understand actions. When he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, that gives a picture that can be understood in any language and culture When he tells Peter to tend his flocks, well that is also easy to understand for the great mass of humanity. When he tells Peter he is the rock on which his church would be founded, this again provides a mental picture that most people can easily grasp. In Acts, when Peter stands speaks for the Apostles and tells the converts how they can be saved, well that again is a mental picture of leadership that will not be lost on many. You can deny all this if you want to, but it only you who are being hurt by denying the truth. I sincerely doubt that in three months of arguing this point on varies threads that you have convinced anyone that Peter wasn’t Pope because the words, " Peter is the first Pope" doesn’t appear in scripture. .

 

[MonFrere]

When Jesus said “whatsoever you bind…loose…” was he giving the Catholic church the right to define and change the terms of the gospel? Paul said, “If I or an angel…preach any other gospel…let him be accursed.”

Has not the Catholic church changed the gospel to a different gospel by the following?

1. changing immersion to pouring for baptism
2. baptizing infants who have not been taught nor repented

(Col 2:11-12) In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: 12buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.

Here we have good old St. Paul again using his Jewish training in scripture laying the groundwork that was further elaborated upon in the ECF. To make a long story short, the rite of baptism is replacing the rite of circumcision as the rite that initiates one into the Church, the new people of God. The rite of circumcision was performed in the eighth day of a male newborn’s life. The young boy had absolutely NO KNOWLEDGE of what his parents were doing for him in this right. He didn’t know he was now formally initiated into the chosen people of God. In like manner, since circumcision was the rite of initiation in the Old Covenant and performed in the first days of life; baptism was substituted as the rite of initiation in the New Covenant and therefore there were no constraints as to the age as to which this rite was performed. This is just another example as to the Church using it’s God given authority to bind and loose. Jesus simply commanded baptism in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Baptism by immersion is great; but pouring or sprinkling were also customs borrowed from the Old Covenant and applied to New Covenant situations. Nothing mysterious here.

Frankly, it is situations like this that sola scriptura Christians look foolish. The place on themselves a mandate that was absolutely never placed upon the Christian Church and in following this mandate get themselves into such a straightjacket as to make their religion into pretzel like logic to perform the most simple of rites as is baptism. I’ve looked at the baptismal rites of various rites of the Catholic Church and the Orthodox and IMO each brings a great deal of meaning and beauty into this most beautiful and tender ceremony.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Okay.

You have taken the affirmative position that the papacy and the keys must be evident in scripture. The burden of proof is on you to prove the affirmative position.

Let’s begin with your underlying assumption; theology must be done from scripture alone.

In the Catholic-Protestant controversy it at least could be agreed upon that Scripture itself is relevant to the question of how we do theology. If it indicates that we should do it one way, then we should. If it indicates we should not do it a particular way, then we shouldn’t.

Things begin to look bad for the Protestant case, then, when we find Scripture saying positive things about the role of Tradition in the Christian life (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:2). Things look even bleaker when it is realized that there is an absence of verses that teach Scripture alone.

The coup de grace comes when one realizes that if sola scriptura were true then there would* have* to be such verses. If all principles of theology must be established by Scripture alone, and sola scriptura is a principle of theology, then it must be established by Scripture alone. If it can’t be, then it is shown to be false by its own test.

Realizing this, one discovers that the advocate of sola Scriptura doesn’t have to prove a universal negative; he has to prove a “particular positive”—namely, “Scripture teaches sola scriptura.”

So here’s the question, Daniel:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

Wow.

Still no answer from Daniel who is usually such a prolific poster.

I wonder what websites he’s reading trying to come up with an answer to my question.

I can hardly wait to see what he comes up with.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

So you believe that everyone is immaculately concieved?

Yes, I believe this is the message of Matthew 18.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Okay.

You have taken the affirmative position that the papacy and the keys must be evident in scripture. The burden of proof is on you to prove the affirmative position.

Let’s begin with your underlying assumption; theology must be done from scripture alone.

In the Catholic-Protestant controversy it at least could be agreed upon that Scripture itself is relevant to the question of how we do theology. If it indicates that we should do it one way, then we should. If it indicates we should not do it a particular way, then we shouldn’t.

Things begin to look bad for the Protestant case, then, when we find Scripture saying positive things about the role of Tradition in the Christian life (cf. 1 Cor. 11:2; 2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 2 Tim. 2:2). Things look even bleaker when it is realized that there is an absence of verses that teach Scripture alone.

The coup de grace comes when one realizes that if sola scriptura were true then there would* have* to be such verses. If all principles of theology must be established by Scripture alone, and sola scriptura is a principle of theology, then it must be established by Scripture alone. If it can’t be, then it is shown to be false by its own test.

Realizing this, one discovers that the advocate of sola Scriptura doesn’t have to prove a universal negative; he has to prove a “particular positive”—namely, “Scripture teaches sola scriptura.”

So here’s the question, Daniel:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

The subject of this thread is the papacy in scripture. You have said that the papacy was in development and not even the apostles understood it fully, so I take from your acorn/onion statement, that you believe the papacy as understood by Catholics today, is not in scripture. Please correct me if I am putting words in your mouth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Maybe you misunderstand the fact that you’re on a Catholic forum and we’ve stated our position, with specific sources and not a guide to “look it up for yourself”. You have made accusations against what we’ve stated. The burden of proof is on you my friend and so far you’ve only offered your interpretation of scriptures and your opinion, which appear to be faulty in my opinion.

Not only do you take the attitude that we must prove what you say wrong, you failed to address many questions put forth to you.

Your tactic, seen occasionally on this forum, is to repeatedly ask the same questions I have already answered so you can say I have not answered them. You know my answers before you ask for them.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Dan-

No one disputes that the papacy has developed over time.

Peter was in charge of a few apostles and several hundred disciples when he first took over as the vicar of Christ. Today, the Pope oversees a worldwide Church with a billion members.

What points do you expect to score by claiming that the papacy has grown in stature, power and significance over time?

None of this is a surprise to God who appointed the first pope and knows all things.

I will say again, in order for Peter’s keys to mean he was made head of the church or supreme pastor and any similar term, we must see a reference to this in scripture during the beginnings of the church, but there is not a single mention. Instead, in passages of unity and gifts and offices in the church, there is no mention of an earthly head of the church. Only Christ is called a Chief Shepherd. Neither Peter nor Paul nor James make any reference whatsoever to Peter as head of the church. Therefore, Peter’s keys mean something else, and not that he was thereby made head of the church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The subject of this thread is the papacy in scripture. You have said that the papacy was in development and not even the apostles understood it fully, so I take from your acorn/onion statement, that you believe the papacy as understood by Catholics today, is not in scripture. Please correct me if I am putting words in your mouth.

How convenient, to say this subject is about the papacy in scripture, but we are limited to only discussing half the topic.

Daniel, many examples of Peter’s primacy have been given to you, but you disagree with the interpretation of scriptures. That does not make the Catholic interpretation wrong. You have inferred that your and only your interpretation of scriptures is correct. Well, we’d like to know where you got that authority to say whose interpertation is correct or wrong.

By making others accept your interpretation as correct, you are putting words in other’s mouths.

With your limitations on the discussion, it is not an honest discussion, in my opinion.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,
you constantly make the point that the Papacy isn’t clearly annunciated in scripture. But you know, this isn’t surprising given that it was written in an ancient language 2000 years ago. Jesus knew this would be a problem so instead of leaving a written record, he left a verbal one where people could explain exactly what he meant to the audience. Further, he often gave his lessons as stories that relate well in any language and in any time. This is because we can understand actions. When he gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, that gives a picture that can be understood in any language and culture When he tells Peter to tend his flocks, well that is also easy to understand for the great mass of humanity. When he tells Peter he is the rock on which his church would be founded, this again provides a mental picture that most people can easily grasp. In Acts, when Peter stands speaks for the Apostles and tells the converts how they can be saved, well that again is a mental picture of leadership that will not be lost on many. You can deny all this if you want to, but it only you who are being hurt by denying the truth. I sincerely doubt that in three months of arguing this point on varies threads that you have convinced anyone that Peter wasn’t Pope because the words, " Peter is the first Pope" doesn’t appear in scripture. .

There are other reasonable explanations as to why Jesus said to Peter “feed my sheep” and these have been reviewed. Peter’s having his name mentioned and taking a leadership role do not constitute his being head of the church. The fact is: Peter himself, nor James, nor Paul mention that Peter is head of the church or any similar phrase, and in the passages pertaining to unity, gifts and office sin the church, there is no mention whatsoever of an earthly head of the church or any similar phrase. This is striking, if in fact Peter was known by all to have been appointed to such a cenral fundamental position. Only Christ is ever referred to as head of the church and Chief Shepherd.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Dan-

No one disputes that the papacy has developed over time.

Peter was in charge of a few apostles and several hundred disciples when he first took over as the vicar of Christ. Today, the Pope oversees a worldwide Church with a billion members.

What points do you expect to score by claiming that the papacy has grown in stature, power and significance over time?

None of this is a surprise to God who appointed the first pope and knows all things.

Does anyone claim to be head of the whole church before Damasus? Why the lack of communication, with a few dubious exceptions, from the alleged popes before Damasus?
Where was the voice of Christ during the period of persecution? Persecution did not stop the apostles from writing letters that are well-preserved for us. The truth is that after there were singular bishops in Rome, they did not understand that they were the voice of Christ on earth.