The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Randy_Carson]

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.

As I have told you previously, I believe that the papacy is explicitly evident from scripture. However, I have the benefit of 2,000 years of theological reflection guiding me.

It’s like looking at the stars at night, Daniel. The constellations are there for all to see, but sometimes it’s hard to make them out until someone with a trained eye traces out the patterns for you. Once this has been done, then you say, “Aha! I see it.” Well, it was there all along, wasn’t it?

I think it is reasonable to say that the Apostles themselves would not have foreseen all that the papacy and the Church have become, but that’s okay…Jesus told us that this would happen ahead of time:

Matthew 13:31-33
31He told them another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. 32Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”
33He told them still another parable: “The kingdom of heaven is like yeast that a woman took and mixed into a large amounta] of flour until it worked all through the dough.”

Your denomination is clearly NOT the largest plant in the garden, is it? And you have NOT made disciples of all nations, have you?

And you have not proven to me from scripture that I must prove everything to you from scripture.

So, tell me, Daniel,

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

I love to talk about baptism, but if you don’t mind can we stick to papacy in scripture? Yes I made the link, but my point is that the Church has no authority to change the terms of the gospel. You want to argue that the terms have not been changed. But the question is: does the “WHATSOEVER… bind… loosed” statement give the church authority to change the gospel? YES or NO.

Also, if Peter was appointed head of the church and the voice of Christ on earth with successors, where was this voice during the period of persecution? Or did the bishops of Rome not understand they were this voice of unity?

 

[Randy_Carson]

we must see a reference to this in scripture during the beginnings of the church

Why?

What is the basis of this artifically imposed requirement?

Maybe you need something from the Bible because you cannot trust your own fallible church leaders who have no Apostolic Authority and because you have rejected the Sacred Tradition handed down from the Apostles, but those are not weaknesses that I have to compensate for. They are your problems.

Again, where does scripture tell us that we must see a reference to this or anything in scripture for it to be true?

If the Bible does not teach sola scriptura, then it is self-refuting.

Tell us, Daniel, does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

When the Church first started, everyone knew who the leader was. It was confirmed by Peter in the one verse above, and well pointed out by Christ’s words and actions in other verses that you change the context of to fit those scriptures to your theology. A theology that did not exist prior to the 1500s.

Where was the voice of Christ during the period of persecution? Following Him carrying their own crosses to martyrdom.

The writings of the Church fathers have been provided, but as with scriptures, you change the context to fit a theology.

Just as you continue demanding a writing that states the primacy of the office over the Church, you have not provided any writings stating there was no leader of the Church. Now that would be convincing, but it doesn’t exist, does it? Show us the writings of anyone in the early Church or scriptures that deny a leader of the Church. Scriptures are filled with descriptive offices of the hierarchy, Apostles, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Prophets, Doctors, etc. Where are the scriptures or writings from anyone else that specifically state there was no leader of the Church?

To think that men see the necessity of a leader of a country or a general over an army, it’s silly to think that God would do less than men when it comes to His kingdom,

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Daniel is not seeking objective truth. He is seeking a forum where his own ideas may receive a hearing. Only God knows why he chose to single out a Catholic forum for such special attention. Fact is: he doesn’t agree with the doctrines of most Protestants, either. Why he’s not trying to convert them is a mystery we may never know.

Curiously, he doesn’t seem to get the fact that Catholics are not bound by sola scriptura. He mistakenly believes that if he can prove that something is not explicitly stated in the Bible, then he has won the debate. This is because that is the way his denominational world works.

As a courtesy, we have tried to show him the biblical basis for our beliefs, and he continues to deny them. However, he doesn’t realize that it does not bother us if some things are not explicitly present in scripture. We are unfazed because we have both Sacred Tradition and the Magisterium - things which are beyond his comprehension.

You see, he thinks he is winning, scoring points, by insisting that everything meet with his approval. This may be his idea of evangelization. Who knows?

At some point, it will more appropriate to shake the dust from our feet and to turn our attention to other threads and other posters who are more genuinely interested in the truth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Why?

What is the basis of this artifically imposed requirement?

Logic demands that if a position has authority to define and alter doctrine, this authority must be stated at the beginning. It’s not fair to make up the rules as you go along. It’s like playing a ball game, then after it gets started and players have scored, someone says,“I am going to change the rules a bit now, and by the way, it was decided before the game started that I’m the only one who can change or add to the rules although no one understood it that way at the start.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Now hang on just a cotton-pickin’ minute!

Peter was supposed to be the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

You’re demonstrating from scripture that God used Peter to open the door to the Gentiles. And that after preaching to the Samaritans. And that after Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost.

Doggone it!

Why is Peter always out front like this?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Logic demands that if a position has authority to define and alter doctrine, this authority must be stated at the beginning. It’s not fair to make up the rules as you go along. It’s like playing a ball game, then after it gets started and players have scored, someone says,“I am going to change the rules a bit now, and by the way, it was decided before the game started that I’m the only one who can change or add to the rules although no one understood it that way at the start.”

So, you’re saying that there *is *some basis for your insistence that everything be proved from scripture, eh? (Canadian lingo, in your honor.)

Fine.

Show me from scripture where the Bible teaches that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer. Prove to me that I must prove the establishment of the papacy from the Bible Alone.

The question has been asked and remains unanswered:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Act 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter, rising up, said to them: Men, brethren, you know that in former days God made choice among us, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

When the Church first started, everyone knew who the leader was. It was confirmed by Peter in the one verse above, and well pointed out by Christ’s words and actions in other verses that you change the context of to fit those scriptures to your theology. A theology that did not exist prior to the 1500s.

Where was the voice of Christ during the period of persecution? Following Him carrying their own crosses to martyrdom.

The writings of the Church fathers have been provided, but as with scriptures, you change the context to fit a theology.

Just as you continue demanding a writing that states the primacy of the office over the Church, you have not provided any writings stating there was no leader of the Church. Now that would be convincing, but it doesn’t exist, does it? Show us the writings of anyone in the early Church or scriptures that deny a leader of the Church. Scriptures are filled with descriptive offices of the hierarchy, Apostles, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Prophets, Doctors, etc. Where are the scriptures or writings from anyone else that specifically state there was no leader of the Church?

To think that men see the** necessity of a leader of a country or a general over an army**, it’s silly to think that God would do less than men when it comes to His kingdom,

**Yes a head IS a necessity. And the only singular shepherd or leader or head of the church on earth, identified in scripture is Christ alone. No NT writer says otherwise. **

Ephesians 1:10
to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment—to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

Ephesians 1:22
And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church,

Ephesians 4:15
Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will in all things grow up into him who is the Head, that is, Christ.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

Colossians 1:18
And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy.

Colossians 2:10
and you have been given fullness in **Christ, who is the head **over every power and authority.

Colossians 2:19
He has lost connection with the Head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow.

1 Peter 5:4
And when the **Chief Shepherd **appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

1 Peter 2 24
He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed. For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls.

If Peter knew he was appointed to be the earthly Shepherd of the church, he could have found humble ways to state this just as he stated: “God **made a choice **among you that the Gentiles might hear from **my lips **the message” (Acts 15:7).

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Weird, isn’t it?

Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., and the temple was destroyed.

Why is there no mention of this in scripture? Oh, sure…John may have made a *vague *reference to this in the book of Revelation…he made a vague reference to the assumption of Mary, too.

Still, one has to wonder why the end of Temple worship and the cessation of animal sacrifice as commanded by God do not appear more prominently in the New Testatment. It would seem like Christians would have jumped at the chance to use this as a tool for evangelism. Judaism was effectively over; Christianity had just begun. Or something like that.

I guess the scriptures can’t be expected to explain everything…unless, of course, your a priori assumption is that the gospel has to be written instead of handed on by Tradition.

But that’s not the way God set things up, is it, Daniel?

 

[utunumsint]

The question has been asked and remains unanswered:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

I don’t think that’s taught anywhere in scripture Randy.

In fact, within scripture itself, there is evidence of development of doctrine from implicite to explicit, or from explicit to even more explicit.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

So, you’re saying that there *is *some basis for your insistence that everything be proved from scripture, eh? (Canadian lingo, in your honor.)

Fine.

Show me from scripture where the Bible teaches that the Bible is the sole rule of faith for the believer. Prove to me that I must prove the establishment of the papacy from the Bible Alone.

The question has been asked and remains unanswered:

Does the Bible teach sola scriptura?

So you are really saying the establishment of the papacy cannot be proved from the Bible alone. You just want me to prove that we need the Bible alone to prove anything.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Weird, isn’t it?

Jerusalem was sacked in 70 A.D., and the temple was destroyed.

Why is there no mention of this in scripture? Oh, sure…John may have made a *vague *reference to this in the book of Revelation…he made a vague reference to the assumption of Mary, too.

Jesus said, “I will destroy this temple…” and “not one stone will be left upon another.”

Still, one has to wonder why the end of Temple worship and the cessation of animal sacrifice as commanded by God do not appear more prominently in the New Testatment. It would seem like Christians would have jumped at the chance to use this as a tool for evangelism. Judaism was effectively over; Christianity had just begun. Or something like that.

Actually it did figure prominently in the preaching of Paul and of the writer of Hebrews.

 

[utunumsint]

So you are really saying the establishment of the papacy cannot be proved from the Bible alone. You just want me to prove that we need the Bible alone to prove anything.

Just a quick question: Do you accept that there is evidence for the development of doctrine within the Bible itself?

God bless,
Ut

 

[Randy_Carson]

If Peter knew he was appointed to be the earthly Shepherd of the church, he could have found humble ways to state this just as he stated: “God **made a choice **among you that the Gentiles might hear from **my lips **the message” (Acts 15:7).

He did.

He says, “I appeal to you as a fellow-elder” and then goes on to give advice and counsel to these other elders. Tell me, Daniel, does the lesser normally instruct the greater? Does one who is equal to others presume to teach one’s peers?

Even Paul went to inquire of Peter…the Greek suggests that Paul inquired of Peter as one inquires of an oracle.

God made a choice, alright.

He chose to make Peter His prime minister and the vicarious shepherd of the flock.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Now hang on just a cotton-pickin’ minute!

Peter was supposed to be the apostle to the Jews and Paul was the apostle to the Gentiles.

You’re demonstrating from scripture that God used Peter to open the door to the Gentiles. And that after preaching to the Samaritans. And that after Peter preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost.

Doggone it!

Why is Peter always out front like this?

Peter was an apostle. Frequent mention and even prominence do not establish he was head of the church or anything similar.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

He did.

He says, “I appeal to you as a fellow-elder” and then goes on to give advice and counsel to these other elders. Tell me, Daniel, does the lesser normally instruct the greater? Does one who is equal to others presume to teach one’s peers?

Even Paul went to inquire of Peter…the Greek suggests that Paul inquired of Peter as one inquires of an oracle.

God made a choice, alright.

He chose to make Peter His prime minister and the vicarious shepherd of the flock .

He chose to make Peter His prime minister and the vicarious shepherd of the flock? If so, neither Peter nor anyone else knew it, or if they did know, they kept it as a “secret Tradition.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter was an apostle. Frequent mention and even prominence do not establish he was head of the church or anything similar.

Maybe.

But receiving the keys of the office of Prime Minister from the king Himself does.

That and being left in charge of the flock by the Chief Shepherd Himself.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Just a quick question: Do you accept that there is evidence for the development of doctrine within the Bible itself?

God bless,
Ut

There is inspired revelation from God in which God tells his people things he did not tell them before. The problem with the papacy is that it is not defined WITHIN inspired revelation from God.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Maybe.

But receiving the keys of the office of Prime Minister from the king Himself does.

That and being left in charge of the flock by the Chief Shepherd Himself.

If keys can have more than one meaning, then we must look to what occured after the keys are given, to understand what it means.