The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[paul_c]

The name of Matthew is not in his Gospel, nor does it claim to be written by an apostle. Therefore, according to your logic, you should not trust the writings ‘about’ it.

This is a very good point. Scripture does not stand on its own. There is a tremendous amount of Tradition involved in even Daniel’s understanding of scripture.

First and foremost there is tradition that states that the Scripture is inspired to begin with. the fact that scripture is inspired is a tradition that is not written in scripture.

Secondly, there is the question of what scripture is inspired. The canon was defined by the Catholic Church in 382 AD. While we agree, like Daniel, that this was an inspired decision, we recognize that this inspiration is not written in scripture itself, but it part of tradition.

Even the authorship of the Gospels and Acts are not part of scripture but are simply known through tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

I intended to say that the destruction of the temple was clearly prophesied by Jesus long before 70 AD. The end of the sacrificial system was clearly taught by Paul and in Hebrews.

Ah. Understood.

 

[PRmerger]

By careful and full study of the subject presented in scripture?

That sounds like many denominations of Protestants, who do not agree. How do we know which one is correct?

Exactly!!

Without the authority of the Magisterium, the guardian of Scripture, the final authority on Scriptural disputes, we are left with the 40,000 different Christian churches which all claim their interpretation of Scripture is correct.–a very, very sad reality indeed.

In Daniel’s theological system, there is no final authority. We have no idea which interpretation is correct. Do we celebrate the Lord’s Day on Saturday? Is it an abomination to say God’s name? Is Jesus a manifestation of the Michael the Archangel? Was Jesus married to Mary Magdalene? etc etc etc. Big Yikes!!

 

[stephraim]

Here is another challenge for you Daniel. Using your striking method of analysis requiring direct primary sources such as epistles and personal correspondence in order to establish the historical reliability of an institution, prove the existence of Emperors Nero, Caligula, Titus, Vespasian, and the entire Severan dynasty.

After you have provided me with all such primary sources, we can talk about the validity of the information we have concerning the popes and the first three hundred years of Catholic Christian history. If you cannot provide this information, then we must conclude that these emperors never existed, or that the office of the emperor was not real during these time periods.

Or, provide me with direct correspondence of all the kings after David, so we can prove the legitimacy of the Davidic dynasty.

Or provide me with direct correspondence from the pharaohs so we can prove their existence.

Or provide me with direct correspondence and primary sources for every apostle listed in the gospel.

Or provide me with direct correspondence from Jesus our Lord and Savior, so we can firmly and without a doubt prove his existence.

God bless,
Ut

The Davidic dynasty comment struck me especially because there are names listed in Chronicles not found in Matthew’s genealogy. Some go to great lengths to use the confusion of order of the first three successors of Peter (Linus, (Ana)Cletus, Clement) to show that there was no singular bishop, yet even Matthew confuses and leaves out names in Christ’s list of ancestors.

 

[MonFrere]

The Davidic dynasty comment struck me especially because there are names listed in Chronicles not found in Matthew’s genealogy. Some go to great lengths to use the confusion of order of the first three successors of Peter (Linus, (Ana)Cletus, Clement) to show that there was no singular bishop, yet even Matthew confuses and leaves out names in Christ’s list of ancestors.

I’ve not studied this point in detail but the ancients did not have the preoccupation with perfectly ordered lists as we do today. The Sets of 14 Generations given is St. Matthew’s gospel was not given to be a perfectly complete list. It was given to demonstrate to the Jewish mind the legitimacy of Jesus being the Messiah. Exactly how the Jewish mind thought that through is what I’m not clear on - maybe someone else could fill in the pieces.

I think what people like Daniel need to keep in mind is not the perfect list of singular bishops of Rome but the fact that the papacy has been around in one form or another for 2000 years of history. THIS is the amazing historical fact that needs to be considered. If Jesus didn’t intend this in Caesarea Philippi in His message to St. Peter in St. Matthew’s gospel – then it is one of the most amazing coincidences in all of history.

IMHO - there has to be a mental decision NOT TO BELIEVE considering, among many other things, the miraculous longevity of the papacy and the Catholic Church.

MonFrere

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You’ve made it clear you disagree with everything the Catholic Church teaches, yet the Catholic Church brought all the letters and epistles together and defined the canon of the New Testament through intense prayerful research, which included interpretations. Then the Catholic Church preserved the sacred scriptures throughout history, yet you are trying to tell us your Church was founded in 33AD, prior to any of those writings being written. Why is it your authoritative Bible based Church didn’t do this? How can you trust a book put together by a Church that you believe got it so wrong? Why is it sola scriptura didn’t exist until after the 1500s reformation?

Until you can convincingly answer those questions in your favor, I’m afraid I’m going to disagree with your interpretation on any subject you feel your interpretation is superior on.

You will agree the inspired scriptures existed the moment they were written, and the testimony of their truth is borne by the Holy Spirit speaking through them to the heart (Heb.4:12). Yes the church of Christ began before the scriptures of the NT were written and at that there were inspired apostles and prophets: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine…” (Acts 2).

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,

I’d be interested in your replies to Steve Ray’s views of your topic here, posted courtesy of Randy, …posts 427 and 428 I believe.

Whenever you get a chance, of course.

I welcome a dialogue with Steve Ray and will make every effort to reply to his comments asap.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, read through your response and tell me where a yes or no answer is? I don’t believe you would lie about it, but it appears you are avoiding a direct question for some reason.

I can see you are struggling with this, but no single person or congregation or any authority other than Christ, can speak for or represent the church of Christ. There is no earthly central or official office for the church of Christ. You can check with pipper if you think I lie. He says he was raised in churches of Christ and seems fairly well-versed.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

But they both have done that. Countless times, with incredibly deep prayer. And still, disagreement (i.e. lifelong repentance of personal sin required for salvation).

What now? Who judges the correct doctrine? Do they both just have to wait until they die, and one of them will be right, and the other eternally separated from God?? Is it just kinda like, ‘oh well…sorry dude…you lost…guess you didn’t examine it as good as I did’?

That last part is sarcastic…my apologies, but it’s basically what I wanted to ask you.

The answer is clearly stated in scripture and I give you this one reference:

1 John 1
5This is the message we have heard from him and declare to you: God is light; in him there is no darkness at all. 6If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth. 7But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus, his Son, purifies us from all sin. 8If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

In reading the passage quickly without use of commentaries it seems as if the “word of God” may be another way of saying “the gospel”. The reference to “entering into the Lord’s rest” first is spoken about in the earthly reference of Joshua entering into the promised land. This seems to be given an allegorical interpretation for Christians entering into “heaven” - the rest of God; for this is really the gospel’s end.

Now, in the Old Testament we have God speaking to the people through the cloud by day and the pillar of fire by night. For the people of God this voice from the cloud or the pillar was “the word of God”. It proved to be the sharp two-edged sword that Prodigal Son brought to our attention that was in view of the cutting implement of sacrifice.

Allegorically, again very typical of first century Jewish training in scripture, this is then given a new meaning. The people of God are now given the gospel promise of heaven, the true sabbath rest. Jesus accomplished this through His sacrifice and preached it through His ministry. As St. John’s gospel teaches us from the first verses – The Word was with God and the Word was God. This is, of course, Jesus. His eternal sacrifice is the sacrifice with the real power to effect all Christians to the real rest of God - heaven.

So, in both cases, in both Old Testament and New Testament the 'word of God" is not referring to scripture but to the theophany of God and His manifestation in the cloud by day and the pillar by night and in the New Testament as the eternal Word of God breaking open to the sons of men the eternal rest we were all created for.

I think the allegory is very powerful and as allegories are do not require a magnifying glass as to minute meanings of words. Magnify the allegory to get the most meaning out of the passage. This is very very Jewish and also very very Catholic.

MonFrere

I agree with the Catholic commentary quoted earlier and here stating this is word of God’s revelation, not Jesus as Logos- “the context is against this view”:

The word or logos is so boldly personified that some commentators have even identified it with the personal Logos. The context is against this view, but the word of God’s revelation is so authoritative as to be ultimately interchangeable with God who speaks it. ‘Living’ stands at the head of the list of its attributes, that is, the word of God is full of power to act with living force; it is effectual in attaining its purpose; more trenchant than any two-edged sword—as the short double-edged machaera is a cutting rather than a stabbing instrument, our equivalent phrase would be ‘as keen as a razor cutting fine and deep’. The subtle thoroughness of its dissection is expressed by saying that it reaches as far as dividing sensitive soul from thinking spirit (µe??sµó?, active verbal), and no closely knit joint, no hidden marrow of the bones is left untouched by it. This elaborate metaphor reveals in God’s word an allsearching power which becomes even more ‘personal’ when the word is presented as a ‘discerner’ of thoughts and intentions of the heart, a veritable judge of how one thinks and how one is minded, how one stands in regard to thought and feeling. The ‘heart’ is sometimes regarded as the seat of thought, but more often of man’s moral life, cf.Mat_15:17-20.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can see you are struggling with this, but no single person or congregation or any authority other than Christ, can speak for or represent the church of Christ. There is no earthly central or official office for the church of Christ. You can check with pipper if you think I lie. He says he was raised in churches of Christ and seems fairly well-versed.

Daniel, you might have mistaken what I said. I do not think you would lie, I do however see you are avoiding a direct question. I didn’t ask you about any single person or congregation or anything else that you’ve addressed above. I asked you, “Does your Church, the one you attend services at assuming you do attend services, have a website?” You won’t say yes and you don’t say no. It’s that simple, yes or no. I will not ask the question again, but I will assume, and I believe anyone following this thread can see, there is something you do not want us to see, which takes away any validity you might have had in your part of this discussion.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

So with these words you invalidat all the information we have regarding the activities of the early popes?

I’m afraid you would not make a very good historian. To disregard three hundred years of recorded history makes no sense, nor does it show that you have either any knowledge of historical methods, You have jetisonned reason in favour of your own charismatic channel to God.

God bless,
Ut

I do have an MA in European history and am familiar with historical method, and it is for this reason that I see lacking adequate support from the papacy in early centuries. The voice of Christ should be as clear and loud as the NT from Linus through Damasus.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Here is another challenge for you Daniel. Using your striking merthod of analysis requiring direct primary sources such as epistles and personal correspondence in order to establish the historical reliability of an institution, prove the existence of Emperors Nero, Caligula, Titus, Vespasian, and the entire Severan dinasty.

After you have provided me with all such primary sources, we can talk about the validity of the information we have concerning the popes and the first three hundred years of Catholic Christian history. If you cannot provide this information, then we must conclud that these emperors never existed, or that the office of the emperor was not real during these time periods.

Or, provide me with direct correspondence of all the kings after David, so we can prove the legiyimacy of the Davidic dynasty.

Or provide me with direct correspondence from the pharaohs so we can prove their existence.

Or provide me with direct correspondence and primary sources for every apostle listed in the gospel.

Or provide me with direct correspondence from Jesus our Lord and saviour, so we can firmly and without a doubt prove his existence.

God bless,
Ut

We DO have direct correspondence from Peter, so if the popes are successors of Peter and of Christ, where are their letters preserved for us? They are nonexistent because Peter was not head of the church and he had no successors claiming to be the voice of Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

You will agree the inspired scriptures existed the moment they were written, and the testimony of their truth is borne by the Holy Spirit speaking through them to the heart (Heb.4:12). Yes the church of Christ began before the scriptures of the NT were written and at that there were inspired apostles and prophets: “And they continued stedfastly in the apostles doctrine…” (Acts 2).

But the “Church of Christ”, the Protestant version, did not define the canon of the New Testament, the Catholic Church did. The “Church of Christ”, again the Protestant version, did not preserve, or even have, the Bible prior to the 1500s, the Catholic Church did. That kind of kills the thought that sola scriptura has existed from the beginning of the Church. Sola scriptura is a man-made tradition that started with the Protestant reformation in the early 1500s.

Martin Luther, the leader of the Protestant reformation, conceded that the Bible came from the Catholic Church.

“We are obliged to yield many things to the Papists (Catholics)–that they possess the Word of God which we received from them, otherwise we should have known nothing at all about it."

Of course in your response, you again asserted that the Church of Christ was the Church Christ built, but you did not respond the point being made. It shows you have no documents to prove your view and it seems that your house is built on sand…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

We DO have direct correspondence from Peter, so if the popes are successors of Peter and of Christ, where are their letters preserved for us? They are nonexistent because Peter was not head of the church and he had no successors claiming to be the voice of Christ.

That’s your story and I can see you’re sticking to it, even though you have no documentation to say otherwise, just like you have no documentation that shows the Protestant Church of Christ was the Church Christ built. You won’t even address the canon of the Bible or how it came to be in your hands because of the lack of documentation. We are not foolish and can easily see through what you’re doing. :tsktsk:

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, again the plural talk does not exclude a singular Bishop (in my opinion.)

Here is an quote from St. Irenaeus’s “Against Heresies” to demonstrate my point;

“…The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…” (newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm , accessed 6/ 7/ 2009)

Ok, notice the Apostolic succession layed out in the passage above- “…Clement was alloted the bishopric…” , and we have a succession of what appears to be singular bishops. Then later the statement, “…the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians…”

So, I would argue that even for Irenaeus, the understanding that there is a singular bishop at Rome doesn’t stop him from saying that it was “…the Church in Rome…” who sent the letter to Corinth. If I understand Irenaus correctly, both can be true. That is what I believe also, but according to you (if I’m understanding you correctly) the fact that Clement’s letter to the Corinthians is written from a we the Church of Rome perspective, this disqualifies Clement as being the singular Bishop. I disagree.

The singular bishop congregational bishop emerged by the time of Ignatius, although he does not refer to one in Rome. Irenaeus writing some time later accepts the notion of a singular bishop and reads it back into history to support his argument. Historically one should start from the beginning and move forward rather than the reverse to understand the circumstances. Within the letter of “Clement” itself as I replied to you bishops are in the plural and used interchangably with presbyters.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The name of Matthew is not in his Gospel, nor does it claim to be written by an apostle. Therefore, according to your logic, you should not trust the writings ‘about’ it.

The letter DOES identify that it is from the church at Rome to the church at Corinth, not from or to any named individuals. I agree the book called Matthew does not identify him as author but bears testimony of its own truth.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I can see you are struggling with this, but no single person or congregation or any authority other than Christ, can speak for or represent the church of Christ. There is no earthly central or official office for the church of Christ. You can check with pipper if you think I lie. He says he was raised in churches of Christ and seems fairly well-versed.

I did a search, as you suggested and found only two Protestant Church’s of Christ in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. One has 80 members and the other has 25 members, according to the results of the search. One has a website and the other does not. The one with a website states several things you have stated, almost exactly as you stated them. Even the one with a website offers links that takes you to another Church of Christ and speaks of it’s membership as if those Churches are connected through articles of faith.

 

[MonFrere]

I agree with the Catholic commentary quoted earlier and here stating this is word of God’s revelation, not Jesus as Logos- “the context is against this view”:

Daniel,

Your opinion is perfectly legit. But this is one of those verses where the scripture can be look at with different lenses. Even though this commentator said contextually Jesus wasn’t the direct reference that the word of God and Jesus are virtually interchangable.

The word or logos is so boldly personified that some commentators have even identified it with the personal Logos. The context is against this view, but the word of God’s revelation is so authoritative as to be ultimately interchangeable with God who speaks it.

Catholic biblical studies do not confine ONE AND ONLY ONE possible interpretation. More often than not, when the Church speaks to an false interpretation it simply states that that ONE particular interpretation is false WITHOUT stating that another interpretation is the definitive interpretation. I can think of specific instances but I don’t want to state them here so as to not widen the discussion. My perspective is therefore certainly within “Catholic orthodoxy” because I’m not saying that this passage MUST be viewed as speaking to Jesus and ONLY Jesus. But for me it seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to view this passage of scripture.

MonFrere

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

This is a very good point. Scripture does not stand on its own. There is a tremendous amount of Tradition involved in even Daniel’s understanding of scripture.

First and foremost there is tradition that states that the Scripture is inspired to begin with. the fact that scripture is inspired is a tradition that is not written in scripture.

Secondly, there is the question of what scripture is inspired. The canon was defined by the Catholic Church in 382 AD. While we agree, like Daniel, that this was an inspired decision, we recognize that this inspiration is not written in scripture itself, but it part of tradition.

Even the authorship of the Gospels and Acts are not part of scripture but are simply known through tradition.

The word of God is known by the testimony it bears to the heart (Heb.4:12).