The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[SteveGC]

Honestly, how is the NT an authority?

Paul, because they limit the word itself to mean something other than what we mean. In other words, they use only #5 through 11 below to describe their version of “authority”. They do not use #'s 1 through 4, which then prohibits them from being capable of settling disputes, granting or delegating this power, establishing a hierarchy, or binding and loosing - which are included in the Catholic definition of authority, as granted in totality by Christ. In regards to Sacred Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium, The Church uses the entire body of definitions here:

au⋅thor⋅i⋅ty
  /əˈθɔrɪti, əˈθɒr-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-thawr-i-tee, uh-thor-] Show IPA
–noun, plural -ties.

1. the power to determine, adjudicate, or otherwise settle issues or disputes; jurisdiction; the right to control, command, or determine.
2. a power or right delegated or given; authorization: Who has the authority to grant permission?
3. a person or body of persons in whom authority is vested, as a governmental agency.
4. an expert on a subject: He is an authority on baseball…

5. an accepted source of information, advice, etc.

6. a quotation or citation from such a source.
7. a statute, court rule, or judicial decision that establishes a rule or principle of law; a ruling.
8. right to respect or acceptance of one’s word, command, thought, etc.; commanding influence: the authority of a parent; the authority of a great writer.
9. mastery in execution or performance, as of a work of art or literature or a piece of music.
10. a warrant for action; justification.
11. testimony; witness.

 

[PRmerger]

Of course there is documentation in the NT as well as the early church writings. There are many collections of what members of the churches of christ write throughout the centuries but these of course contain error as well as truth, being uninspired. I have given links and reponses to this question before…

I must have missed that, Daniel. I saw your claim to the ECF as members of your denomination. But I haven’t seen any other citations of what members of the churches of christ wrote throughout the centuries. Would you please re-cite them?

It’s really irrelevant to me whether they spoke error or truth. I just want to see something from your denomination from, say, the 10th century. Or any century prior to the 19th. Kind of like a paper trail.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course there is documentation in the NT as well as the early church writings. There are many collections of what members of the churches of christ write throughout the centuries but these of course contain error as well as truth, being uninspired. I have given links and reponses to this question before. The difference is that the churches of Christ do not claim to have an “inspired human office” of successors from Peter. If so, it would be reasonable to expect a preserved body of literature from these popes throughout the centuries.

How do you know they contain errors? Those are the writings of the early Christians who some were taught by the Apostles. How far back do the errors go, to the Apostles themselves? Perhaps you can provide the errors and the sources that show them to be errors?

 

[SteveGC]

I must have missed that, Daniel. I saw your claim to the ECF as members of your denomination. But I haven’t seen any other citations of what members of the churches of christ wrote throughout the centuries. Would you please re-cite them?

It’s really irrelevant to me whether they spoke error or truth. I just want to see something from your denomination from, say, the 10th century. Or any century prior to the 19th. Kind of like a paper trail.

PR,

I don’t think Daniel claims that his denomination goes back any further than you say. He doesn’t rely on his denomination for truth. That’s just where he hangs his hat on Sundays, so to speak. It’s much the same way with most Bible-only Christians. I’d wager he doesn’t have much a problem at all with any other church except the Catholic Church, because he’s most interested in refuting claims of Christian authority, as opposed to spreading the gospel regarding “true baptism”, IMO.

His version of “church” is: a like-minded body of believers, found in many Christian denominations in the world, that fully immerses for baptism. I’m not sure of this, of course. But I would wager that there’s not much else he’s concerned about regarding unity of beliefs.

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

I don’t think Daniel claims that his denomination goes back any further than you say. He doesn’t rely on his denomination for truth. That’s just where he hangs his hat on Sundays, so to speak. It’s much the same way with most Bible-only Christians. I’d wager he doesn’t have much a problem at all with any other church except the Catholic Church, because he’s most interested in refuting claims of Christian authority, as opposed to spreading the gospel regarding “true baptism”, IMO.

His version of “church” is: a like-minded body of believers, found in many Christian denominations in the world, that fully immerses for baptism. I’m not sure of this, of course. But I would wager that there’s not much else he’s concerned about regarding unity of beliefs.

Yes, I think you are correct, Steve. In fact, in another thread Daniel has claimed that in essentials of salvation Christians should claim unity, but in non-essentials a diversity of opinion is valid. He just couldn’t provide me with any Scripture verses which say what’s an essential doctrine (like Baptism–which he claims is essential).

Interestingly, even though he claims to follow only Scripture, he has also made evident that his church doesn’t follow Christ’s very clear teaching on divorce and remarriage. But, that is not an essential doctrine to him, so he would not leave his pastor over this doctrine.

How he knows what is essential and what is not is unclear.

 

[tukfryer]

You are misinterpreting this. It says to do as the leaders say because they speak with authority given to them by God but not to follow their example when they sin. Is that so hard to understand?

It was the authority given to Moses, If they spoke with the authority of God then why didn’t they recognize God in Jesus? What it does point to is that the “chair” of Moses was not passed in Gods eyes. Form there it becomes evident that you support the Pharisees to bolster Apostolic succession. An other point, they did not speak for God is that in part they opposed Jesus, so how can both fresh and salt water flow from the same God. I’m beside myself that Catholics will reference the Pharisees as a model of their church authority but I have stated that the CC is IMO that very thing. And just when was it that they sinned? Jesus in Marks account gives a clearer picture than Mathew about what they had done. They “holding the tradition of the elders” the summery “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men”
So how is it that you are exempt from error by adding your traditions today? Because they sat in Moses seat they had the power, The very same thing the CC claims today.
And how is it that you point to the Pharisees power of succession when they had lost connection with the head, pretty clear they were out of touch. I’m giving you the benefit by allowing you, your interpretation that claims you hold a chair of Peter. Possession of the “chair” even if it exists is not proof of Gods approval, LOOK AT THE PHARISEES it is not proof of even knowing God, or even being able to identifying Him in person let alone in the spirit, and more clearly it is not a licenses to add traditions. Read the verses below. We see that in the OT the Pharisees line was a failure it was DOA at the time of Jesus.
All the more reason to question the preservation of a blessing threw the efforts of men.

1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when[a] they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’**

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men**

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Maybe he got it from the oral tradition.

Certainly there are references to bishops of Rome from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius and others, from whom the list is compiled, but I am asking for the papal letters and statements themselves that ought to be preserved as the words of the successors of Peter, vicars of Christ, and the beacons of unity and truth for the WHOLE church. And I do not doubt they made increasingly grandiose claims especially from Stephen’s time (c. 250 AD). I guess the Catholic church did not think their statements/letters were important enough to preserve for posterity.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Certainly there are references to bishops of Rome from Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian, Origen, Eusebius and others, from whom the list is compiled, but I am asking for the papal letters and statements themselves that ought to be preserved as the words of the successors of Peter, vicars of Christ, and the beacons of unity and truth for the WHOLE church. And I do not doubt they made increasingly grandiose claims especially from Stephen’s time (c. 250 AD). I guess the Catholic church did not think their statements/letters were important enough to preserve for posterity.

Maybe they didn’t think they were that important since the Chruch was ONE at that time and they didn’t have to defend the faith against thousands of denominations of Prostestants. I guess it’s similar to those early Church of Christ Protestants who didn’t think it was important to record their history for posterity.

Remember, Peter went from being a fisherman to being the head of Christ’s Church. The Church was young at the time and being more and more established as time went on. Also, we have to remember the persecutions, which martyred many of the early Church fathers. Then there were other important writings that had to be brought together and preserved against forgeries being mixed in, and possible destruction due to persecution and deterioration, since scriptures were written on papyrus in those days. And the whole time, they had to keep the Church’s scattered across Asia from being in error and functioning in full accord with each other and being of one mind and judgment. Then we have to wonder how many of them actually had writings that we’ll never get to see.

 

[paul_c]

It was the authority given to Moses, If they spoke with the authority of God then why didn’t they recognize God in Jesus? What it does point to is that the “chair” of Moses was not passed in Gods eyes. Form there it becomes evident that you support the Pharisees to bolster Apostolic succession. An other point, they did not speak for God is that in part they opposed Jesus, so how can both fresh and salt water flow from the same God. I’m beside myself that Catholics will reference the Pharisees as a model of their church authority but I have stated that the CC is IMO that very thing. And just when was it that they sinned? Jesus in Marks account gives a clearer picture than Mathew about what they had done. They “holding the tradition of the elders” the summery “For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men”
So how is it that you are exempt from error by adding your traditions today? Because they sat in Moses seat they had the power, The very same thing the CC claims today.
And how is it that you point to the Pharisees power of succession when they had lost connection with the head, pretty clear they were out of touch. I’m giving you the benefit by allowing you, your interpretation that claims you hold a chair of Peter. Possession of the “chair” even if it exists is not proof of Gods approval, LOOK AT THE PHARISEES it is not proof of even knowing God, or even being able to identifying Him in person let alone in the spirit, and more clearly it is not a licenses to add traditions. Read the verses below. We see that in the OT the Pharisees line was a failure it was DOA at the time of Jesus.
All the more reason to question the preservation of a blessing threw the efforts of men.

Comparing the Catholic Church’s leadership to the Pharisees is a bit misguided. .The Pharisees were really focused on the minutia of the law while missing the point that they were supposed to be kind to others. I fail to see how that applies to the Catholic church, which rusn hospitals, schools and helps the poor and disabled in dozens of ways. Also, the Church is not fixated on a set of rules, contrary to what you might believe. The precepts of the church, the minimum recommendations for living a sacramental live are described in the catechism as follows:
II. THE PRECEPTS OF THE CHURCH

2041 The precepts of the Church are set in the context of a moral life bound to and nourished by liturgical life. The obligatory character of these positive laws decreed by the pastoral authorities is meant to guarantee to the faithful the very necessary minimum in the spirit of prayer and moral effort, in the growth in love of God and neighbor:

2042 The first precept (“You shall attend Mass on Sundays and holy days of obligation and rest from servile labor”) requires the faithful to sanctify the day commemorating the Resurrection of the Lord as well as the principal liturgical feasts honoring the mysteries of the Lord, the Blessed Virgin Mary, and the saints; in the first place, by participating in the Eucharistic celebration, in which the Christian community is gathered, and by resting from those works and activities which could impede such a sanctification of these days.

The second precept (“You shall confess your sins at least once a year”) ensures preparation for the Eucharist by the reception of the sacrament of reconciliation, which continues Baptism’s work of conversion and forgiveness.

The third precept (“You shall receive the sacrament of the Eucharist at least during the Easter season”) guarantees as a minimum the reception of the Lord’s Body and Blood in connection with the Paschal feasts, the origin and center of the Christian liturgy.

2043 The fourth precept (“You shall observe the days of fasting and abstinence established by the Church”) ensures the times of ascesis and penance which prepare us for the liturgical feasts and help us acquire mastery over our instincts and freedom of heart.

The fifth precept (“You shall help to provide for the needs of the Church”) means that the faithful are obliged to assist with the material needs of the Church, each according to his own ability.

III. MORAL LIFE AND MISSIONARY WITNESS

2044 The fidelity of the baptized is a primordial condition for the proclamation of the Gospel and for the Church’s mission in the world. In order that the message of salvation can show the power of its truth and radiance before men, it must be authenticated by the witness of the life of Christians. “The witness of a Christian life and good works done in a supernatural spirit have great power to draw men to the faith and to God.”

2045 Because they are members of the Body whose Head is Christ, Christians contribute to building up the Church by the constancy of their convictions and their moral lives. The Church increases, grows, and develops through the holiness of her faithful, until “we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ.”

2046 By living with the mind of Christ, Christians hasten the coming of the Reign of God, “a kingdom of justice, love, and peace.” They do not, for all that, abandon their earthly tasks; faithful to their master, they fulfill them with uprightness, patience, and love.

These are not ornerous, nor are they unreasonable. The Catholic church is trying to help people get to heaven. It has no interest in subjucating anyone, nor does it have the temporal power to do so.

 

[SteveGC]

It was the authority given to Moses, If they spoke with the authority of God then why didn’t they recognize God in Jesus?

That’s irrelevant to the authority vested in the Law from God, which they preached. The recognition and acceptance of Jesus was not part of God’s Law which the Pharisees held authority over. So the revelation of Jesus is not of significance for the teaching of observing earthly authority which was gifted from God, and part of His plan for salvation.

1 Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to His disciples,

2 saying: "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses;

3 therefore ALL that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them.

this “ALL that they tell you” is just that: ALL that they tell you. It’s not “everything except that which they have added”. It is ALL.

The Pharisees had the right laws, just the improper example of the Law in their behavior.

 

[SteveGC]

Then there were other important writings that had to be brought together and preserved against forgeries being mixed in, and possible destruction due to persecution and deterioration, since scriptures were written on papyrus in those days. And the whole time, they had to keep the Church’s scattered across Asia from being in error and functioning in full accord with each other and being of one mind and judgment. Then we have to wonder how many of them actually had writings that we’ll never get to see.

What? You mean they couldn’t just run over to Staples and hit the Easy Button? Those ECF’s, I tell ya…can’t even get with it and make sure Dan gets all the paperwork he needs to believe.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What? You mean they couldn’t just run over to Staples and hit the Easy Button? Those ECF’s, I tell ya…can’t even get with it and make sure Dan gets all the paperwork he needs to believe.

No, the papyrus kept jamming the copier.

 

[mark_a]

The inscription are very useful for establishing the fact that infant baptism began as a result of parents’ fearing their child would die. They show that it was NOT the custom to baptize children after birth but before death.

Did they baptize infants or not?

 

[MonFrere]

What? You mean they couldn’t just run over to Staples and hit the Easy Button? Those ECF’s, I tell ya…can’t even get with it and make sure Dan gets all the paperwork he needs to believe.

Do you realize how many TREES that would deprive our earth?

Dan’s purgatory will be to baptize saplings, through sprinkling, of course, until reparation is made of the deforestation he caused.

MonFrere

 

[tukfryer]

That’s irrelevant to the authority vested in the Law from God, which they preached. **The recognition and acceptance of Jesus was not part of God’s Law **which the Pharisees held authority over. So the revelation of Jesus is not of significance for the teaching of observing earthly authority which was gifted from God, and part of His plan for salvation.

The recognition and acceptance of Jesus was not part of God’s Law. You have successfully elevated the Pharisees above Jesus, congratulations what will you do for an encore. Have you ever heard of Christ-centered hermeneutics If not I suggest you look it up. Examples of Christ-centered interpretation can be found all over the NT. It was how the Disciples used the OT to support Jesus.

Here are the Books of Law are you going to tell me that the acceptance and recognition of Jesus is not in them?
GENESIS
EXODUS
LEVITICUS
NUMBERS
DEUTERONOMY
I do think I remember it was Moses that provided these books.

(Gal 3:24) “Therefore the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith”. Most will think 10 commandments when you mention Law. But the “law” was bigger than simply the moral commands under the old covenant. It included the ceremonial washings and civil codes, sprinkling of blood and laws for stoning idol worshippers. It included the seven feasts, the Sabbath, and God’s promises of blessing or cursing based on Israel’s behavior. All of this together Paul says has “become our tutor to lead us to Christ.” God’s law does far more than show us our desperate need for grace. It points to the personal embodiment and fullest expression of grace, Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God.

this “ALL that they tell you” is just that: ALL that they tell you. It’s not “everything except that which they have added”. It is ALL.

The Pharisees had the right laws, just the improper example of the Law in their behavior.

Well according to your statement you dont believe a word from Mark about what Jesus said. Or maybe you are just selectively choosing what parts Jesus said you want to believe. This is a text book case about how teachers use the word to satisfy their own end result. They see a text then they apply to it a broad meaning, any verse that contradicts their definition is ignored. This same tactic is used by what I call name it and claim it teachers or God wants you to be rich send your seed dollars today. They pay no attention to what Jesus said ether.

1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when[a] they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’**

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men**[c]—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”

 

[SteveGC]

The recognition and acceptance of Jesus was not part of God’s Law. You have successfully elevated the Pharisees above Jesus, congratulations what will you do for an encore.

You misunderstand, but I admit I didn’t do a good job with that sentence in describing what I meant. My intent was to tell you that the Pharisee’s not recognizing Jesus was not demanded of them in the Law. There was nothing that stated, in essence, “you will recognize Jesus”. Sure, the Messiah’s existence is all over the Bible, OT and NT alike. It’s an integral part of all of salvation history. I don’t need a lesson from you on that. But you claimed that the Pharisee’s “added on traditions” was what Jesus criticized, and that this was evidenced by their lack of recognition of Jesus Himself as God. And I’m telling you that there was not mandate in the Law for them to recognize Christ. That part was by faith, not by the Law. Because they did not recognize Him, had no bearing on the fact that their Law was intact and not being criticized by Christ, rather the faithful were told to continue to follow it. As for the word acceptance, I admit that further complicates what I intended to say. Thanks for pointing out my choice of poor words.

 

[tukfryer]

Comparing the Catholic Church’s leadership to the Pharisees is a bit misguided. .The Pharisees were really focused on the minutia of the law while missing the point that they were supposed to be kind to others. I fail to see how that applies to the Catholic church, which rusn hospitals, schools and helps the poor and disabled in dozens of ways. Also, the Church is not fixated on a set of rules, contrary to what you might believe. The precepts of the church, the minimum recommendations for living a sacramental live are described in the catechism as follows:

paul c as you can clearly see I did not make that statement or infer such a thing.
Your brothers in the CC made that comparison, in context of supporting apostolic succession.

Are you not going to support your statement?

You are misinterpreting this. It says to do as the leaders say because they speak with authority given to them by God but not to follow their example when they sin. Is that so hard to understand?

Or are you softening the implication by stating I made that connection

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Has anyone read this?
Papal Primacy by Klaus Schatz (Translator), Linda M. Maloney (Translator), John A. Otto
Paperback: 208 pages
Publisher: The Liturgical Press (January 1, 1996)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 081465522X
ISBN-13: 978-0814655221

I realize Catholics are not united on the papacy and what is means and how it developed. What is anyone’s view of this book?

 

[SteveGC]

Well according to your statement you dont believe a word from Mark about what Jesus said. Or maybe you are just selectively choosing what parts Jesus said you want to believe. This is a text book case about how teachers use the word to satisfy their own end result. They see a text then they apply to it a broad meaning, any verse that contradicts their definition is ignored. This same tactic is used by what I call name it and claim it teachers or God wants you to be rich send your seed dollars today. They pay no attention to what Jesus said ether.

You really have a tough time with the “do as they say, not as they do” concept. And so, to you, “All that they tell you” in fact means “all that Moses said to do”, even though it’s written all that THEY (the Pharisee’s) tell you to do".

You believe this, even in light of the fact that a) the follow on words in Matt 23 clearly make a distinction about condemning actions and not doctrine, and b) that further NT writings show that Jesus does not condemn tradition. Jesus did not condemn the practices the Pharisee’s held to, He condemned their hearts as they practiced them… For they practiced them hypocritically, without faith.

 

[tukfryer]

You misunderstand, but I admit I didn’t do a good job with that sentence in describing what I meant. My intent was to tell you that the Pharisee’s not recognizing Jesus was not demanded of them in the Law. There was nothing that stated, in essence, “you will recognize Jesus”. Sure, the Messiah’s existence is all over the Bible, OT and NT alike. It’s an integral part of all of salvation history. I don’t need a lesson from you on that. But you claimed that the Pharisee’s “added on traditions” was what Jesus criticized, and that this was evidenced by their lack of recognition of Jesus Himself as God. And I’m telling you that there was not mandate in the Law for them to recognize Christ. That part was by faith, not by the Law. Because they did not recognize Him, had no bearing on the fact that their Law was intact and not being criticized by Christ, rather the faithful were told to continue to follow it. As for the word acceptance, I admit that further complicates what I intended to say. Thanks for pointing out my choice of poor words.

Luke 19:41 41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes. 43 For days will come upon you when your enemies will build an embankment around you, surround you and close you in on every side, 44 and level you, and your children within you, to the ground; and they will not leave in you one stone upon another, because you did not know the time of your visitation.”

It is rather sad that as you say there was no mandate for them to know yet it changed nothing.
I’ll not pursue it further
Thank you for your honest reply.

Proverbs 18:17
The first to present his case always seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.