The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

1. Why was the Apostle Simon re-named Cephas?
2. Why were not all of the apostles renamed?
3. In Salvations history what was God’s purpose for re-naming people?
4. Who are those re-named and what role did they have?
5. Did they act collegially with their contemporaies as just one of the group? Or sis thay serve some singular leadership role?
6. Why is Jesus the fullfillment of the “Davidic Kingdom”? Why is that language used?

1. Why was the Apostle Simon re-named Cephas? Because it means rock, after Peter confessed Christ as divine.
2. Why were not all of the apostles renamed? Becasue they did not make the confession when Simon Peter did.
3. In Salvations history what was God’s purpose for re-naming people? To give attention to a thing.
4. Who are those re-named and what role did they have? Jacob to Israel, Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul; the significance is in the meaning of the new name not necessarily the role.
5. Did they act collegially with their contemporaies as just one of the group? Or sis thay serve some singular leadership role? Paul received from Christ directly but coordinated with others.
6. Why is Jesus the fullfillment of the “Davidic Kingdom”? Why is that language used? Because Jesus is the Messiah, King of Kings, descendant of David as the prophets spoke.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

There are two types of legendary documents: those based on falsehoods, and those based on truths. For example, much of what is written about in the Illiad is over 700 years old from the author’s perspective, and yet much of what he wrote is true, nonetheless.

The Clementine epistle may be spurious, but it rests upon a basis of commonly accepted historical truths about the origins of the papacy as attested by all the other quotes we have posted concerning the bishop of Rome that predates the epistle.

As for Firmilian and Cyprian’s responses to Stepehn, I have two comments: Everyone love the authority figure and appeals to the authority when it aids in supporting one’s cause or faction, but as soon as that authority takes an opposing position, angry and often thoughtless words are called forth from those censured. This is human nature. Before this conflict Cyprian was want to proclaim the infallible authority of the bishop of Rome.

My second point is this: Stephen’s position prevailed, and both the actions and words of Cyprian and Firmillian were chastised by Augustine several years later when this issue arose again with the Donatists. This is always the pattern during the early years of controversy. Eventually, it is always the bishop of Rome’s position that wins out.

And frankly, this is also the pattern shown in Acts 15. Even thoug through Peter’s decision a decree was sent forth, the Judaising tendency continued. This does not invalidate the authority of Peter and the council, but shows that councils and papal decrees are remedial measures that take time to be processed, and sometimes have to be repeated again and again.

God bless,
Ut

Nonetheless, Firmillian opposed Stephen’s bold claims of authority over the “truth of the Christian Rock.” Stephen was the first to make such claims. Even Victor and Cornelius were not so bold although Victor’s error was boldly stated. Peter only gave his testimony in Acts 15 and made no decision and certainly was not looked upon as the head of the church and vicar of Christ. If so, they would have said, “Let’s do whatever Peter says because he is the Lord’s anointed Chief Steward.” You see, this language is completely absent in scripture.

For the form of baptism to determine its validity is also surely an error when the one baptized holds the nature of God in error, as did the Arians.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You have developed a reputation for refusing to answer questions. This is not dialogue.

1). Please name which ECF is guilty of imposing Greek philosophy regarding the development of doctrine.
2). What year did Hebrews 13:17 expire?
3). Can you name one ECF who rebelled after the Church clarified a teaching? Just one, Daniel.
4). Which OTHER Apostle is named first whenever they are listed with Peter. Chapter and verse please.

I do not wish to respond to questions I have answered although I have done.

Please name which ECF is guilty of imposing Greek philosophy regarding the development of doctrine.

Penance is from the Orphic mysteries 600 BC adopted by a number of ECF’s. Origen believed souls are sent into bodies as punishment for previous sins.

2). What year did Hebrews 13:17 expire?

v.17 “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Obey them on the condition they DO speak the word of God, v.7:

v.7 “Remember your leaders, who **spoke the word of God **to you. Consider the outcome of their way of life and imitate their faith.”

3). Can you name one ECF who rebelled after the Church clarified a teaching? Just one, Daniel.

ECF’s clarified the teaching and added error adopted by the hierarchy. What did Cyprian, Firmillian, and others do after Stephen accepted heretical baptism in 256 AD?

4). Which OTHER Apostle is named first whenever they are listed with Peter. Chapter and verse please.

James is listed first, then Cephas, then John, in Galatians 2:9. This whole passage proves beyond any doubt whatsoever that Peter was not regarded as THE HEAD of the church. Some Catholics even try desperately to say the Peter in v.9 is not the Peter in v.7,8.

6As for those who seemed to be important—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not judge by external appearance—those men added nothing to my message. 7On the contrary, they saw that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the Gentiles, just as Peter had been to the Jews. 8For God, who was at work in the ministry of Peter as an apostle to the Jews, was also at work in my ministry as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9James, Peter and John, those reputed to be pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. **They agreed **that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the Jews.

 

[LionHeart777]

Daniel, I think that the “folly” that Firmilian might be referring to is not the claim to be the successor of St. Peter but rather the “folly” of the stance of not re-baptizing heretics.

I have only went to the “Faith” part of the site and typed in “Firmilian”, (amongst other combos of related keywords) and this seems me to be the p.o.v. of the tracts I read.

here is one focusing on St. Cyprian: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp
(accessed 6/ 14/ 09)

here is the passage in ? I believe:

‘And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Pope] Stephen *, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18], should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority . . . . [Pope] Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against [Donatist] heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver [Titus 3:5]’ (catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9412frs.asp accessed 6/ 12/ 09)

I believe the “folly” of Pope Stephen was, according to Firmilian, that he ‘…should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority…’ (see above passage)

the “many other rocks” and “new buildings” are the heretical “churches” if I understand correctly what Firmilian is saying. In your opinion was Stephen correct in his decision regarding his decision to not rebaptise those who came from the heretics? I believe that he only maintained that they should have hands layed on them (a practice that is I believe still in effect in the Catholic Church today regarding those whose baptisms have been deemed to be valid.)*

 

[utunumsint]

Nonetheless, Firmillian opposed Stephen’s bold claims of authority over the “truth of the Christian Rock.” Stephen was the first to make such claims. Even Victor and Cornelius were not so bold although Victor’s error was boldly stated.

And yet, as history clearly shows, it was Firmillian and Cyprian who were in error. It was also Dyonisius of Alexandria who was in error, and it was the Asian bishops who were in error. The only crime that the bishops of Rome are guilty of is boldly declaring the truth, as their status of Rock impells them to do.

Peter only gave his testimony in Acts 15 and made no decision and certainly was not looked upon as the head of the church and vicar of Christ. If so, they would have said, “Let’s do whatever Peter says because he is the Lord’s anointed Chief Steward.” You see, this language is completely absent in scripture.

For the form of baptism to determine its validity is also surely an error when the one baptized holds the nature of God in error, as did the Arians…

Yes. This is the Catholic position in terms of those baptised into a false conception of the trinity. What Stephen was talking about was the fate of those who appostacised under fear of persecution, or under real torture. Cyprian and firmillian were rigorists who believe that these sins could not be forgiven. Stephen stood up for the truth as was his duty. Firmillian and Cyprian were clearly wrong.

God bless,
Ut

 

[guanophore]

Daniel myself and others have demonstrated a case from scripture that the office of Peters chair “the Pope” is not evident.

You are trying to insert a modern language and culture into the text, so of course, it is not going to work. What Catholics have been attempting to show you is that the office of the successor of Peter grew with the Church, as did many other things, like the doctrine of the Trinity, the hypostatic union, the canon of scripture, etc. The fact that one has trouble recognizing the mustard tree in the present does not negate that it grew from the mustard seed.

Your approach must also find a way to invalidate all the Eastern patriarchies. I challenge you to go to the Eastern Orthodox forum, and try to convince them that the office and duties of the Patriarchs is not found in Scripture. Let me know how it goes.

as so may other Catholics do when faced down with scripture resort to questioning its validity. The debate from Catholics will loop back to Matthew 16:18, then interpretable authority leading to the RCC usurping scripture. Do you not see that?

No, Tuk. Randy has in no way resorted to “questioning validity” of Scripture. What he has done is the opposite, affirming that Scripture is a valid product of the Church. The Catholic Church has no need to “usurp scripture”. The Bible belongs to the Church. The entire NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is inconsistend with Catholic doctrine, because the entire contents was produced from the kerygma of the Church.

The NT is full of verses that support the Father, Son and HS.

Exactly! Just as it is full of verses that support the hierarchy of ministries in the Church. However, not everyone reads and interprets the verses the same way. The Arians, just like their modern day descendents, the Mormons, deny the divinity of Christ, and support their theology using the very same scriptures.

Not so with the Pope.

We read it differently, don’t we?

Catholics read the scripture in the light of Apostolic Teaching. The Aposltes were all in unity that Peter was commissioned by Christ to feed and care for the flock. They never did anything without unity with Peter. Peter’s primacy among the Apostles is clearly evident throughout the scripture.
"Daniel:

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.”

No, but to govern, and part of that governance is about the defninition and application of doctrine. We see this governance at work in the Coucil of Jerusalem in Acts. They did not change the gospel, but did define the doctine more clearly and legislate how the doctrine should be applied.

Daniel:

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

1. changing immersion to pouring for baptism

C’mon, Daniel! You are creating strawmen! You have already admitted on another thread that it has been the constant teaching of the Catholic Church that the fullest sign of baptism is by immersion.

Daniel:

by. baptizing infants who have not been taught nor repented

This is the teaching we have from the Aposltes, Daniel. All the Aposotlic Churches have received and practiced the same. If you wish to purport this is not Apostolic practice, then you will need to also figure out how the other Apostolic Churches (Orthodox, Coptic, and Oriental) have the same practice but are not in union with the CAtholic Church.
This is off topin in this thread, anyway.

Daniel:

1. teaching penance and purgatory as necessary for purification from sin, in addition to the blood of Christ

Penance and purgatory are part of the blood of Christ, not separate from it. It is because He died for our sins, and HIs blood paid the price for our eternal life, that we are eligible to become purified and fit for heaven. Nothing unclean can enter heaven.

The striking thing about the Didache is that the prescription for baptism **excludes infants**, i.e. no infant baptism in the Didache.

No, Daniel. Infants have never been excluded from baptism, just as infants in the OT were not excluded from the covenant. The Disciples understood that Baptism replaced Circumcision as the initiation Rite into the covenant.

The Didache is a Liturgical manual, and the instructions for baptism relate to catechumens. The Didache, like the Scripture, was not intended to function as a compendium of the faith.

I DO believe the Didache was modified to include triple pouring as a substitute for immersion as there was no triple baptism in the earliest dating of the Didache, that we know of.

Part of binding and loosing is the authority to identify the proper form and manner of the sacrament.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, I think that the “folly” that Firmilian might be referring to is not the claim to be the successor of St. Peter but rather the “folly” of the stance of not re-baptizing heretics.

I have only went to the “Faith” part of the site and typed in “Firmilian”, (amongst other combos of related keywords) and this seems me to be the p.o.v. of the tracts I read.

here is one focusing on St. Cyprian: catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp
(accessed 6/ 14/ 09)

here is the passage in ? I believe:

'And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of [Pope] Stephen , that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid [Matt. 16:18], should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority . . . . [Pope] Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter, is stirred with no zeal against [Donatist] heretics, when he concedes to them, not a moderate, but the very greatest power of grace: so far as to say and assert that, by the sacrament of baptism, the filth of the old man is washed away by them, that they pardon the former mortal sins, that they make sons of God by heavenly regeneration, and renew eternal life by the sanctification of the divine laver [Titus 3:5]’ (catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9412frs.asp accessed 6/ 12/ 09)

I believe the “folly” of Pope Stephen was, according to Firmilian, that he ‘…should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority…’ (see above passage)

the “many other rocks” and “new buildings” are the heretical “churches” if I understand correctly what Firmilian is saying. In your opinion was Stephen correct in his decision regarding his decision to not rebaptise those who came from the heretics? I believe that he only maintained that they should have hands layed on them (a practice that is I believe still in effect in the Catholic Church today regarding those whose baptisms have been deemed to be valid.)

Biblical baptism requires faith in the power of God. Correct form imposed upon incorrect faith is no baptism. Did Stephen say that? I think what you see here in Stephen is the beginning of ritual form having sacramental effect even when the faith of the one baptized is lacking or erroneous. Firmillian and I believe Stephen nor any Pope nor human being has authority to overrule what God says. Firmillian also objects to Stephen’s assertion of authority: “…boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter…”

 

[paul_c]

Daniel,
you are absolutely grasping at straws here. For months now, you have been proclaiming Peter’s role as Vicar of Christ null and void because of your own personal interpretation of scripture. Now you are dredging up questionable interpretations of EDF who disagreed with Pope Stephen in a lame attempt to disprove the same primacy, at the same time disregarding dozens of ECF writings which clearly recognize the primacy of Rome.

Daniel,
I fear you have so much invested in denying the Primacy of Rome that you will never see the truth, to your detriment. On the positive side, I believe that your denials are so obvious that it will bring others to understand what you yourself can not see.

 

[guanophore]

The Greek word for baptism is baptizo or baptisma that means to dip, plunge, immerse, overwhelm.

This is why the Catholic Church teaches that immersion is the fullest sign of baptism. Also because the Apostles taught we are “buried with HIm in baptism.”

Repentance and faithfulness are necessary but not additional cleansing/purification of sins by punishments or works.

Well, your language reveals that you do not understand the Apostolic teaching. Repentance, meaning to turn away from sin and toward Christ, comes from the sam root as “penance”. It means to “bear works that befit repentance”. I think punishment is a poor word, but the Apostles taught that we must work hard to keep the flesh in subjection to the Spirit. Sometimes it may seem “punishing”, but it is not taking upon oneself the punishment for one’s own sins.

1 Cor 9:27
I pommel my body and subdue it, lest after preaching to others I myself should be disqualified.

In this one verse the Apostle refers to both penance, and the possibility of failing to obtain one’s salvation. This is why we see them together. Some take this too literally, and actually physically “pommel” themselves, which is not the intent of the Apostle. Fasting, though it can be seen as “punishment” to the flesh, is intended for spiritual enrichment.

In any case, your characterization of these activities as “works” is misleading. These are those works that God has prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them. The discipline of the flesh through penance is not a work of the flesh, but of the Spirit, as sacred work.

Rom 12:1
12:1 I appeal to you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.

Penance is part of our spiritual worship.
Rom 6:12-14

12 Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions. 13 Do not yield your members to sin as instruments of wickedness, but yield yourselves to God as men who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments of righteousness. 14 For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace.

It is only because of grace that we are able to prevent sin from reigning over us.

 Paul was not saying Christ's afflictions were lacking but that he Paul wanted to conform completely to His death. He is saying also that he needs to control his body to keep himself **from** sin; this is not punishing his body **because** it has sinned (penance).

I agree with you, but there is an element missing from what you say here. Christ’s sacrifice was complete in every way. When Paul mentions adding to it what is lacking, he is speaking of HImself. Christs’ sacrifice is of no benefit to those who choose not to add themselves to it.

The other point is that suffering, joined with His suffering on the cross, is beneficial to the penitent, as well as the rest of the Body. This if fodder for another thread, though. It seems that you have so many misunderstandings that it is hard for you to stay on the subject.

I do not believe the false doctrine of eternal security. One must pray and beg God’s forgiveness just as Peter told Simon the sorcerer in Acts 8.

It is good that you have embraced yet another Apostolic teaching, and have not fallen for the heresies spinning from the Reformation. The Apostles also taught that one should confess their sins to the elders (priests) so they could be forgiven, and He gave the Apostles the authority to remit sins.

 

[guanophore]

By the fall of adam all have the opportunity to sin and do sin,

No, Daniel. We have the opportunity to sin because God created us with free will. Humans were created with this ability, just as were the angels.

but no scripture teaches that babies are sinful.

Not guilty of personal sin, no, but all are born into the world under original sin (not in right communion with God). Everyone is, by virtue of the sin of Adam, under the death penalty;

1 Cor 15:20-22
21 For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

John 3:18-19
18 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

The reason those who fail to believer are “condemned already” is because we are born into the world with the stain of original sin.

Luke 18 teaches their innocence not their sinfulness.

Yes, with regard to personal sin, children are considered innocent until the age of reason. But infants and children still need to come to Jesus for salvation, and we are not to hinder them. The Aposltes taught that we “come to Him” in baptism.

There is no evidence of infants in any of the household baptisms, (see Acts 16)

Do you think they were houses of ill repute, containing only adults? Do you think they sold off the children? Why would these households not have children?

This is really off topic. I guess it is your thread, so you can derail it if you like.

So this is saying Peter is to be the ONE Shepherd?

Jesus is the One Shepherd. He has appointed shepherds (pastors) to care for His One Flock. He gave to Peter special gifts for a specific ministry.

So this is saying Peter is to be the ONE Shepherd of Christ’s flock, in the place of Christ on earth?

Because the Father revealed to Peter the identity of Jesus, Peter became the sign of unity in the flock. When Jesus told all of them that they would scatter, He then informed only Peter (using the singular) that He would pray for Peter. Peter’s faith was restored, and He did strengthen His brethren. Those who wish to be included in the confirmation of their faith better get in with Peter so they can benefit from the prayer and gifts of Jesus.

So this is saying Peter is to be THE HEAD of the church on earth and the basis of unity, and “keys” means he must also have successors to pass the keys on to?

The Keys are given to an “officer”. The vicar of the house does not replace the owner, as Jesus illustrates in many of His parables, specifically that of the vinyard and the unrighteous servants. The ownership of the Body is God’s. Keys authorize the vicar to conduct certain duties as required by the Owner. In the physical absence of the Owner, the keeper of the Keys is in charge.

Luke 10:16

16 “He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

This is how authority works.

So this is saying that Peter had the sole duty within his appointed office as HEAD of the church, to “confirm” all other Christians?

No, Peter had many duties, only one of them was confirmation of the brethren. Also, this ministry has been extended to all the bishops from the Apostles. In a unique manner, Peter is responsible for confirming his “brethren” (fellow apostles and disciples) to an extent not given to the others.

 

[guanophore]

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

I am not even sure what this means. What is a “singular bishop”?

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

I am not sure what this means either, or if it is even relevant. Waht does “papal” mean?

You are trying to insert a later century term into the Petrine ministry given at the time of Jesus.

 

[mawst]

1. Why was the Apostle Simon re-named Cephas? Because it means rock, after Peter confessed Christ as divine.
2. Why were not all of the apostles renamed? Becasue they did not make the confession when Simon Peter did.
3. In Salvations history what was God’s purpose for re-naming people? To give attention to a thing.
4. Who are those re-named and what role did they have? Jacob to Israel, Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul; the significance is in the meaning of the new name not necessarily the role.
5. Did they act collegially with their contemporaies as just one of the group? Or sis thay serve some singular leadership role? Paul received from Christ directly but coordinated with others.
6. Why is Jesus the fullfillment of the “Davidic Kingdom”? Why is that language used? Because Jesus is the Messiah, King of Kings, descendant of David as the prophets spoke.

Hello again Daniel, I think you’re missing that Jesus was specifically evoking Isaiah 22:15-24. This is confirmed by non Catholic biblical scholars as well (like albright in the following quote).

“Isaiah 22, verse 15, undoubtedly lies behind this saying of Jesus (St. Matthew 16:18). The keys are the symbol of authority and … the same authority vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household in ancient Israel. In Isaiah 22 Eliakim is described as having the same authority.”

 

[SteveGC]

If so, they would have said, “Let’s do whatever Peter says because he is the Lord’s anointed Chief Steward.” You see, this language is completely absent in scripture.

You know, Daniel…It’s very admirable that you go to great lengths to read and study Christian history, and your arguments, whether right or wrong, are quite compelling to read.

But when you make this sort of statement (quoted above), I think you lose alot of credibility. It only emboldens the Catholic position of the primacy of Peter (or any other debated doctrine) when someone, regardless of their eloquent and studied approach, makes the claim that because Scripture does not explicity say something, it must be false.

Trust me on this…you would be better served for your argument to not make that particular claim (the need for explicitness in scripture). You need a better argument, because anyone on the fence (and even some on your side of it) know that that is just not a credible defence for ANY position.

I’m still trying to fathom how and where you picked up that belief…that it has to say so very clearly in scripture. As if you are “owed” that from God. It actually is borderline arrogant, although I know you don’t intend for it to be that way.

Just an observation.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Of course after 325, the early Catholic church had the full financial and legal support of Imperial Rome. Any opposition was marginalized and driven into hiding. The true church remained pacifist while the imperial church justified Christians in the military. Scripture did not reject the singular leadership of Peter because he had none, and no scripture claims he was THE leader of the church or of any group within the church.

So again, you have nothing to validate your claims, even though we have historic writings from Jews, pagans and other secularists of that time period, and up to the present time, all of whom did not support the Catholic Church?

Think about your claim here. The Jews had been accused of handing over the Messiah and certainly was not supportive of the Church, yet we have no writings from them concerning your accusations. The Romans tried to crush Christianity all together, but instead decided to support the Catholic Church. Historians throughout history have tried to invalidate the Church, yet there’s no writings from them either. If your claims were true, someone, somewhere and sometime previous to the Protestant reformation would have written about it.

The Catholic Church has recorded the defense against heretics since the beginning, but they have no recorded evidence against a “pacifist Church” that you claim existed, again without any sources to support such a claim.

There are scriptures showing Christ’s actions and intentions for the primacy of Peter, but you reject that and continue claiming that no scripture claims he was the leader of the Church or any group within the Church. Just as you cannot see the specifics of Peter’s primacy, you can produce no scriptures that reject a leadership of the Church.

Is it another tactic to misrepresent opposing views? I NEVER said scripture does not describe Peter in a leadership role, but that he is NEVER described as a singular leader or head of the church.

It’s not a tactic Daniel. Being the only one renamed and told the Church would be built upon the new name he was given, being the only one to be given the keys to the kingdom of heaven, being the first to be told he had the power to bind and loose on earth, and being singled out to “feed His sheep” does not describe a singular leadership? Is this a tactic to justify an assumption of authority clearly not specified in scriptures?

I have expressed my views on this numerous times.

You have “vaguely” expressed your views and failed to answer specific questions referencing the scriptures you “picked” to try and support your view.

The only post-NT writing I have refered to is a little book by Hans Grimm who is a descendant of non-Catholic Christians from the 12th century in Alsace. As for the ECF’s, the development of doctrine (historical theology) can be easily traced from “First Clement” through the 4th century as regards the papacy and many other practices and beliefs.

Hans Grimm, a Nazi supporter, could not have been a descendant of non-Catholic Christians from the 12th century, as there was only Catholic Christians up until the 1500s, when the Protestant reformation took place. Secondly, his first published works was in the early 1900s. Can you provide any sources from those “12th century” non-Catholic Christians?

I’d be willing to discuss the first early Church father’s writings and look at the doctrines they taught. You claimed they belonged to your Church and caveated the statement that they made mistakes, without any sources to state there were mistakes from anyone else. There were many heretics that disagreed with the early Church fathers, but I can’t imagine you agreeing with their theology as recorded in history.

 

[LionHeart777]

Biblical baptism requires faith in the power of God. Correct form imposed upon incorrect faith is no baptism. Did Stephen say that? I think what you see here in Stephen is the beginning of ritual form having sacramental effect even when the faith of the one baptized is lacking or erroneous. Firmillian and I believe Stephen nor any Pope nor human being has authority to overrule what God says. Firmillian also objects to Stephen’s assertion of authority: “…boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter…Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter…”

---

When I first read your post about Firmilian on Pope Stephen and his “folly” I thought you
were trying to argue that his “folly” was his appeal to being St. Peter’s successor. When I decided to check it out, even a brief investigation on this site led me to believe that the “folly” was Stephen’s stance toward re-baptism. Maybe I’m wrong, but as far as I can see that seems to be the case. Whether or not he thinks Pope Stephen can legitimately appeal to the authority that he is claiming by virtue of being St. Peter’s successor appears to be a seperate issue and not the so called “folly” of the Pope.

 

[YADA]

1. Why was the Apostle Simon re-named Cephas? Because it means rock, after Peter confessed Christ as divine.

Yes, and much more … because Jesus changed his name and then gave him an office with authority … sorry - you limit the sciptures taking away the entire context … Jess re-named Simon to Peter and instituted His Church built upon Peter and the Office as head of the fullfillment of the Davidic Kingdom [the Church] with Jesus as its head - the King of Kings …

1. Why were not all of the apostles renamed? Becasue they did not make the confession when Simon Peter did.

True … that is why Peter was chosen to head the Church and not one of them …

1. In Salvations history what was God’s purpose for re-naming people? To give attention to a thing.

Again you limit the purpose making it almost unmeaningful … these individuals had a distinct - leadership - role in leading and instructing the people of God to grow in relationship and serve that God

1. Who are those re-named and what role did they have? Jacob to Israel, Abram to Abraham, Saul to Paul; the significance is in the meaning of the new name not necessarily the role.

Sorry you are only partly right … God did not change Paul’a name … Paul is just the latinized rendition of Saul … and Paul made that change himself … you left out Sarai to Sarah … God changed their names and gave them a distinct role … you cannot separate the meaning of the change in name from the role they held in Salvation hsitory …

1. Did they act collegially with their contemporaies as just one of the group? Or sis thay serve some singular leadership role? Paul received from Christ directly but coordinated with others.

Yes, there are roles that are handled collegially and roles that are not … even Paul acted as a “leader” at times … That is part of your problem … you view the Office of the Head of the Church as a dictatorship and much like the worst of those exaamples throughout history … the one who holds the office - the Chair of Peter - is the Servant of the Servants of God … he is not like Hitler or Pol Pot … he unifies the people, strenghtens the ministers of God. It is collegial most of the time but when or if a firm decision regarding faith and morals is necessary the Pope is required by his office to act … this has been true throughout the history of th Chruch … has it changed? well, yes as the world has … The Chruch was instructed to spread the word of God throughout the World - we have … and throughout the ages … we are … Planes, trains and internet … never concieved by the original Apostles - all are part and parcel of todays … Even Paul initially thought that Jesus was returning in his lifetime … did the Chruch have to change based upon the fact that Jesus did returned as soon as expected … YES …

1. Why is Jesus the fullfillment of the “Davidic Kingdom”? Why is that language used? Because Jesus is the Messiah, King of Kings, descendant of David as the prophets spoke.

Yes and JEsus instituted the Office of Prime Minister of His Church … in Peter and those who fill his office to this day

 

[LionHeart777]

I wanted to add the following regarding Firmilian and this passage.

I don’t think that he flat out rejects the claim that Pope Stephen has such authority in the passage we are discussing, as (if I’m not mistaken), Ray Ryland pointed out in the tract I posted above. I believe he (Ryland) is referring to this passage when he wrote:

"…Firmilian responded to Cyprian’s letter, and Stephen’s ruling, in a letter filled with indignation and bitterness. Yet Firmilian’s letter itself implicitly recognized the Pope’s authority. Firmilian expressed no indignation over Stephen’s emphasizing his role as Peter’s successor and his claim to what we call universal jurisdiction.

If Stephen’s claim had not been universally accepted, Firmilian’s ultimate weapon against the despised ruling would have been to deny and reject papal authority. That weapon was not available to him, so all he could do was fulminate in bitterest terms…" (catholic.com/thisrock/1997/9704eaw.asp accessed 6/ 14/ 09)

 

[guanophore]

The true church remained pacifist while the imperial church justified Christians in the military.

This is just a groundless speculation, Daniel. Pacifism is an individual conviction, and has always been chosen by individuals. The Church has never opposed participation in the military, even since the time of John the Baptist, who did not counsel converts to leave their military profession. Of course there were always some converts to the faith who decided they could no longer, in good conscience participate in the army.

Luke 3:13-14
14 Soldiers also asked him, “And we, what shall we do?” And he said to them, “Rob no one by violence or by false accusation, and be content with your wages.”

Does this sound to you like a directive to leave the military? Honestly it really seems that you will go to ridiculous lengths to convince yourself that the Catholic Church was corrupted and abandoned by Christ.

Scripture did not reject the singular leadership of Peter because he had none, and no scripture claims he was THE leader of the church or of any group within the church.

I gotta agree with you there. I has always seemed to me a wild goose chase for you to search for proof of this “singular supremacy”. This is not the model that Jesus taught, nor what was followed by the Church. Even to this day, the successor of Peter signs his name “servant of the servants of God”. Peter reveals himself in his letters to be a very humble man, and collegial. He was not the type to throw his weight around, and followed the teaching of Christ about leadership:

Matt 20:25-28
25 But Jesus called them to him and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them. 26 It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 27 and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; 28 even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

John 13:12-17
12 When he had washed their feet, and taken his garments, and resumed his place, he said to them, "Do you know what I have done to you? 13 You call me Teacher and Lord; and you are right, for so I am. 14 If I then, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you also ought to wash one another’s feet. 15 For I have given you an example, that you also should do as I have done to you. 16 Truly, truly, I say to you, a servant is not greater than his master; nor is he who is sent greater than he who sent him. 17 If you know these things, blessed are you if you do them.

Peter understood that his gift was follow his Lord in his attitude of humility.

You are looking in scripture for your own modern notion of secular supremacy.

Is it another tactic to misrepresent opposing views? I NEVER said scripture does not describe Peter in a leadership role, but that he is NEVER described as a singular leader or head of the church.

The gift of the bishopric is,by definition, not “singular”. This worldy notion that you are trying to impose into history will not be found in the Apostolic succession. What we do see is complete unity among the Apostles, just as the successor of Peter has today with the college of bishops.

I have expressed my views on this numerous times.

Indeed you have. Views that are not consistent with the Apostolic Teaching.

As for the ECF’s, the development of doctrine (historical theology) can be easily traced from “First Clement” through the 4th century as regards the papacy and many other practices and beliefs.

Indeed it can, one of those being Trinity. However, for some reason, those doctrines with which you do not agree you imagine did not exist prior to the written record. This is an erroneous method for historical theology.

 

[guanophore]

Victor was a very powerful bishop of Rome but never did he assert he was the successor of Peter or even the head of the whole church. He did assert an excommunication of eastern churches who observed a different paschal feast and was soundly rebuked by Irenaeus whereupon he retracted.

There was no need for any successor of Peter to “assert” his position. Anyway, such a person does not replace Jesus as Head of His One Body, the Church.

The fact that Irenaeus had to rebue Victor is evidence in itself that his excommunication was valid, and had to be retracted.

The first bishop of Rome to assert that was head of the church and successor of Peter was Pope Stephen in 250 AD, three decades after the same words he used were written in the spurious Clementine Homilies. The modern notion of the papacy was defined in this spurious document.

This is the first extant historical reference to it, however, all of them were successors of Peter, and wree considered as such. The modern notion of the papacy was asserted by Christ, and is contained in the NT. However, I do grant you that the role has developed markedly through the centuries.

I suppose this is your way of saying that the office of the pope is as spurious as the document?

I am curious, Daniel, what would have to change for you if you were to believe that the Pope is the successor of Peter?

 

[guanophore]

Why are you bringing out this quote? what does it apply to?

It supports his belief that the “true church” is invisible and very small.