The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Prodigal_Son1]

PS1., Dan’s authority he will say comes from Sola Scritura, which to him means his authority comes from God, since he believes God wrote or dictated the Bible word-for-word.

He is a member of the so-called, one and only “church of Christ.” They beleive they are the only church contianing the ONLY Christians. This is in spite of the fact his denomination never existed before 1906, people born before 1906 are all going to hell. They also think the true church stopped following the Bible exclusively and ceased to exist until the founders of his denomination (Alexander and Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, Ben Franklin and others) restored the church back into existence.

You are wasting your key strokes conversing with him.

Sola scriptura is a man made tradition. It’s not in scriptures, anywhere.

I don’t feel as if I’m wasting key strokes. While they maybe wasted on some, it strengthens the faith of those who might not know how to defend against man-made teachings. That’s my reason for answering the same questions and assertions made by the multitude of Protestants that come here to show Catholics the errors of their ways.

To believe the Church was in need of restoration, is to doubt Christ’s words that, “even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It shows doubt in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the consummation of the world.

**Daniel, is it your goal to proseltyze Catholics away from the Catholic Church and become members in another Church? **

 

[Randy_Carson]

This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.

1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a definer and protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.

The “earthly head of the Church with successors” was understood from the beginning of the Church in the apostolic period.

Clement, who was mentioned in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians and a disciple of Simon Peter, became the fourth Bishop of Rome (later called the “pope”) during the lifetime of the Apostle John, so his succession to this office clearly qualifies as occuring during the Apostolic period. Concerning apostolic succession, Clement wrote:
Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier… Our Apostles knew through Our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry (Pope St. Clement of Rome, Epistle to the Corinthians 42:4-5, 44:1-3 [80 A.D.]).
From this, we see that the Apostles entrusted their disciples with the clear instruction that reliable men were to be appointed and to succeed one another in positions of leadership.

Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, was a disciple of Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna, who was a disciple of the Apostle John. Writing in the late second century, Irenaeus documented the successors of Peter:
The blessed Apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the Church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the Epistle to Timothy. To him succeeded Anencletus; and after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement was chosen from the episcopate. He had seen the blessed Apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that He still heard the echoes of the preaching of the Apostles, and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the Apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith. To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded; and Alexander succeeded Evaristus. Then, sixth after the Apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telesphorus, who also was gloriously martyred. Then Hyginus; after him, Pius; and after him, Anicetus. Soter succeeded Anicetus, and now, in the twelfth place after the Apostles, the lot of the episcopate has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the Apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us (St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, A.D. 180, [3,3,3]).
Now, if apostolic succession is NOT a clear teaching of the early church, why does Irenaeus make such an effort to document this list of Bishops of Rome?

Tertullian speaks in similar fashion when he writes:
Moreover, if there be any [heresies] bold enough to plant themselves in the midst of the apostolic age, so that they might seem to have been handed down by the Apostles because they were from the time of the Apostles, we can say to them: let them show the origins of their Churches, let them unroll the order of their bishops, running down in succession from the beginning, so that their first bishop shall have for author and predecessor some of one of the Apostles or of the apostolic men who continued steadfast with the Apostles. For this is the way in which the apostolic Churches transmit their lists: like the Church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the Church of the Romans where Clement was ordained by Peter. In just the same way the other Churches display those whom they have as sprouts from the apostolic seed, having been established in the episcopate by the Apostles (Tertullian, The Demurrer Against the Heretics, A.D. 200, [32,1]).
Now, in light of these quotations from truly ancient sources, is there any doubt that the Early Church Fathers viewed apostolic succession as a fundamental characteristic of the true Church?

Can you produce a single quotation from any Church Father suggesting his opposition to the idea of apostolic succession?

Tertullian’s challenge could be easily put to you, Daniel. Show us your “church” records, and let us examine the lineage of your teachers to see whether they are descended from the apostles. Otherwise, there is no reason for us to believe that many of your doctrines have any apostolic origin whatsoever.

 

[Randy_Carson]

PS1., Dan’s authority he will say comes from Sola Scritura, which to him means his authority comes from God, since he believes God wrote or dictated the Bible word-for-word.

He is a member of the so-called, one and only “church of Christ.” They beleive they are the only church contianing the ONLY Christians. This is in spite of the fact his denomination never existed before 1906, people born before 1906 are all going to hell. They also think the true church stopped following the Bible exclusively and ceased to exist until the founders of his denomination (Alexander and Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, Ben Franklin and others) restored the church back into existence.

You are wasting your key strokes conversing with him.

Pipper-

Are you saying that (like the Mormons) Dan believes in the Universal Apostasy of the Church?

 

[MonFrere]

This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.

1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a definer and protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.
2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ for church unity when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.

I believe your hypothesis is flawed for two major reasons.

FIRST - In the very beginning Christianity wasn’t a religion that was actually separated from Judaism. It wasn’t for several years that there was a group recognized as Christians.

(Acts 11:26) And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Antioch is over 300 miles north of Jerusalem; a long distance in those days. The Christian gospel and history is what created the divide and this divide took time to DEVELOP a definite OBJECTIVE Church structure. However, what others have written about the scriptural witness of St. Peter being the head of the apostles, always being listed first in various scriptural groupings, etc. is still not without great significance. Perhaps, at first, the twelve simply thought they were going to be disciples of Jesus but still working within the framework of Judaism. In other words, St. Peter was to be their leader, but still they were to be working within the objective framework of Judaism. After some considerable time it became obvious that the disciples of Jesus were to be distinct from Judaism; this would be especially the case as the gentile population took to the message of the gospel. And THIS is the reason that we have the early references to the Church being the Catholic (Universal) Church composed of both Jew and Gentile.

This history mitigates against your premise that there would of necessity need to be the clearest outlines of this in scripture and that there would be no development in the objective structure of the Church. Actually, if your premise is the correct one Jesus should have left clear guidelines as to which aspects of the Old Covenant would be subsumed into the New Covenant, which parts would be discarded, which parts would be kept in tact – but scripture indicates NOTHING OF THIS.

… and this leads to Point Two …

SECOND - There was the nascent Church from Pentecost (Acts 2) far before there was any knowledge or any definite body of writings that might be construed as “scripture”. Even if we put Revelation as written at 90 AD and an immediate recognition of it as canonical (which history says it wasn’t easily recognized as scripture, but was the topic of debate in the Church) there was a period of 60 years before any body of scripture could have been identified. Even with the best of estimates it would have been well into the second century before there even was a non-agreed upon list of books, letters, gospels, etc. that could have been considered as authoritative, let alone canonical. But the Church was a dynamic living body that was growing by leaps and bounds - witness the book of Acts - and the Church had to grow without “scriptural guidance” because it just wasn’t available.

Your first point – logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period – doesn’t of necessity HAVE TO LOGICALLY FOLLOW. What we can derive from scripture is that St. Peter was looked upon as the leader of the apostles. Jesus made this clear enough for the apostles to understand this point. The fact that St. Peter was given “the keys” is sufficient enough evidence to give the apostles the warrant, because of Old Testament precedent, to understand that Peter’s office would of necessity be an office that would be handed down from generation to generation. A full spelling out of all the details is not of necessity a logical need. With the promised Holy Spirit to guide the Church the need for specifics is not at all necessary because of the precedent that runs throughout all of scripture - the just shall live by faith. Look at the promise made to Abram. The information given to him is scant AT BEST – but with hindsight and history behind us we can not see the full import of that promise made to the Father of the Faithful. I see absolutely no reason for anything different given to St. Peter and the Apostles for what was going to take place in the future and what Christ has in mind when He said - I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH. I think the real problem lies in those who after 2000 years of church history look around and say WHAT CHURCH?

MonFrere

 

[pipper]

Pipper-

Are you saying that (like the Mormons) Dan believes in the Universal Apostasy of the Church?

I really can’t see into Dan’ mind and give a yes answer…BUT that is the doctrine of his denomination, and that is what I was taught in the so called “church of Christ” before I converted to the real Church of Christ.

Actually though, even though Dan will deny it the Mormons and his denomination have a lot in common.

They both beleive that the early church “apostacised” itself out of existence, and their founders “restored” it back.

They both believe that one must be baptised by total submersion for the remission of sin.

They both “observe” the “Lord’s Supper” each Sunday, and any other day is forbidden.

They both have a non-ordained ministry without seminary education that all males belong to.

And one of the early mormon leaders originally was a member of the campbellite sect, who brought a lot of the Campbell’s teaching with him.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I really can’t see into Dan’ mind and give a yes answer…BUT that is the doctrine of his denomination, and that is what I was taught in the so called “church of Christ” before I converted to the real Church of Christ.

Actually though, even though Dan will deny it the Mormons and his denomination have a lot in common.

They both beleive that the early church “apostacised” itself out of existence, and their founders “restored” it back.

They both believe that one must be baptised by total submersion for the remission of sin.

They both “observe” the “Lord’s Supper” each Sunday, and any other day is forbidden.

They both have a non-ordained ministry without seminary education that all males belong to.

And one of the early mormon leaders originally was a member of the campbellite sect, who brought a lot of the Campbell’s teaching with him.

Isn’t that sect of Church of Christ more Pentecostal, or charismatic in their beliefs? Specifically do they believe in the “initial evidence” of tongues and is it their belief that it’s a requirement, or sign, of salvation?

 

[pipper]

Isn’t that sect of Church of Christ more Pentecostal, or charismatic in their beliefs? Specifically do they believe in the “initial evidence” of tongues and is it their belief that it’s a requirement, or sign, of salvation?

The only c of cers who were Pentecostals were the few followers of Pat Boone, yep THE Pat Boone who sang.

All the rest are very much against glossolalia, or any other emotional display. They go by (strictly) the 5 biblically “authorised” acts of worship.

Prayer, making it up as a MAN goes along.

Reading the Bible.

The “Lord’s Supper” where they pass around inexpensive plates of Jewish Matzo crackers, and tiny plastic glasses of grape juice. They have an extempore prayer before passing the matzoth, and another extempore prayer for the grape juice.

Singing, no instruments allowed.

Taking up a collection which they call the offereing.

And “preaching the Gospel” which takes up at least 3/4 of the worship time.

They take St. Paul very seriously. Women are to be absolutely silent in church except for the one exception of singing.

They have no female altar servers(no altars), no females may read the Bible in front of the congregation, nor may they assist (even silently) in passing the “Lord’s Supper”.

In spite of the extemporaneous prayers, their worship is very solemn, formal even, they take reverently with order very seriously…

They have kept one thing I wish we Catholics had, silence in worship, most Protestants fill their churches with chatter until the service begins, not they.

 

[sodak]

This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.

2 questions.

1. Which Scripture? Which version, edition of the Bible, and please give a good reason why.
2. Why should the office of the papacy have to be mentioned in scripture?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Again, and last time for me I despise circular discussions, according to your private interpretation. Where do you get authority to tell another their interpretation is wrong?

Please show any documentation for your interpretations since the beginning of Christ’s Church. The interpretations I have provided come from 2000 years of Church history.

My documentation is from scripture and from the fact that if the voice of Christ was in Rome after Peter, why do we hear **nothing from this voice until Victor **who makes his debut by erroneously excommunicating numerous churches over which day to celebrate the Paschal festival?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Did I read too much into Peter’s name always being first when the Apostles are listed by name?

Did I read too much into Peter always speaking for all the Apostles?

Did I read too much into Peter being named in verses where those with him were not referred too by name? (But Peter and they that were with him… But go, tell his disciples and Peter…)

Did I read too much into Peter’s name appearing 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the other Apostles put together?

Yes, you are reading into the frequency of mention, that Peter was appointed to be the HEAD of the church on earth and the unique voice (VICAR) of Christ.

Think about it. You believe Peter was named by Christ to be the singular HEAD of the church on earth. Yet in spite of the frequent mention of his name, Peter is not referred to as head of the church even once. And Paul refers to Cephas as only one of three pillars in Jerusalem and names him second among James, Cephas, and John.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

2 questions.

1. Which Scripture? Which version, edition of the Bible, and please give a good reason why.
2. Why should the office of the papacy have to be mentioned in scripture?

Why should the papacy have to be mentioned in scripture? First of all, you admit it is not in scripture. Second, if the office that defines all Christian truth and doctrine is not from the beginning of the church, it comes too late in time.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The only c of cers who were Pentecostals were the few followers of Pat Boone, yep THE Pat Boone who sang.

All the rest are very much against glossolalia, or any other emotional display. They go by (strictly) the 5 biblically “authorised” acts of worship.

Prayer, making it up as a MAN goes along.

Reading the Bible.

The “Lord’s Supper” where they pass around inexpensive plates of Jewish Matzo crackers, and tiny plastic glasses of grape juice. They have an extempore prayer before passing the matzoth, and another extempore prayer for the grape juice.

Singing, no instruments allowed.

Taking up a collection which they call the offereing.

And “preaching the Gospel” which takes up at least 3/4 of the worship time.

They take St. Paul very seriously. Women are to be absolutely silent in church except for the one exception of singing.

They have no female altar servers(no altars), no females may read the Bible in front of the congregation, nor may they assist (even silently) in passing the “Lord’s Supper”.

In spite of the extemporaneous prayers, their worship is very solemn, formal even, they take reverently with order very seriously…

They have kept one thing I wish we Catholics had, silence in worship, most Protestants fill their churches with chatter until the service begins, not they.

Thanks pipper, but you left out baptism for salvation.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Pipper-

Are you saying that (like the Mormons) Dan believes in the Universal Apostasy of the Church?

No, I believe there have always been Christians on earth and the church has always existed from Acts 2 onward.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Sola scriptura is a man made tradition. It’s not in scriptures, anywhere.

I don’t feel as if I’m wasting key strokes. While they maybe wasted on some, it strengthens the faith of those who might not know how to defend against man-made teachings. That’s my reason for answering the same questions and assertions made by the multitude of Protestants that come here to show Catholics the errors of their ways.

To believe the Church was in need of restoration, is to doubt Christ’s words that, “even the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.” It shows doubt in Christ’s promise to be with His Church until the consummation of the world.

**Daniel, is it your goal to proseltyze Catholics away from the Catholic Church and become members in another Church? **

The gates of hell refers to the fact that death would not overcome or prevail against the church. The resurrection of Christ guarantees this.

My goal is to share information, not to proselytize. There have been many thousands of Christians in the Catholic church over the centuries.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

My documentation is from scripture and from the fact that if the voice of Christ was in Rome after Peter, why do we hear **nothing from this voice until Victor **who makes his debut by erroneously excommunicating numerous churches over which day to celebrate the Paschal festival?

You have shown no such scriptures. You have disagreed on scriptures that I provided.

You make comments without sources? I’ll be honest, I expected more from you.

 

[pipper]

Thanks pipper, but you left out baptism for salvation.

Baptism for salvation is not one the the 5 “authorised” acts of worship.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

PS1., Dan’s authority he will say comes from Sola Scritura, which to him means his authority comes from God, since he believes God wrote or dictated the Bible word-for-word.

He is a member of the so-called, one and only “church of Christ.” They beleive they are the only church contianing the ONLY Christians. This is in spite of the fact his denomination never existed before 1906, people born before 1906 are all going to hell. They also think the true church stopped following the Bible exclusively and ceased to exist until the founders of his denomination (Alexander and Thomas Campbell, Barton Stone, Ben Franklin and others) restored the church back into existence.

You are wasting your key strokes conversing with him.

For history of the churches of Christ before America see.

 

[Randy_Carson]

My documentation is from scripture and from the fact that if the voice of Christ was in Rome after Peter, why do we hear **nothing from this voice until Victor **who makes his debut by erroneously excommunicating numerous churches over which day to celebrate the Paschal festival?

Obviously you have missed hearing the voice of Clement, the fourth Bishop of Rome.

Clement was a disciple of Peter and Paul, and he is mentioned in Paul’s Letter to the Philippians.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes, you are reading into the frequency of mention, that Peter was appointed to be the HEAD of the church on earth and the unique voice (VICAR) of Christ.

Think about it. You believe Peter was named by Christ to be the singular HEAD of the church on earth. Yet in spite of the frequent mention of his name, Peter is not referred to as head of the church even once. And Paul refers to Cephas as only one of three pillars in Jerusalem and names him second among James, Cephas, and John.

There is much more mention, according to Church interpretation. What there is no mention of, is sola scriptura or scriptures supporting private interpretation. Those with private interpretation are preaching a different Gospel.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No, I believe there have always been Christians on earth and the church has always existed from Acts 2 onward.

But you cannot produce one writing from any of those Christians of the “invisible” Church?