The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[kepha1]

**

**Isa. 22: 19 **

**I will thrust you from your office, and you will be pulled down from your station. **20 **In that day I will call my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, **21 **and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your sash on him, and will commit your authority to his hand. And he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. **22 **And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. **23 **And I will fasten him like a peg in a secure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house. 24 And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father’s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. 25 In that day, says the LORD of hosts, the peg that was fastened in a sure place will give way; and it will be cut down and fall, and the burden that was upon it will be cut off, for the LORD has spoken."

Isa. 22:19 - Shebna is described as having an “office” and a “station.” An office, in order for it to be an office, has successors. In order for an earthly kingdom to last, a succession of representatives is required.
This was the case in the Old Covenant kingdom, and it is the case in the New Covenant kingdom which fulfills the Old Covenant. Jesus our King is in heaven, but He has appointed a chief steward over His household with a plan for a succession of representatives.

. 20: In that day I will call my servant Eli’akim the son of Hilki’ah,

Isa. 22:20 - in the old Davidic kingdom, Eliakim succeeds Shebna as the chief steward of the household of God. The kingdom employs a mechanism of dynastic succession. King David was dead for centuries, but his kingdom is preserved through a succession of representatives.

21: and I will clothe him with your robe, and will bind your girdle on him, and will commit your authority to his hand; and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah.

Isa. 22:21 - Eliakim is called “father” or “papa” of God’s people. The word Pope used by Catholics to describe the chief steward of the earthly kingdom simply means papa or father in Italian. This is why Catholics call the leader of the Church “Pope.” The Pope is the father of God’s people, the chief steward of the earthly kingdom and Christ’s representative on earth.

22: And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Isa. 22:22 - we see that the keys of the kingdom pass from Shebna to Eliakim. Thus, the keys are used not only as a symbol of authority, but also to facilitate succession. The keys of Christ’s kingdom have passed from Peter to Linus all the way to our current Pope with an unbroken lineage for almost 2,000 years.

23: And I will fasten him like a peg (Nail) in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

 

[kepha1]

Rev. 1:18; 3:7; 9:1; 20:1 - Jesus’ “keys” undeniably represent authority. By using the word “keys,” Jesus gives Peter authority on earth over the new Davidic kingdom, and this was not seriously questioned by anyone until the Protestant reformation 1,500 years later after Peter’s investiture.

Revelation 3:7 "And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: `The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.

Matthew 16:19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Matt. 16:19 - whatever Peter binds or looses on earth is bound or loosed in heaven / when the Prime Minister to the King opens, no one shuts. This “binding and loosing” authority allows the keeper of the keys to establish “halakah,” or rules of conduct for the members of the kingdom he serves.

Jer. 33:17 - Jeremiah prophesies that David shall never lack a man to sit on the throne of the earthly House of Israel. Either this is a false prophecy, or David has a successor of representatives throughout history.

Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.

To refute the notion of an invisible or spiritualized kingdom:

Matt. 13:24-52 -Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to a field, a mustard seed, leaven, and a net demonstrate that the kingdom Jesus is talking about is the universal Church on earth, not the eternal state of glory. Therefore, the keys to the “kingdom of heaven” refers to the authority over the earthly Church.

Matt. 25:1-2 - Jesus comparing the kingdom of heaven to ten maidens, five of whom were foolish, further shows that the kingdom is the Church on earth. This kingdom cannot refer to the heavenly kingdom because there are no fools in heaven!

Mark 4:26-32 - again, the “kingdom of God” is like the seed which grows and develops. The heavenly kingdom is eternal, so the kingdom to which Peter holds the keys of authority is the earthly Church.

Luke 9:27 - Jesus says that there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the “kingdom of God.” This kingdom refers to the earthly kingdom of Christ, which Jesus established by His death and resurrection on earth.

Luke 13:19-20 - again, Jesus says the kingdom of God is like a mustard seed which grew into a tree. This refers to the earthly Church which develops over time, from an acorn to an oak tree (not the heavenly state of glory which is boundless and infinite).

Matt 12:28; Mark 1:15; Luke 11:20; 17:21 - these verses provide more examples of the " kingdom of God" as the kingdom on earth which is in our midst.
1 Chron. 28:5 - Solomon sits on the throne of the kingdom of the Lord. This shows that the “kingdom of God” usually means an earthly kingdom.
scripturecatholic.com/the_church.html

 

[Randy_Carson]

I’m simply expressing my opinion same as you I am not an island,

Yes, but that is ALL you’re giving us…your own, fallible, Protestant opinions. What we’re giving you is the truth - what Jesus actually meant and intended by His words.

there is no lack of Christians that agree with my statements.

So? You may find comfort in that, but, again, it doesn’t mean that you and your co-religionists are right.

If you believe in Matthew 16:18 and find comfort in the controlling authority so be it.

Sure, I believe Mt. 16:18…don’t you? Do I find comfort in the fact that Jesus appointed a leader for His Church on earth? Absolutely! But perhaps you take issue with the fact that the “controlling authority” as you put it, is not you. Jesus left someone else in charge, and it is incumbent upon you to acknowledge that fact.

PETER - Prime Minister of Christ and Shepherd of the Flock

Non-Catholics respond to the claim that the pope is the Vicar of Christ by stating, “There is no vicar of Christ on earth except the Holy Spirit!” It is true that the Holy Spirit is a vicar of Christ (John 15:26, 16:12-15), but there may be others also. The term “vicar” means “a substitute; esp. an under-servant [who substitutes].” The scriptures clearly show that Simon Peter was appointed by Jesus to such a position in His kingdom.

Matthew 16:13-19
"When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Jesus gives to Peter “the keys of the kingdom of heaven”. This alludes to the prophecy of Isaiah that reads,

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command or prime minister who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. Jesus gives Peter the authority to speak in His name and extends his authority beyond the earthly realm when he gives Peter the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.”

John 21:15-17
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

We know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd (Jn 10:11) and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (Jn 16). Yet, in the passage above, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

 

[tukfryer]

Yes, but that is ALL you’re giving us…your own, fallible, Protestant opinions. What we’re giving you is the truth - what Jesus actually meant and intended by His words.

I’ll just let the letters written by those undisputed in appointment speak. Namely Jesus when He was with the 12. Then what HE Jesus says about Paul in His risen glorified state. And lastly what Paul said about following appointed men including himself. The Catholics interpretation of Matthew 16:18 just does not fit to well. So who do we believe the words of Jesus and Paul or you? Paul could just as easily claimed himself Pope on the testimony of the men who journeyed with him and Ananias but he didn’t, instead he warned against it. Just as Jesus did to the 12 in Matthew 20:26 (bold)

Matthew 20:20
Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Him with her sons, kneeling down and asking something from Him.
21 And He said to her, “What do you wish?”
She said to Him, “Grant that these two sons of mine may sit, one on Your right hand and the other on the left, in Your kingdom.”
22 But Jesus answered and said, “You do not know what you ask. Are you able to drink the cup that I am about to drink, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?”[d]
They said to Him, “We are able.”
23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;[e] but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”
24 And when the ten heard it, they were greatly displeased with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant. 27 And whoever desires to be first among you, let him be your slave— 28 just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.”

Acts 9:15 But the Lord said to him, “Go, for he “Paul” is a chosen vessel of Mine to bear My name before Gentiles, kings, and the children of Israel.

1 Corinthians 1:12
Now I say this, that each of you says, “I am of Paul,” or “I am of Apollos,” or “I am of Cephas,” or “I am of Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you?

1 Corinthians 3:1 3
for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4 For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?
Can we presume to replace Apollos name with Peter and still hold Pauls message.

1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their own craftiness” 20 and again, “The LORD knows the thoughts of the wise, that they are futile.” 21 Therefore let no one boast in men. For all things are yours: 22 whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas, or the world or life or death, or things present or things to come—all are yours. 23 And you are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

Cephas is this Peter the Pope that Paul is denying?

Even evidence Peter went to Rome has and still is very questionable.
Paul said to the Romans, “I have made it my aim to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, lest I should build on another man’s foundation” (Rom 15:20). From the above account of the Book of Acts and these words, it is clear that Peter was not in Rome before the arrival of Paul. This is also evident by the fact that Paul greeted 20 persons in the Holy Epistle to the Romans and Peter was not among them. Moreover, he wrote five Holy Epistles from Rome and never mentioned the name of Peter as being present there.

 

[pete_29]

So Jesus left no one in charge of the earthly Church and any interpretation of scripture except the by one that the person who is interpreting it is the wrong one. Yeah, right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Peter’s Role as Head of the Earthly Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” inJohn 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus take great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Catholics interpretation of Matthew 16:18 just does not fit to well.

Let’s just see about that, shall we? Please note that the Lord who spoke Matthew 16:18, also spoke the next verse:

Matthew 16:19
“I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

Now, while it is true that, in Matt 18:18, Jesus bestows a similar authority to “bind and loosen” upon all of the Apostles collectively, it is to Peter alone that Christ entrusts “the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven.” So, what are these Keys? What are they suppose to signify?

Well, to discover the answer, we need to look no further than Isaiah 22:20-22, which reads:

“On that day I shall summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah. I will … give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the Key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, and when he shuts, no one shall open.”

Here, Isaiah is describing the “Prime Minister” (or “Vicar”) of the Davidic Kingdom of Israel --an office which is also referred to in 1 Kings 4:6, 16:9, 18:3, and elsewhere.

Indeed, in ancient Israel, the King himself (e.g. King David or King Solomon) was surrounded by an entire court of ministers, all of whom played a specific role in administering the Kingdom. Yet, one of these ministers was the Prime Minister (or “Major-Domo”), who --while merely being one minister among others --also acted as the King’s vicar (or “stand in”) when the King was not personally present. That is to say, he was commissioned to act with the King’s own authority.

Thus, ‘when he opened, no one could shut, and when he shut, no one could open.’ And the symbol of this Prime Minister’s vicarious authority was the “key” (“or keys”) of the King’s Household (i.e., dynasty) --that is, the key (or keys) of the Kingdom itself.

Now, I’m sure we can agree that the ancient, Davidic kingdom of Israel was merely a prefigurement of the New Testament’s Kingdom of God. Indeed, in Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary how her Son will succeed to “the throne of David,” and how He will “rule over the House of Jacob forever.” Thus, if Christ is to be the new King of Israel, does it not make sense that He would appoint a new “Prime Minister” to govern His Household, which is the Church (1 Tim 3:15)?

Furthermore, this new “Prime Minister” was not to be the steward of a mere earthly king, but rather of a King Who would rule from Heaven. And this is exactly what we see in Matt 16:19, where Christ tells Peter: “I will give to you the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatsoever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatsoever you loose on earth, shall be loosed in Heaven.”

So, here again, we see Jesus commissioning Peter to act as His representative in an earthly capacity after His Ascension into Heaven. Thus, like the Prime Minister of the ancient kingdom of Israel, Peter is to be the final authority in the King’s physical absence.

 

[tukfryer]

So Jesus left no one in charge of the earthly Church and any interpretation of scripture except the by one that the person who is interpreting it is the wrong one. Yeah, right.

Actually Jesus is in charge of both the visible and invisible church, He threw the Holy Spirit ministers everyday.
He raises up any one of His children at any time He chooses.

Psalm 18:31
For who is God, except the LORD?
And who is a rock, except our God?
32 It is God who arms me with strength,
And makes my way perfect.
33 He makes my feet like the feet of deer,
And sets me on my high places.
34 He teaches my hands to make war,
So that my arms can bend a bow of bronze.

35 You have also given me the shield of Your salvation;
Your right hand has held me up,
Your gentleness has made me great.
36 You enlarged my path under me,
So my feet did not slip.

46 The LORD lives!
Blessed be my Rock!
Let the God of my salvation be exalted.
47 It is God who avenges me,
And subdues the peoples under me;
48 He delivers me from my enemies.
You also lift me up above those who rise against me;
You have delivered me from the violent man.
49 Therefore I will give thanks to You, O LORD, among the Gentiles,
And sing praises to Your name.

The Pope doesn’t know me from Adam, it is the Lord that causes me to rise in the
morning, He dresses and feeds me, He strengthens my hand,
He reminds me of His ways as a Father does his son.

There is a body of Christ on earth mostly doing humble service, but in an instant
anyone or all could all be called like Mosses, Elijah or John the Baptist.
The Holy Spirit makes the WWW look like child’s play.

 

[PRmerger]

Actually Jesus is in charge of both the visible and invisible church, He threw the Holy Spirit ministers everyday.
He raises up any one of His children at any time He chooses.

Amen!

The Pope doesn’t know me from Adam, it is the Lord that causes me to rise in the morning, He dresses and feeds me, He strengthens my hand,
He reminds me of His ways as a Father does his son.

There is a body of Christ on earth mostly doing humble service, but in an instant
anyone or all could all be called like Mosses, Elijah or John the Baptist.

That’s very Catholic of you to say that!

 

[tukfryer]

Now, I’m sure we can agree that the ancient, Davidic kingdom of Israel was merely a prefigurement of the New Testament’s Kingdom of God. Indeed, in Luke 1:32-33, the angel Gabriel tells the Virgin Mary how her Son will succeed to “the throne of David,” and how He will “rule over the House of Jacob forever.” Thus, if Christ is to be the new King of Israel, does it not make sense that He would appoint a new “Prime Minister” to govern His Household, which is the Church (1 Tim 3:15)?

Davids Kingdom is fulfilled in Jesus. The whole message of the OT points to Jesus, He came and established the throne on which He was seated at the right hand of the Father. Appointing a new prime minster on earth is to deny the presents / power of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit still at work on earth, or to deny the testimony of the NT.
Now doesn’t that make sense.

So, here again, we see Jesus commissioning Peter to act as His representative in an earthly capacity after His Ascension into Heaven. Thus, like the Prime Minister of the ancient kingdom of Israel, Peter is to be the final authority in the King’s physical absence.

If thats what Jesus meant then why did He not say so in Matthew 20 when John and James wanted to sit at His side? they didnt even want His chair like you claim was given to Peter. Instead He says

23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;[e] but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”
24 And when the ten heard it, they were greatly displeased with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

There are only 3 possibility’s

1. you are wrong
2. the letter is wrong
3. Jesus says one thing and does another

Jesus even says its not His call to appoint such things its the Fathers.
but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father

The same attitude He has about the words He speaks.
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Maybe we need a 4th possibility
4) an attitude adjustment

 

[MonFrere]

Davids Kingdom is fulfilled in Jesus. The whole message of the OT points to Jesus, He came and established the throne on which He was seated at the right hand of the Father. Appointing a new prime minster on earth is to deny the presents / power of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit still at work on earth, or to deny the testimony of the NT. Now doesn’t that make sense.

No. It doesn’t make sense. Because the New Testament says that the Church is the Body of Christ. The head is in heaven and the Body of Christ is still on earth doing His will. The Church is given an authoritative structure.

(1 Cor 12:28) And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

St. Paul’s vision here in 1 Corinthians demonstrates a prescience that reflects a highly structured and layered Church that is found in the Catholic Church today.

(Eph 4:11-14) And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; 12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ: 13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ: That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

This Church structure is to protect the members from deception. History demonstrates that the Catholic Church has a pattern of being confronted with deceptions and heresies and has always stood the test. Often the great Ecumenical Councils of the Church were convened for the express purpose of confronting heresies.

Your little foray into St. Matthew 20: is really made into something that’s not part of the issue at hand.

(Mat 20:20-21) Then came to him the mother of Zebedee’s children with her sons, worshipping him, and desiring a certain thing of him. 21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom****.

This passage of scripture was instigated by the mother and the fulfillment wasn’t about a position given to them in this life but a position given them in heaven when all is fulfilled. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with earthly positions of authority. Jesus makes the point to the mother and the sons that in His kingdom all positions are positions of service. As such, one of the Pope’s titles is The Servant of the Servant’s of God.

23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;[e] but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”
24 And when the ten heard it, they were greatly displeased with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

There are only 3 possibility’s

Maybe we need a 4th possibility
4) an attitude adjustment

Yes, this passage has a context of being about “an attitude adjustment” for any and all who are to serve Christ in this world and in the world to come. But to somehow use this passage as if it proves the papacy to be unscriptural is “creative” at best.

MonFrere

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Keeran
Jesus said the Spirit would guide the apostles into all truth. When there were serious controversies in the church and people were going after a different gospel (Acts 15;Gal.1), did anyone say, look to Peter or hold to Peter? It is very significant that in not a single place does any NT writer tell anyone to look to or hold to Peter or to any office such as Pope. They were given things to read that we now have.

Colossians 4:16
After this letter has been read to you, **see that it is also read in the church **of the Laodiceans and that you in turn read the letter from Laodicea.

1 Thessalonians 5:27
I **charge you before the Lord to have this letter read **to all the brothers.

2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter.

2 Thessalonians 3:14
If anyone does not obey our instruction in this letter, take special note of him. Do not associate with him, in order that he may feel ashamed.

Hebrews 13:22
Brothers, I urge you to bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written you only a short letter.

2 Peter 3:1
Dear friends, this is now my second letter to you. I have written both of them as reminders to stimulate you to wholesome thinking.

2 Peter 3:16
He (Paul) writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

What examples of Scripture above point to the sole authority of Scripture? I asked you: if Scripture is the final and sole authority why does it not identify itself with this most important function?

1. Only God is our authority as all agree.
2. All agree the entire NT was written by the Spirit-led apostles and their close associates.
3. So you won’t find a reference to sola sciptura in Scripture but rather sola Holy Spirit, sola God, sola Jesus Christ, etc. but NEVER sola papacy or sola Peter.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Peter’s Role as Head of the Earthly Church Proved from Scripture
…

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” inJohn 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

Except that the passage does not identify Peter as the supreme pastor. Rather, in 1 Peter 5:1-5, Peter even calls himself a fellow-elder and identifies Jesus as the Supreme Pastor. Peter was not above referring to himself in Acts 15:7 as **uniquely chosen by God **, and in this passage he could easily have humbled himself as the obedient steward and one shepherd chosen by Christ the Chief Shepherd. But Peter left us no such message in his two letters.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter receives this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus take great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle receives this focus.

There is no “unique appointment” and no reference to Peter’s “new responsibility as head of the Church.” Are you separating the head of the Church from the head of the Body???
“No other Apostle receives this focus”? No other Apostles denied Christ three times, wept bitterly, and needed reassurance.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter is singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence

Jesus tells Peter to reassure the other apostles after he turns back. Jesus knew Peter would deny him thrice and that the other apostles would need to be reassured that Peter still believes. This fits the purpose of Jesus’ triple question to Peter “do you love me?” to confirm Peter’s faith and to challenge him to “feed by sheep.” There is no reference or implication here whatsoever of Peter as the head of the church.

 

[tukfryer]

Yes, this passage has a context of being about “an attitude adjustment” for any and all who are to serve Christ in this world and in the world to come. But to somehow use this passage as if it proves the papacy to be unscriptural is “creative” at best.

MonFrere

Well I did post a few scriptural references here forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=5267294&postcount=124
Daniel Keeran is more educated with the literal written history, And I dont dispute some are first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, I dont even dispute that a church was established. What I question is, is the RCC the same Church at the time of the Apostles. The difference in opinion “for lack of a better word” is huge when some like myself compare what the RCC teaches and what is written in scripture. The kind of authority the RCC claims goes far beyond what is written. Papal Infallibility is officially only 139 years old. The Office of the Papacy in Scripture is only a part of the whole picture.

1 Corinthians 4:6
“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”

That 4th possibility
4) an attitude adjustment to stem arrogance is the result of exceeding what is written.

Exceeding what is written has been the method threw out history.

THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ. 310
Wax Candles introduced in church. about 320
Veneration of angels and dead saints. 375
The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted. 394
The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, “Mother of God”, as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus 431
Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500
Extreme Unction 526
The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great 593
The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ
Scripture says praying and teaching in an unknown tongue. (1st Corinthians 14:9). 600

The Bible teaches that we pray to God alone. In the primitive church never were prayers directed to Mary, or to dead saints. This practice began in the Roman Church 600

Holy Water, mixed with a pinch of salt and blessed by the priest, was authorized 850

The veneration of St. Joseph began 890

The baptism of bells was instituted by Pope John XIV 965

Canonization of dead saints, first by Pope John XV
Every believer and follower of Christ is called saint in the Bible. (Read Romans 1:7; 1st Colossians 1:2). 995

Fasting on Fridays and during Lent were imposed 998

The Mass was developed gradually as a sacrifice; attendance made obligatory in the 11th century.

The celibacy of the priesthood was decreed by Pope Hildebrand, Boniface VII 1079

The Rosary, or prayer beads was introduced by Peter the Hermit, in the year 1090.

The Inquisition of heretics was instituted by the Council of Verona in the year 1184. Jesus never taught the use of force to spread His religion 1184

The sale of Indulgences, commonly regarded as a purchase of forgiveness and a permit to indulge in sin. 1190

The dogma of Transubstantiation was decreed by Pope Innocent III, in the year 1215

Confession of sin to the priest 1215

The Bible forbidden to laymen and placed in the Index of forbidden books by the Council of Valencia 1229

The Scapular was invented by Simon Stock, and English monk 1287

The Roman Church forbade the cup to the laity, by instituting the communion of one kind in the Council of Constance 1414

The doctrine of Purgatory was proclaimed as a dogma of faith by Council of Florence 1439

The doctrine of 7 Sacraments affirmed 1439

The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary was proclaimed by Pope Pius IX 1834

In the year 1870 after Christ, Pope Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of Papal Infallibility

Pope Plus X, in the year 1907, condemned together with “Modernism”, all the discoveries of modern science which are not approved by the Church 1907

In the year 1931 the same pope Pius XI, reaffirmed the doctrine that Mary is “the Mother of God”
This doctrine was first invented by the Council of Ephesus in the year 431 1931

In the year 1950 the last dogma was proclaimed by Pope Pius XII, the Assumption of the Virgin Mary

 

[MonFrere]

There is no reference or implication here whatsoever of Peter as the head of the church.

I would beg to differ but one could also mention that there is NO NEED for scripture to give us information about the papacy. There was no canonized scripture until @400. So, for the first 400 years the papacy was part of the Church without a scriptural mandate. The papacy was well established BEFORE the first canons of scripture were formally established.

Scripture does give plenty of information to support the Catholic claims and the Catholics on this forum have done very good work in demonstrating that support.

Protestant’s smug claim that the papacy isn’t biblical comes up short because it is fully supported by scripture - the fact that Protestants do not accept that support nothwithstanding.

Bringing up St. Peter’s flaws as a person also proves nothing other than to demonstrate that he was 1) a saint (as were many of his successors) and 2) he wasn’t perfect (again, as were all his successors). God only has flawed humans from which to choose; unless He decides differently. So, bringing up St. Peter’s shortcomings proves nothing.

Yet God has ALWAYS used flawed humans to lead His “voice” to humankind. Witness Noah, Abram (Abraham), Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, the judges, the former and latter prophets, the kings. It was God’s pattern from the beginning to provide human leadership that carried His authority. Because of this I see complete consistency in Jesus delegating authority to flawed human beings to lead His Church. God has always expected respect and obedience to His constituted authorities. He equated obedience to His leaders and obedience to Himself as witnessed by Samuel when He said - They have not rejected you, Samuel, they have rejected Me. All you words to prove otherwise provides IMO very weak arguments to try to do away with a 4000 year precedent as to how God has dealt with His human family down through ancient history to our present day. One of the traits of God is that He is immutable (unchangeable) so I think this argument from precedent is a very powerful and forceful one. To support the claim against a divinely ordained authority through the history of the Church is to support a claim that here to fore has not been the pattern of God through history. Catholic claims support the immutability of God where Protestant claims do not. In their enthusiasm to defang the Church of Her authority Protestants have sown the seed that will be the making of their own demise because she won’t be able to claim any authority that can unite divisions and the breaches that always occur in the workings of men - whether spiritual men or carnal men.

MonFrere

 

[kepha1]

Tukfryers hate speech should not be quoted. It would be vain repetition, which is what he is looking for. Will ironies ever cease?

Since I’ve been away for such a long time, I’m unsure of the reporting rules.

 

[tukfryer]

Tukfryers hate speech should not be quoted. It would be vain repetition, which is what he is looking for. Will ironies ever cease?

Since I’ve been away for such a long time, I’m unsure of the reporting rules.

Would you mind identifying the hate speech for future reference.
Its to late for me to rephrase it now.

If you are referring to the arrogance part I was clarifying my comment on attitude adjustment with scripture. Going beyond what is written leads to arrogance.

1 Corinthians 4:6
“Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.”

 

[PRmerger]

1. Only God is our authority as all agree.
2. All agree the entire NT was written by the Spirit-led apostles and their close associates.
3. So you won’t find a reference to sola sciptura in Scripture but rather sola Holy Spirit, sola God, sola Jesus Christ, etc. but NEVER sola papacy or sola Peter.

#3 is a non-sequitor, Daniel.

It truly doesn’t bother you that there is NO reference whatsoever to Sola Scriptura–which is your fundamental doctrine?? It’s self refuting!

Why do you give such liberal rationale for the sole importance of Scripture, yet strict interpretation for the papacy?

 

[paul_c]

Davids Kingdom is fulfilled in Jesus. The whole message of the OT points to Jesus, He came and established the throne on which He was seated at the right hand of the Father. Appointing a new prime minster on earth is to deny the presents / power of both Jesus and the Holy Spirit still at work on earth, or to deny the testimony of the NT.
Now doesn’t that make sense.

If thats what Jesus meant then why did He not say so in Matthew 20 when John and James wanted to sit at His side? they didnt even want His chair like you claim was given to Peter. Instead He says

23 So He said to them, “You will indeed drink My cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with;[e] but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father.”
24 And when the ten heard it, they were greatly displeased with the two brothers. 25 But Jesus called them to Himself and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and those who are great exercise authority over them. 26 Yet it shall not be so among you; but whoever desires to become great among you, let him be your servant.

There are only 3 possibility’s

1. you are wrong
2. the letter is wrong
3. Jesus says one thing and does another

Jesus even says its not His call to appoint such things its the Fathers.
but to sit on My right hand and on My left is not Mine to give, but it is for those for whom it is prepared by My Father

The same attitude He has about the words He speaks.
Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

Maybe we need a 4th possibility
4) an attitude adjustment

Tukfryer,
Matthew 20:23-26 is simply explaining to the Apostles how to lead - not through lording it over people, but by providing for their needs (i.e., service). He repeats this message at the last supper, when he washes his disciples feet. Peter and his successors are Servants of the most High god and of the Church they lead. And note, that he is addressing this to the Apostles who were not meant to be the leaders. Look at the corrolary account from Luke 22:24-32.

Then an argument broke out among them about which of them should be regarded as the greatest. He said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them and those in authority over them are addressed as ‘Benefactors’; but among you it shall not be so. Rather, let the greatest among you be as the youngest, and the leader as the servant. For who is greater: the one seated at table or the one who serves? Is it not the one seated at table? I am among you as the one who serves. It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Note, in this account, after giving the lecture on leadership through service, he singles out Peter to strengten his brothers, thus denoting him as the leader…

 

[MonFrere]

THE HUMAN TRADITIONS taught and practiced by the Roman Catholic Church, the most ancient are the prayers for the dead and the sign of the Cross. Both began 300 years after Christ. 310
Wax Candles introduced in church. about 320
Veneration of angels and dead saints. 375
The Mass, as a daily celebration, adopted. 394
The worship of Mary, the mother of Jesus, and the use of the term, “Mother of God”, as applied to her, originated in the Council of Ephesus 431
Priests began to dress differently from the laity 500
Extreme Unction 526
The doctrine of Purgatory was first established by Gregory the Great 593
The Latin language, as the language of prayer and worship in churches, was also imposed by Pope Gregory I. 600 years after Christ

310 - Prayers for the Dead. This is called “the Communion of Saints”. Actually, there is evidence of this being MUCH EARLIER. There are the catacombs in Rome where the ancient Christians have artwork written on the walls picturing what could only be “the communion of the saints”. From the catacombs came many of the early Christian martyrs. Part of the practice of the earliest Christians was to pray to those who were in the presence of God.

320 - Wax Candles AMAZING! Especially since there are candlesticks mentioned in Revelation as well as the traditional seven pronged menorah of Jewish tradition. Were these ancient candlesticks barren of candles? It’s seems with this tradition in both Old and New Testaments that it would be a natural part of Christian worship.

375 - Veneration of angels and saints - see above on prayers for the dead

394 - Daily Mass

(1 Cor 11:25-26) After the same manner also he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new testament in my blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of me. **26 *For as often as ***ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s death till he come.

431 - “Mother of God” Mary as the Mother of God is the natural conclusion of the understanding of the Hypostatic Union of Christ - ONE PERSON with 2 natures (a divine nature and a human nature). Since women give birth to PERSONS and not NATURES - Mary can be accurately called the Mother of God, and not only the Mother of Jesus. There are elements within Protestantism that accept this for not to is to fall into the error of the Nestorians; an early group of heretics in the Church.

500 - priestly dress IMO this is much ado about nothing. There was official dress for the ancient priests of the Old Testament. Developing the same for the priests of the New Testament is very natural. Uniforms is a part of society and nothing to be looked upon in any manner of wrong or evil. It projects authority or occupation – the police uniform - the soldiers uniform - the doctors white coat.

593 - Purgatory Nothing unusual here. It was a development within Judaism that was deemed to be true and incorporated into the Christian view of the afterlife. It’s not part of “paganism” but rather part of the patrimony of the Jews and the oracles of God that was passed on to the Christian tradition.

600 - Latin Again, no big deal. Should we be all concerned that Italian is the language of music? or that medicine and the law profession use Latin today? Give me a break. There are very good reasons for using ancient languages for communicating the principles of a profession. The fact that Latin in the official language of the Church should give comfort as to the value that is placed upon holding to the ancient “faith once given to the saints”. And in the Catholic Church today there are no shortages of those who specialize in the ancient biblical languages so we never lose touch with the original tongue that God spoke through in order to give us His Word.

It’s only since the Reformation and the heresy of sola scriptura that the bible was put in a position that it was never intended to hold where these things became an issue; and as I have tried to show these issues are really very benign and are not meant to be anything that a natural working out of God’s will in the Church He was building in the universal human family.

MonFrere