The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

#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?

Since the only God-breathed writing is sacred scripture, as you agree, then that is where we need to start when considering ideas about the papacy. If the papacy cannot be found in scripture, it came too late to be a product of God-breathed writing.

The papacy is, I believe, a development of the dual process of institutionalization and imperialization. This becomes clear as one reads the early post-NT writings with the theme of papacy building over time culminating in Cyprian’s language, then later with Damasus following the Constantine-called council of Nicea.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

#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?

Since the only God-breathed writing is sacred scripture, as you agree, then that is where we need to start when considering ideas about the papacy. If the papacy cannot be found in scripture, it came too late.

The papacy is, I believe, a development of the dual process of institutionalization and imperialization. This becomes clear as one reads the early post-NT writings with the theme of papacy building over time culminating in Cyprian’s language, then later with Damasus following the Constantine-called council of Nicea.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

It denies nothing of the sort, and it does not make sense only because you do not understand it. It seems clear enough to me. Jesus knew he was about to depart this earth, and He appointed Peter to shepherd the flock. What is so difficult about that?

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 positions that James and John asked for were in heaven. The position that Christ assigned to Peter was on earth. Jesus describes the humble attitude of those who are to be leaders in the Church, but He never denies that there would be leaders.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. 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.

Since Catholics have never taught sola Petros, there should be no disagreement on this point.

However, if the Bible itself does not teach *sola scriptura, *would you agree that it is a self-refuting proposition and that it is a tradition of men?

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.

Jesus taught that leaders in the Church must exhibit humility in the following passage:

Mark 9:33-35
33They came to Capernaum. When he was in the house, he asked them, “What were you arguing about on the road?” 34But they kept quiet because on the way they had argued about who was the greatest. 35Sitting down, Jesus called the Twelve and said, “If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all.”

Peter was first among the Apostles, and he viewed himself as the servant of all - a “fellow elder” - just as Jesus had taught him to do. Peter’s unwillingness to trumpet his own importance is evidence that he truly was “first” among the Twelve.

Do you think that maybe the fifth chapter of 1 Peter is all about humility, and that Peter is modeling the very behavior he is exhorting others to exhibit?

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?

You mean other than the fact that Jesus had

1. Given Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven and earth - symbolizing Peter’s role as the Prime Minister of Christ’s kingdom?
2. Given Peter the authority to bind a loose individually whereas the other Apostles only received it corporately?
3. Given Peter the commission to rule the “one flock”?

“No other Apostle receives this focus”? No other Apostles denied Christ three times, wept bitterly, and needed reassurance.

And yet, Jesus predicted Peter’s denial but told Peter ahead of time that it would be Peter’s responsibility to support the others. Peter is rock, he is the foundation that supports the other apostles.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

Wow.

I had no idea that wax candles were introduced so late.

You’re right…this seals the deal, so to speak. Catholicism can’t be true if wax candles were not used by the Apostles themselves.

In fact, I can’t find wax candles in the Bible anywhere. This is just one more example of how the Romish church has added to the word of God.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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.”

I think the following article might help you understand what Paul really meant.

GOING BEYOND
By Patrick Madrid
catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9208chap.asp

 

[Randy_Carson]

Since the only God-breathed writing is sacred scripture, as you agree, then that is where we need to start when considering ideas about the papacy. If the papacy cannot be found in scripture, it came too late to be a product of God-breathed writing.

You’re right.

The papacy is not a product of the scripture; the scriptures are a late product of the Apostles and the Church.

 

[fellowChristian]

**Exodus 18 **Moses is clearly in an office. God has made Moses a judge on earth over His people.

Exodus 18:25-26 (New American Standard Bible)

25 **Moses chose **able men out of all Israel and made them heads over the people, leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens.

26 **They judged **the people at all times; the difficult dispute they would bring to Moses, but every minor dispute they themselves would judge.

And as for this argument about Jesus leaving someone to tend His sheep (John 21:17) and whether or not we have to listen to that person you only have to read your Bible to see where God has done this before.

Numbers 27

15Then Moses spoke to the LORD, saying,

16"May the LORD, the God of the spirits of all flesh, **appoint a man over the congregation, **

17who will go out and come in before them, and who will lead them out and bring them in, so that the congregation of the LORD will not be like sheep which have no shepherd."

18So the LORD said to Moses, "Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is the Spirit, and lay your hand on him;

19and have him stand before Eleazar **the priest **and before all the congregation, and commission him in their sight.

20"You shall put some of your authority on him, in order that **all the congregation of the sons of Israel may obey him. **

Sound familiar? This is where Joshua succeeds Moses. The Old Testament does point to the new and to Jesus. Jesus does the same thing in the New Testament with Peter. This is how it all keeps going.

Exodus 40:15 (New American Standard Bible)

15 and you shall **anoint them **even as you have anointed their father, that they may minister as priests to Me; and their anointing will qualify them for a **perpetual priesthood throughout their generations." **

and there was a price to pay for not obeying those He anointed through His priests who served Him.

Deuteronomy 17:10-13 (New American Standard Bible)

10"You shall do according to the terms of the verdict which they declare to you from that place which the LORD chooses; and you shall be careful to observe according to all that they teach you.

11"According to the terms of the law which** they teach you, and according to the verdict which they tell you, you shall do; you shall not turn aside from the word which they **declare to you, to the right or the left.

12"The man who acts presumptuously by not listening to the priest who stands there to serve the LORD your God, nor to the judge, that man shall die; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.

13"Then all the people will hear and be afraid, and will not act presumptuously again.

 

[PRmerger]

Since the only God-breathed writing is sacred scripture, as you agree, then **that is where we need to start **when considering ideas about the papacy.

Indeed, that is where we need to start–and the papacy is indeed in Scripture–but it’s not where we end. We must consider all of Divine Revelation. Remember, Scripture is only one part of Sacred Tradition.

 

[PRmerger]

Wow.

I had no idea that wax candles were introduced so late.

You’re right…this seals the deal, so to speak. Catholicism can’t be true if wax candles were not used by the Apostles themselves.

In fact, I can’t find wax candles in the Bible anywhere. This is just one more example of how the Romish church has added to the word of God.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Since the only God-breathed writing is sacred scripture, as you agree, then that is where we need to start when considering ideas about the papacy. If the papacy cannot be found in scripture, it came too late to be a product of God-breathed writing.

The papacy is, I believe, a development of the dual process of institutionalization and imperialization. This becomes clear as one reads the early post-NT writings with the theme of papacy building over time culminating in Cyprian’s language, then later with Damasus following the Constantine-called council of Nicea.

Joh 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

 

[MonFrere]

You’re right.

The papacy is not a product of the scripture; the scriptures are a late product of the Apostles and the Church.

Touche!! Randy!!

MonFrere

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

You’re right.

The papacy is not a product of the scripture; the scriptures are a late product of the Apostles and the Church.

1. The papacy is not found in scripture but preceeded scripture. Correct?
2. So it should be found clearly identified in scripture. Correct?
3. What is the timeline for the scriptures being breathed of God? I think we have early fragments of NT books dating from the first century, then we have abundant quotes from the NT in the letter of Rome to the Corinthians (90 AD) and thereafter.
4. Yet there is no mention of the papacy until over a hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and no preserved written declarations from the “voice of Christ” until centuries later.
5. The first announcement of any bishop of Rome is Victor (189-199) when he excommunicated numerous churches for celebrating Easter on a day he did not approve of. He was the “voice of Christ” on earth?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Joh 20:21 He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father hath sent me, I also send you.
Joh 20:22 When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive ye the Holy Ghost.
Joh 20:23 Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.

Yes. Before the NT was written, Jesus said to the apostles to receive the Holy Spirit. However, from Matt 16, they knew Peter was to be the head of the whole church, and so they took this for granted which is why it did not have to be mentioned anywhere in scripture when the apostles and prophets wrote it. Correct?

 

[davidv]

1. The papacy is not found in scripture but preceeded scripture. Correct?

Partially. The papacy preceded the Bible. The papacy is clearly inferred in the office of the prime minister for those who have eyes that see.

1. So it should be found clearly identified in scripture. Correct?

Seems to me the many citations have be provided that show that it is identified in Scripture.

1. What is the timeline for the scriptures being breathed of God? I think we have early fragments of NT books dating from the first century, then we have abundant quotes from the NT in the letter of Rome to the Corinthians (90 AD) and thereafter.

The writings that were identified as inspired, were so inspired from the moment they were written.

1. Yet there is no mention of the papacy until over a hundred years after the destruction of Jerusalem, and no preserved written declarations from the “voice of Christ” until centuries later.

Peter’s actions aren’t recorded in Acts? How do you know this? Where you there?

1. The first announcement of any bishop of Rome is Victor (189-199) when he excommunicated numerous churches for celebrating Easter on a day he did not approve of. He was the “voice of Christ” on earth?

That is not the first papal announcement. Peter announced his decision regarding the circumcision of the the gentiles at the council of Jerusalem.

 

[MonFrere]

1. The papacy is not found in scripture but preceeded scripture. Correct?
2. So it should be found clearly identified in scripture. Correct?

NO IT SHOULD’T! God’s promise to Abram was that all nations of the earth would be blessed through him. This was, of course, done through Jesus. With your logic above, since Jesus isn’t mentioned as the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham back at the time of Abraham, He cannot be considered the fulfillment of this promise. This was part of the problem of the Jews in accepting Jesus – and we can see where that disbelief got them. You’re following the same pattern of unbelief in not seeing the fulfillment of Jesus promise to Peter as being given to what we can not see in hindsight as the papacy – just like the Jews couldn’t see in Jesus the fulfillment of the promise to Abram that all nations would be blessed through him. If one has eyes to see one can clearly see both. God does NOT have to give details of His promises to satisfy our personal lack of faith in His promises. In fact, it goes against His pattern of dealing with His human family – THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.

MonFrere

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes. Before the NT was written, Jesus said to the apostles to receive the Holy Spirit. However, from Matt 16, they knew Peter was to be the head of the whole church, and so they took this for granted which is why it did not have to be mentioned anywhere in scripture when the apostles and prophets wrote it. Correct?

The Apostles knew Peter was chosen and might have taken it for granted that everyone accepted the re-naming to Rock/Kipha, the reception of the keys to the kingdom of heaven, the first to receive the authority to bind and loose and the specific instructions for Peter to feed His sheep.

Other than what I’ve explained above, some overlook the obvious. Peter’s name appears 195 times in the New Testament, more than all the other Apostles added together. Peter’s name is always listed first, when a list of the Apostle’s names are given. Peter always spoke on behalf of the Apostles, when they had questions or answers to Jesus. Peter is specifically named and those with him are referred to as “they that were with him” and “His disciples and Peter” in Luke 9:32 and Mark 16:7.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

NO IT SHOULD’T! God’s promise to Abram was that all nations of the earth would be blessed through him. This was, of course, done through Jesus. With your logic above, since Jesus isn’t mentioned as the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham back at the time of Abraham, He cannot be considered the fulfillment of this promise. This was part of the problem of the Jews in accepting Jesus – and we can see where that disbelief got them. You’re following the same pattern of unbelief in not seeing the fulfillment of Jesus promise to Peter as being given to what we can not see in hindsight as the papacy – just like the Jews couldn’t see in Jesus the fulfillment of the promise to Abram that all nations would be blessed through him. If one has eyes to see one can clearly see both. God does NOT have to give details of His promises to satisfy our personal lack of faith in His promises. In fact, it goes against His pattern of dealing with His human family – THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH.

MonFrere

So we agree the papacy is NOT clearly identified in scripture. The Messiah IS clearly identified in OT scripture which is why the apostles used the detailed prophecies of the OT scriptures to prove that Jesus is the Messiah: Bethlehem birth, betrayal by a friend, 30 pieces of silver, buried with rich, called a Nazarene, etc. Jesus connects all the dots and is identified as Messiah in the NT scriptures, but nowhere do we find Peter identified as the head of the church, nor qualifications of successors for such an office.

Acts 18:28
For he vigorously refuted the Jews in public debate, proving from the Scriptures that Jesus was the Christ.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. The papacy is not found in scripture but preceeded scripture. Correct?

Incorrect. The papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ in Matthew 16:18, Luke 22 and in John 21 (among about a zillion other places where Jesus indicated that Peter was being groomed to lead the apostles). Therefore, the papacy is found in scripture and precedes scripture.

Daniel, maybe the problem is in your definitions of “pope” and “papacy”. Could you please tell us what these terms mean to you?

I’m beginning to think that you are looking at the modern, full-blown papacy and failing to find it in the scriptures. And that might be true in the sense that the style of the papacy has developed in response to the times and the geo-political climate over the centuries. The first few centuries saw a papacy that was primarily a “court of last appeals” and focused on Church unity whereas the papacy in later centuries became involved in holding Western Civilization together under increasing pressure from a variety of hostile forces. So, while the style may have changed over time, the office itself was evident from the beginning.

In your own words, what is a pope? What is the papacy?