The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Prodigal_Son1]

I do have an MA in European history and am familiar with historical method, and it is for this reason that I see lacking adequate support from the papacy in early centuries. The voice of Christ should be as clear and loud as the NT from Linus through Damasus.

While you boast a MA in European history, you have told us you have had no theological training or have attended a seminary. How does a MA in European history qualify you to interpret scriptures?

Where was the voice of Christ in the Protestant Church of Christ you claim has existed since the beginning?

It’s very apparent that you are using a double standard just to support your view…

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, you might have mistaken what I said. I do not think you would lie, I do however see you are avoiding a direct question. I didn’t ask you about any single person or congregation or anything else that you’ve addressed above. I asked you, “Does your Church, the one you attend services at assuming you do attend services, have a website?” You won’t say yes and you don’t say no. It’s that simple, yes or no. I will not ask the question again, but I will assume, and I believe anyone following this thread can see, there is something you do not want us to see, which takes away any validity you might have had in your part of this discussion.

My apologies. You can see by my replies I did not know you were asking about the congregation I attend. Here is the website: churchofchristfamily.net

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I’ve not studied this point in detail but the ancients did not have the preoccupation with perfectly ordered lists as we do today. The Sets of 14 Generations given is St. Matthew’s gospel was not given to be a perfectly complete list. It was given to demonstrate to the Jewish mind the legitimacy of Jesus being the Messiah. Exactly how the Jewish mind thought that through is what I’m not clear on - maybe someone else could fill in the pieces.

I think what people like Daniel need to keep in mind is not the perfect list of singular bishops of Rome but the fact that the papacy has been around in one form or another for 2000 years of history. THIS is the amazing historical fact that needs to be considered. If Jesus didn’t intend this in Caesarea Philippi in His message to St. Peter in St. Matthew’s gospel – then it is one of the most amazing coincidences in all of history.

IMHO - there has to be a mental decision NOT TO BELIEVE considering, among many other things, the miraculous longevity of the papacy and the Catholic Church.

MonFrere

The imperialization of the church came with an imperial threat of death to opponents of the church and a large infusion of imperial capital and property. This ensured the continuation of the Roman hierarchy and system. The Pope assumed temporal power as the empire fell and so on. Damasus began the cult of saints/martyrs to ensure pagans did not return to the gods, etc., etc.

 

[stephraim]

I’ve not studied this point in detail but the ancients did not have the preoccupation with perfectly ordered lists as we do today. The Sets of 14 Generations given is St. Matthew’s gospel was not given to be a perfectly complete list. It was given to demonstrate to the Jewish mind the legitimacy of Jesus being the Messiah. Exactly how the Jewish mind thought that through is what I’m not clear on - maybe someone else could fill in the pieces.

I think what people like Daniel need to keep in mind is not the perfect list of singular bishops of Rome but the fact that the papacy has been around in one form or another for 2000 years of history. THIS is the amazing historical fact that needs to be considered. If Jesus didn’t intend this in Caesarea Philippi in His message to St. Peter in St. Matthew’s gospel – then it is one of the most amazing coincidences in all of history.

IMHO - there has to be a mental decision NOT TO BELIEVE considering, among many other things, the miraculous longevity of the papacy and the Catholic Church.

MonFrere

Exactly. Raymond Brown and others have shown (to various degrees, of course) that there are 4 (I think) reasons for showing lineage, usually with generations skipped in the middle. I completely agree with you about perfect lists, and I was just trying to show how illogical Daniel’s requirements of paper trails. God bless.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I did a search, as you suggested and found only two Protestant Church’s of Christ in Kailua Kona, Hawaii. One has 80 members and the other has 25 members, according to the results of the search. One has a website and the other does not. The one with a website states several things you have stated, almost exactly as you stated them. Even the one with a website offers links that takes you to another Church of Christ and speaks of it’s membership as if those Churches are connected through articles of faith.

Yes we DO have articles of faith…the word of faith. If you can find anything else I would be most interested.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

While you boast a MA in European history, you have told us you have had no theological training or have attended a seminary. How does a MA in European history qualify you to interpret scriptures?

Where was the voice of Christ in the Protestant Church of Christ you claim has existed since the beginning?

It’s very apparent that you are using a double standard just to support your view…

The voice of Christ is in the word of God (Heb.4:12). Rather than a succession of authoritative humans, I believe in the word that “endures forever.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes we DO have articles of faith…the word of faith. If you can find anything else I would be most interested.

I didn’t find anything on the website that resembles articles of faith. The closet thing on there, that caught my eye is quoted below.

"But men cannot give up their opinions, and therefore, they can never unite, says one.
We do not ask them to give up their opinions–we ask them only not to impose them upon others.

Let them hold their opinions, but let them hold them as private property. The faith is public property; opinions are, and always have been private property.

Men have foolishly attempted to make the deductions of some great minds the common measure of all Christians. Hence the deductions of a Luther, and a Calvin, and a Wesley, have been the rule and measure of all who coalesce under the names of these leaders.

It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect."

(Alexander Campbell,
Millennial Harbinger,
1830, p. 145)

Another thing that caught my eye was the request of partnership.

Malama Kama’aina
In the fall of 2008, the Kona Church of Christ contacted Nic and Vanessa about the possibility of a partnership. After much time of prayer on both ends, a relationship was established with the Kona Church of Christ as their sponsoring/overseeing congregation.

What particularly caught my eye was the term “overseeing congregation”. It seems to say someone is overseeing…

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The voice of Christ is in the word of God (Heb.4:12). Rather than a succession of authoritative humans, I believe in the word that “endures forever.”

But you still haven’t addressed what one is to do when the word conflicts between readers?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Exactly. Raymond Brown and others have shown (to various degrees, of course) that there are 4 (I think) reasons for showing lineage, usually with generations skipped in the middle. I completely agree with you about perfect lists, and I was just trying to show how illogical Daniel’s requirements of paper trails. God bless.

I am talking here about the claims of papacy and a reasonable test for those claims.
The claim is that Peter and his successors were the singular clear voice of Christ and head of the church on earth. Their unique responsibility as such was to feed the sheep, strengthen the brethren, provide the basis of unity, define truth infallibly and all of this in a turbulent world of persecution and false doctrines. Such a position is central and fundamental to the true Christian religion.

The test of this important claim is to have preserved for us this voice in written form just as we have the New Testament preserved, as claimed, by the same church that claims the papacy. Where are the letters of these popes beginning with Linus? Consider also that these popes were in office quite long enough to write general epistles to the Catholic church.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I am talking here about the claims of papacy and a reasonable test for those claims.
The claim is that Peter and his successors were the singular clear voice of Christ and head of the church on earth. Their unique responsibility as such was to feed the sheep, strengthen the brethren, provide the basis of unity, define truth infallibly and all of this in a turbulent world of persecution and false doctrines. Such a position is central and fundamental to the true Christian religion.

The test of this important claim is to have preserved for us this voice in written form just as we have the New Testament preserved, as claimed, by the same church that claims the papacy. Where are the letters of these popes beginning with Linus? Consider also that these popes were in office quite long enough to write general epistles to the Catholic church.

A Protestant Church of Christ that has existed since the beginning of the Church certainly had enough time to write something, but there is nothing?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I didn’t find anything

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Keeran
Yes we DO have articles of faith…the word of faith. If you can find anything else I would be most interested.

I didn’t find anything on the website that resembles articles of faith. The closet thing on there, that caught my eye is quoted below.

Quote:
"But men cannot give up their opinions, and therefore, they can never unite, says one.
We do not ask them to give up their opinions–we ask them only not to impose them upon others.

Let them hold their opinions, but let them hold them as private property. The faith is public property; opinions are, and always have been private property.

Men have foolishly attempted to make the deductions of some great minds the common measure of all Christians. Hence the deductions of a Luther, and a Calvin, and a Wesley, have been the rule and measure of all who coalesce under the names of these leaders.

It is cruel to excommunicate a man because of the imbecility of his intellect."

(Alexander Campbell,
Millennial Harbinger,
1830, p. 145)

The above are the views of Mr. Campbell, not a official statement of churches of Christ.

Another thing that caught my eye was the request of partnership.

Quote:
Malama Kama’aina
In the fall of 2008, the Kona Church of Christ contacted Nic and Vanessa about the possibility of a partnership. After much time of prayer on both ends, a relationship was established with the Kona Church of Christ as their sponsoring/overseeing congregation.

What particularly caught my eye was the term “overseeing congregation”. It seems to say someone is overseeing…

I think this partnership means that the congregation in Kona will receive contributions from Christians for the support of Nic/Vanessa when they come to Kona.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

A Protestant Church of Christ that has existed since the beginning of the Church certainly had enough time to write something, but there is nothing?

Having received true baptism, many of what you call the ECF’s were members of churches of Christ. But what they wrote was not inspired and contained error as well as truth. The church of Christ has always existed in heaven and on earth wherever true baptism is received.

 

[BWNM]

Praise be Our Lord Jesus Christ.

My goodness, this is address to so many who want a proof that Saint Peter was chosen by Lord himself to be leader of Holy Church and Bishops.

How much proof do you want? How many times many have based their proofs on text from Holy Scriptures, writings in earlier Holy Church etc.

I want to be straight forward here, and frankly not in way to weasel out and comprise, for on this there is no compromise.

First and most, any contradiction or any doubts as of anything that has been establish by Lord himself and in His Holy decree giving authority to Saint Peter and His apostles in first days and years of the Holy Church is on absolute defiance against Lord Himself and his Holy Laws. There is no if or maybe, for rope only has two ends. Either is yes or no.

Seeking for specific word or specific interpretation of Holy Scriptures is base on primarily self searching excuses as of questioning reality from reasoning base on human self absorptions of words and deeds. Neither can be justifying as to what has been giving to humanity for salvations of souls in which is a perfect union with Almighty God through his Church. For if man commits a crime against men then if other men have seen the crime it can come to stand for another men and plead his case; therefore - if men commits a crime against the Lord laws who will plea for that men in front of the Lord?

The Holy Scriptures where not giving to humanity for twisting them for their own thinking or choosing bit of here or there, rather there where giving for humanity to abide them and live by them thus allowing persons to know Lord and achieve salvation of their souls. For that is primary role of Gods Law.

Today people are looking for proof, seeking whatever can let them to satisfy them, and that for some odd reason creates thinking that they, not what Lord has establish, have the right to defy His decrees, this is on absolute nonsense which leads to moving astray and give seeds to unpredictable consequences in healthy development of souls, especially for souls who are in doubt or not fully yet in Holy communion with a church.

10 days after Our Lord ascended into Heaven, as Jesus promise he will not leave Apostles and us alone, Holy Spirit has come down on Apostles and reveal to them all that Lord has thought them, and strengthen their cause of Love for the Lord and His words and deeds, in therefore, establishment of Holy Church with a vicar, leader Saint Peter and his apostles. I will not start quoting scriptures here, for already it was quoted. By that decree from above, Holy Church till this day continues to lead souls to salvation and stay steadfast against any heresies or dangerous accusations that may harm souls and their faithful into damnation.

Part I

 

[BWNM]

Part II

This will bring me to another statement which must be included here, as to understand why our Lord made it very clear who should be in charge, visible head of the Holy Church.
Saint Peter was asked three times if he loves the Lord (Again Our Lord asks him this, not a men or someone else, God-Man, Son of God has asked Saint Peter), what needs to be note here is this: three times; for three times Peter has said “I don’t know Him”, by three times Saint Peter has fully acknowledge authority of Our Lord and His Love for him, as well his responsibility to apostles and to what Lord was asking him of. In here I would like also expand on Ananias and his wife.
A man doesn’t just go to others and ask them for favor, or if there is dispute with other nations or tribes, rather it goes to the one who is a leader either be of tribe or the nation to resolve disputes. In this case Ananias new that it was Saint Peter who was a leader of Apostles and thus he decided to go to him. What needs to be known here is an absolute heresy and hypocrisy with grave sin committed by of Ananias because: it was a testing of the Lord, and sinning against Him, and two questioning teachings of Saint Peter. Response was quick and swift. His Almighty rules will not be mock; neither will be Holiness of The Lord! When a fear came upon first who believe, it wasn’t to scare them, rather to strengthen them in Holiness and thus just fear of the Lord. For Lord is Holy and perfect, so are His Laws.

In any case, it has been proven so many times, either by Holy Scriptures, writings of the Church, expanding on teachings in writings of doctors of the Church etc position of Saint Peter, and because there is no name Pope, still we know what his position is in the Church, for you won’t find Cardinal in it either, but you know what his position is.

That constant bombardment of asking for proof et al Papacy is not only defiance against Holiness of God but mockery of His Laws and His decrees giving from the beginning through Holy Spirit. Any sin against God is against the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, for where Father is there is Son and where is Father and Son there is Holy Spirit. Trying to assume human reasoning and attitude to what has been giving from above is dangerous and can lead to damnation of the souls.

Maybe I sound ridicules to you, maybe you think who am I to judge, no I don’t judge, that I leave it to God himself to judge us, nonetheless when I see that so many even giving the proof by Lord Himself are still asking about a proof then what else do you want?

As I said before, words of the Lord are enough for me, nonetheless as infinite is Mercy of the Lord, so is His Justice and Wisdom. For Almighty didn’t came to us to sit down and debate, rather for us to fallow Him with our hearts so we may be with Him for eternity, and no, not like a blind but a one who see and loves His ways in Truth for He is The Truth.
Pilate has asked “What is the Truth?” Sad man, for the Truth was standing in front of him, but blindness has covered his soul. There was a reason why Lord was silent, but that is for another thread and for smarter than me to expand on that.

For there are times when debate can be helpful but if debate starts to contradict what Has been giving from above then that debate is not debate, but self absorbing excuses of justifications of whatever actions is being perpetuated in human heart. It leads to nowhere and is self destructive in essence of the foundation that it questioning God action itself.

The Holy Church has and will be attack that is the fact till the end of times. For the Truth can’t be accepted by lie, for Truth is and was on answer to existence of life and death and resurrection of Our Lord Jesus Christ for salvation of mankind. If the Lord Himself has suffer, so will His body, and therefore, Holy Spirit has and will guide His Church in turbulence times, even if the world thinks it has won, though we know who the true victor is. There is and will be no compromise on Sanctity of Holy Church, and Sanctity of His Holy Authority, for He alone decides what is and what is not.

If man in his arrogance or ignorance decides to get in shooting much with what has been giving from above, then only thing I can offer is a prayer, for surely as far is Heaven from Earth and Earth from Heaven, so are the thoughts of The Lord.

In conclusion, whatever proof you are looking for has been giving and shown, for what is merit of what is has been to understand in points for many as what, or, maybe etc. is your decision as how you will approach that. In situations of accepting or rejecting, man must understand that at one moment either he likes it or not will be face with death, as for that moment it will be a moment in which he will be most expose, and as with everything it will be only yes or no.

God Bless

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Having received true baptism, many of what you call the ECF’s were members of churches of Christ. But what they wrote was not inspired and contained error as well as truth. The church of Christ has always existed in heaven and on earth wherever true baptism is received.

And the Church of Christ, the Catholic Church, defined the canon of the New Testament, sacred scriptures and preserved them through the ages, so the Protestant reformation could take them and begin private interpretation in the 1500s.

Daniel, address the issue of multiple interpretations, all claimed to be by Holy Spirit guidance. How does one discern which interpretation is correct?

 

[MonFrere]

The imperialization of the church came with an imperial threat of death to opponents of the church and a large infusion of imperial capital and property. This ensured the continuation of the Roman hierarchy and system. The Pope assumed temporal power as the empire fell and so on. Damasus began the cult of saints/martyrs to ensure pagans did not return to the gods, etc., etc.

First, I think your view above is terribly biased and skewed. Yet, today the Catholic Church is still very alive and well in spite of it’s total lack of influence in the “temporal affairs” of Europe. The Catholic Church survived in spite of the 2000 years of history the map of Europe was made and unmade numerous times by every sort of government system imaginable. It not as if she didn’t have powerful enemies that would have loved to see her demise. It’s not as if she were not plotted against. And even today there is a society that is hostile to her and her morality; let alone her religion. To bluntly paraphrase Jesus’ words - The Catholic Church is IMMORTAL.

The survival of the papacy, the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church, is one of the wonders of the modern world. Never was an institution so despised able to survive. Again, the sheer fact of her survival should give pause to any historian who has studied the rise and fall of nations. The survival of Christianity rises and falls on the survival of the Catholic Church - no other church is up to the task; the world would swallow them alive.

MonFrere

 

[stephraim]

I am talking here about the claims of papacy and a reasonable test for those claims.
The claim is that Peter and his successors were the singular clear voice of Christ and head of the church on earth. Their unique responsibility as such was to feed the sheep, strengthen the brethren, provide the basis of unity, define truth infallibly and all of this in a turbulent world of persecution and false doctrines. Such a position is central and fundamental to the true Christian religion.

The test of this important claim is to have preserved for us this voice in written form just as we have the New Testament preserved, as claimed, by the same church that claims the papacy. Where are the letters of these popes beginning with Linus? Consider also that these popes were in office quite long enough to write general epistles to the Catholic church.

We have writings of ECF’s about such letters, but you do not except them. The question utunumsint posed still holds if worded differently:
Where are the royal decrees of the Davidic kings or even Roman emperors? They claimed to rule kingdoms, yet we have no direct evidence of their governmental decisions (Kings and Chronicles were written after the dynasty), only writings *about *them.

 

[stephraim]

Damasus began the cult of saints/martyrs to ensure pagans did not return to the gods, etc., etc.

There is evidence from catacombs that suggest veneration of saints much earlier than you think. There is also the Martyrdom of Polycarp to illustrate that:

This obviously genuine and contemporary account of the martyrdom of Polycarp, in the form of a letter from the Church of Smyrna to the Church of Philomelium, is the earliest known history of a Christian martyrdom, the genuineness of which is unquestionable, and its value is enhanced by the fact that in the extant MSS. a short account is given of the history of the text. From this it appears that Gaius, a contemporary of Irenaeus who had himself seen Polycarp when he was a boy, copied the text from a manuscript in the possession of Irenaeus. Later on Socrates in Corinth copied the text of Gaius, and finally Pionius copied the text of Socrates. Pionius, who is supposed to have lived in the 4th century, says that the existence of the document was revealed to him in a vision by Polcycarp, and that when he found it the MS. was old and in bad condition.

Of the text of Pionius, the following five Greek MSS. are available and further research among hagiographical MSS. would probably reveal the existence of more, but there is no reason to suppose that such discovery would make any important addition to our knowledge of the text, which is quite good.

m, Codex Mosquensis 159 (13th century), now in the Library of the Holy Synod at Moscow.

b, Codex Baroccianus 238 (11th century), now in the Bodleian Library at Oxford.

p, Codex Parisinus Gr. 1452 (10th century), now in the Bibliotheque nationale at Paris.

s, Codex Hierosolymitanus (10th century), now in the monastery of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem.

v, Codex Vindobonensis Gr. Eccl. iii. (11th century), at Vienna.

Of these MSS. b p s v form a group as opposed to m, which has often the better text.

We also have the greater part of the letter preserved by Eusebius in quotations in his Ecclesiastical History IV.15, quoted as E.

Besides these authorities there exists a Latin version, quoted as L, and extracts from Eusebius in Syriac and Coptic which have obviously no independent value.

The date of the martyrdom of Polycarp is fixed by the chronicle of Eusebius as 166-7, but this date has now been almost universally abandoned, as according to the letter to the church at Smyrna, Polycarp’s martyrdom was on Saturday, Xanthicus[1] 2, that is Feb. 23, in the proconsulship of Statius Quadratus, and from a reference in Aelius Aristides, Waddington (Memoire sur la chronologie de la vie du rheteur, Aelius Aristide, Paris, 1864) showed that Quadratus became proconsul of Asion in 153-4. Now, Feb. 23 fell on a Saturday in 155. It is therefore suggested that Feb. 23, 155 was the date of the martyrdom. The question however is complicated by the statement in the letter that the day of the martyrdom was a great Sabbath. This may mean the Jewish feast Purim, and Purim in 155 was not on Feb. 23. Mr. C. H. Turner has argued in Studia Biblica II., pp. 105 ff. that Purim, Feb. 22, 156, is the real date and that the Roman reckoning which regards Xanthicus 2 as equivalent to Feb. 23 is a mistake due to neglect to consider fully the complicated system of intercalation in the Asian calendar. More recently Prof. E. Schwartz has argued in the Abhandlungen der koniglichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen VIII. (1905), 6, pp. 125 ff. that the ‘great Sabbath’ can only mean the Sabbath after the Passover (cf. Jo. 19, 21), and that owing to the local customs of the Jews in Smyrna this was on Feb. 22 in the year 156 A.D. He thus reaches the same result as Turner, but by a different method.

[1] The name of the spring month in the Macedonian Calendar which was commonly used in Smyrna.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Non-scriptural support of infant baptism

Archeological discoveries in the Roman catacombs have long-ago proven that infant baptism was common in the primitive Roman Churches. Two clear examples, among dozens of similar inscriptions, are all that we really need to support this claim. A man with the resounding Roman/Latin name of Murtius Verinus placed on the tomb of his children the inscription: “Verina received Baptism at the age of ten months, Florina at the age of twelve months.” The date of this tomb has been firmly established by radio-carbon dating of the children’s bones as being 105 AD +/- 4 years. Another tomb, not far away from this one, has the inscription: “Here rests Achillia, a newly-baptized infant; she was one year and five months old, died February 23rd…” and then follows the year of the reigning emperor, which dates her death to 91 AD. [see W. Wall, “History of Infant Baptism”, 2 Vols., London, 1900. and other related articles in various archeological journals from early this century.]

 

[Randy_Carson]

Noted Catholic apologist Mark Bonocore responded to Daniel’s post via private email to me earlier today:

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.

Well, three things: First, it is described from the very beginning of the Church, as illustrated in both Scripture (Matt 16:18-19, Luke 22-31-32, John 21:15-19, etc.) and the in early witness (and behavior) of Clement of Rome, Ignatius of Anitoch, Polycarp of Smyrna, Dionysius of Corinth, and Ireneaus of Lyon. All of these speak of the church of Rome (headed by its bishop) possessing the ultimate leadership and teaching ministry that St. Peter possesses in Scripture. Second, the only thing that “developed” was how this Christ-created ministry of Peter was applied to changing circumstances over time. The ministry itself (and its nature) did not develop. And thirdly, your “logic” is faulty in that you demand to see a full-blown and ***explicit ***definition of Papal primacy set down from the very beginning. But, the early Church did not operate that way. One might just as well deny the Trinity (defined as one God in three co-eternal, consubstantial Divine Persons), or the Hypostatic Union of Christ (His being both fully-God and full-man, as opposed to half-God and half-man, or God ‘disguised’ as man, etc.), or the present canon of the Bible, and/or countless other essential elements of Christianity because these things were not spelled out specifically and explicitly from the very beginning of the Church. Rather, as any mature and sensible Christian knows, essential mysteries such as the Trinity, etc. (which are never defined explicitly even in Scripture) were held to in an organic and comprehensive sense by the early Church, and it only became necessary to clearly define them when they were seriously challenged by heresies that sought to deny them. Well, the very same thing happened with the Roman Papacy. For, in the very early days, no one questioned that the church of Rome held primacy among the other bishops in the world (and thus the ultimate responsibility to maintain the universal Church in unity and orthodoxy) because of its direct and principal succession from St. Peter. It was only when this authority of Rome was questioned or challenged by heretics or schismatics that anyone had to “describe” or “spell out” the nature of the Roman Papacy, just as the Church did with the Trinity, and the Hypostatic Union of Chirst, and the present canon of the Bible. So, if you wish to deny the Papacy because you do not see it clearly and explicitly defined in detail from the very beginning of the Church, then you need to explain why you accept the Trinity, or the Hypostatic Union of Christ or the present canon of the Bible, since these things (and many others) were not clearly or explicitly defined from the very beginning either.

1. 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.

What I just said above applies to this as well. Also, in citing Ephes 4:7-16 you apparently misunderstand (and mis-contextualize) what the Papacy is, and you display an ignorance of Ephes 4 itself. For, while Ephes 4 lists a hierarchy of Church ministries, it a) is primarily interested in the hierarchy that existed in the church OF EPHESUS itself --that is, the churches in Asia, not the universal order per se; and b) it also is not presenting us with an all-embracing list of church ministries. For, if you bother to read the list carefully, the offices of “bishop” (“overseer”), and “presbyter” (“elder”), and “deacon” are not mentioned, even though those offices are mentioned* elsewhere* in the epistles of St. Paul and the other Scriptures. So, if you deny the Papacy because Ephes 4 doesn’t mention the Christ-created ministry of “Rock” and “Key Bearer” (the ministry of St. Peter), then you must deny the existence of the ministry of bishops, and presbyters, and deacons too, even though this SAME St. Paul mentions these OTHER ministries elsewhere (e.g. 1 Tim 3, 1 Tim 5, Titus 1, etc.), as do the other Scriptures (1 Peter 5:1-4, 2 John 1, 3 John 1, etc.).

(cont.)