The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Randy_Carson]

Now, with that established, it must also be mentioned that the role of “bishops” and “presbyters” were held by three of the ministries listed in Ephesians 4 --that is, the “Apostles,” “Prophets,” and “Teachers.” In other words, these three designations described men who served in the capacities of bishops and/or presbyters (elders). The Apostles, for example, were also bishops (overseers) and presbyters (elders) --see again 1 Peter 5:1-4 and 2 John 1, etc. This of course included St. Peter himself. But, given that Peter held the primacy among the bishops/presbyters (and was thus responsible for them all: e.g. Luke 22:31-32, John 21:15-19), it therefore follows that the episcopal dimension of Peter’s Apostolic office included his Christ-given ministry of Rock and Key-bearer. And, his direct successor in this episcopal office (the Bishop of Rome) likewise succeeded to the ministry of Rock and Key-bearer because of this.

And this brings us to a key flaw in your understanding of what the Papacy is. For, you are obviously under the impression that the Papacy is ***a distinct and formal Church office ***in and of itself. That is not so. Rather, it is a ministry –that is, a specific responsibility, which happens to be held by a particular bishop: the Bishop of Rome (also known as “the Pope” …a term which is actually a nick-name for “patriarch,” and a term that was applied to many important bishops in the early Church). And so, properly understood, the Pope of Rome is a bishop like all the other bishops (just as St. Peter was an Apostle like all the other Apostles), but he is a bishop with the special, Christ-established responsibility for holding all the other bishops together in unity and orthodoxy. In this, he is like the captain of a basketball team. He is a player like all the other players, but he is the one responsible for holding the team together and managing its “game plays.” This was the role and duty of St. Peter among the Apostles and the other bishops of the infant Church, and it is the role and duty of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) today.

So, in short, you do not see the Papacy in Ephes 4 or in the very early Church because you don’t understand what the Papacy is, and thus you don’t know what you are looking at when you read Scripture. This is because you are divorced from a proper and comprehensive Traditional understanding of the Apostolic Faith.

1. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.

Again, the Papacy is a repeated theme in the writings of the first Christians (both in Scripture and in the writings of the early Church fathers). You are just not seeing it because you are not looking carefully enough or correctly. This is because you demand an ***explicit ***and detailed definition of the Papacy. But, again, if you are going to demand this before you will accept the Papacy, then you must be consistent and demand to see explicit and detailed definitions for the Trinity, and the Hypostatic Union of Christ, and the present canon of the Bible as well …NONE of which is ever provided in Scripture or in the first 300 years of Church teaching. Rather, as with the references to the Papacy, all we have are implicit and organic references to the Trinity, and the Hypostatic Union of Christ, and the canon of the Bible, etc. So, why the double-standard??? Why do you demand an explicit definition of the Papacy when you are happy to accept merely ***implicit ***and organic early definitions for other, essential Christian truths??? That makes no sense. It is illogical. Or are the Trinity and other such essential Christian truths to be held in suspicion because there were not explicitly a “repeated theme” in the earliest writings of the Church??? Your call.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.

You again display ignorance as to what we believe. We Catholics believe that Christ Himself is the only true Head of the Church. But, we also believe (in accord with Scripture) that St. Peter was made the VICARIOUS Head of the Church in Christ’s physical absence, and that St. Peter’s successor holds this vicarious ministry today. Christ is the only TRUE Good Shepherd. But, in John 21:15-19, just before His ascension into Heaven, Christ entrusts Peter with His sheep, thus making him the VICARIOUS shepherd of the flock. It is*** only in this sense*** that we speak of the Pope as the “Head of the Church” --in the sense of his ministry as Christ’s appointed Vicar. It in no sense “rivals” the Headship Christ Himself, and it is silly and childish to imply such a thing.

Also, if you understand both Greek and the tradition of Jewish puns, Peter* is* actually referred to as “the head” in Scripture. For, in various places (1 Corinth 1:12, 9:5, 15:5, Gal 1:18, Gal 2:11-14, etc.), St. Paul refers to Peter as “Kephas” (often written as “Cephas” in English Bibles). “Kephas” is of course a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic name “Kepha,” meaning “Rock.” But, in Greek (and as would be appreciated among Greek-speaking Jews) is very similar to the Greek word for “head” --“kephale.” And, in the context in which Paul is referring to Peter in the passages listed above, it is pretty darn obvious in the Greek that he is employing a Jewish pun --that is, playing off the Greek form of “Kephas” in order to refer to Peter’s “headship” or “leadership.” This is especially true in Gal 1:18, and in Gal 2:11-14, where Paul boasts of standing up to Peter EVEN THOUGH Peter was the one in charge. It is also seen in the ascending list in 1 Corinth 1:12, where “Kephas” (Peter) is second only to Christ Himself.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.

Context, context, context. If you pay attention to the Acts narrative, St. James was and remained the bishop of Jerusalem from Acts 12:17 on. From that point on, the Apostles were no longer based in Jerusalem itself; and Acts 15, which takes place in A.D. 49, occurred in the very same year that, according to the Roman historian Suetonius, all of the Jews were expelled from the city of Rome because of a riot over someone named “Chrestus” --clearly a mis-hearing of “Christus” (“Christ.”). This same expulsion is mentioned in Acts 18:2. In this, Tradition tells us that Peter had spent the previous 7 years (from Acts 12:17 until Acts 15) in Rome itself, having recently been expelled from the imperial capital along with all other Jews (and Jewish Christians). This is why St. Peter was present in Jerusalem at the council in Acts 15. In other words, he was merely visiting. But, even though he was not the resident bishop of Jerusalem at the time, Peter DOES give the definitive teaching at the council (see Acts 15:7-11), and after Peter speaks, everyone “falls silent” and all debate on the matter comes to an end. This cannot be denied.

Now, above you mention that St. James makes a “closing summary” at the council. But, it is not so much a closing summary, but a concession that his side lost! …and thanks to Peter’s definitive teaching. A careful reading reveals this beyond all doubt. For example, notice what St. James says in Acts 15:13-20. First of all, he bases his comments ON THE TEACHING THAT PETER GAVE, saying …

“Brothers, listen to me. Symeon (i.e., Peter) has described to us how God at first showed his concern by taking from the Gentiles a people for himself.”

So, James does not give a teaching based on his own authority, but on the authority of what Peter declared.

Ah! But, wait a minute. Doesn’t James then render a “judgment” on behalf of the council??? For, he then says …

“It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. …”

So, doesn’t this make James the person in charge??? Not at all. For, if you bother to read the passage IN CONTEXT and use some honest, common sense, you will see that James is NOT speaking on behalf of the council, but ONLY on behalf of his own, ultra-Jewish party. For, WHO was “making it difficult for the Gentiles”??? Not Peter. He converted and Baptized the first Gentiles without demanding that they be circumcised. Not Paul or Barnabas or the other members of the council. Rather, it was only JAMES’ ULTRA-JEWISH PARTY! THEY were the ones “making it difficult” for the Gentiles and creating the controversy (see Acts 15:1-2 and Acts 15:5). So, the one and only reason why James speaks after Peter is*** to concede*** to Peter’s authoritative teaching and back down.

This cannot be denied if one bothers to read the passage honestly and carefully.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.

Really? You really need to read a little more carefully:

Acts 1:5 – Shortly after Jesus’ Ascension, and ***before ***the coming of the Holy
Spirit, Peter alone takes charge of the Jerusalem church and announces the
need to choose a successor for Judas.

Acts 2:14 --Peter is the first to publicly proclaim the Gospel at
Pentecost.

Acts 3:1-12 --The first public miracle is worked through Peter.

Acts 4:8-12 --Peter defends the Gospel before the Sanhedrin, even defying the
established hierarchy of the chief priests (Matt 23:1-3) for the sake of his
Apostolic ministry.

Acts 5:1-5 –Peter exercises Church discipline in the case of Ananias and
Sapphira.

Acts 5:15 – The people bring out their sick so that Peter’s shadow may pass
over them.

Acts 8:20-24 --Simon Magus experiences that Peter makes the decisions for the
disciples. He is condemned by Peter for seeking to purchase the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:1-48 --Peter unilaterally Baptizes the first Gentiles after receiving
a personal vision from God instructing him to do so.

Acts 11:18 --None one questions Peter’s decision to Baptize the Gentiles.

Acts 12:12 —When Peter is imprisoned by Herod, the faithful in Jerusalem gather in prayer for him (their leader).

Acts 12:17 --After escaping from prison, Peter flees Jerusalem, ordering that his escape be reported to James, who is apparently the new man in charge of the Jerusalem church.

Gal 2:11-14 --Peter is clearly the leader of the church of Antioch, and Paul boasts of standing up to him and rebuking him for his unintended hypocrisy for that very reason.

1 Peter 5:1-5 & 13 .–Peter is based “at Babylon” (which, as in the Book of Revelation, was the early Christian code name for the city of Rome), where he calls himself a “presbyter” --that is, a bishop. In other words, Peter is the bishop of the church of Rome, just as he was the bishop in Antioch and Jerusalem before being bishop of Rome.

Scripture is pretty clear once you set aside your anti-Catholic prejudices and unrealistic demands.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

1. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the period was fraught with heresies, and the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

Several things:

a) There are numerous claims to infallible Roman authority prior to the episcopate of Pope St. Victor (A.D. 188). In the late 1st Century, and while some Apostoles are still alive elsewhere, the church of Corinth appeals to the church of Rome for instructions of repairing their local schism. In this, St. Clement of Rome issues a direct order to the Corithians, telling them to reconcile with the local presbyters, and they do it. About a decade later, we have St. Ignatius of Antioch speaking of how Rome offers teaching to all. And, in 180, we have St. Ireneaus of Lyon saying that every other city-church ***must ***agree with the church of Rome because of its “preeminent authority.” How much more do you need???

b) Pope St. Victor did not “blunder” or introduce any “errors.” He insisted that Easter should be celebrated on a Sunday, which is when almost every Christian on earth (Protestants, as well as Catholics and Eastern Orthodox) celebrates it today. And Victor’s true primacy is illustrated, not merely by his threat to excommunicate the churches in Asia because they refused to celebrate Easter on the same day as the rest of the universal Church, but also by his withdrawal of the excommunication, when St. Ireneaus convinced him that the difference was not a Church dividing issue, but merely a liturgical matter. In this, it is important to note that neither Ireneaus nor anyone else ever denied that Victor possessed the authority to excommunicate the Asian churches. This is because, despite the controversy, everyone recognized Rome’s primal authority.

…and …

c) How do you know that the entire NT was written when the Apostles and the Church were being persecuted??? Again, if you demand explicit and unquestionable evidence for the Papacy, then you must be consistent and demand explicit early evidence for all of the books of the New Testament as well. But, we of course have no such evidence that the Bible as we have it today was with us from earliest times in its present form. Indeed, before the council of Carthage in A.D. 397 (a council of CATHOLIC bishop initiated in their task to define the Biblical canon by Pope St. Damasus in 382) , there was no universal agreement as to what books made up the New Testament (or the Christian version of the Old Testament), and no unquestionable certainty that all of our present NT books are Apostolic. This was especially true of 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, Jude, Hebrews, and Revelation.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built upon?

Again, you are quite ignorant of Catholic belief. The Church is not built on the person of Peter. Rather, it is built upon a Christ-created ministry that was first entrusted to Peter. Big difference.

As for you reference to St. Paul’s statement, which you provide as …

Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

As any mature and sensible student of Scripture can appreciate, this is a different metaphor from the one presented in Matt 16:18. In Matt 16:18, Christ speaks of how His Church will be built upon the ministry of Peter insofar as its authority (the authority of the Keys and its ability to “bind and loosen”) is concerned. But, here in Ephes 2, we are give this image:

THE CHURCH
/ \​

/
The Apostles Old Testament Prophets
\ /
CHRIST

[Sorry, Mark’s diagram doesn’t reproduce well in the forum. - Randy]

In other words, the image here has to do with the fact that Gentiles in Christ are no longer "foreigners," but have a HERITAGE in the succession from both the OT Prophets of Israel (starting with Moses) and from the Apostles, who are the patriarchal heads of the New Israel, the Church --both Covenant Peoples being held together by Christ.

So, you are unfortunately mixing apples and oranges, and ONCE AGAIN illustrating that you do not know how to read Scripture correctly or maturely. Also, what Ephes 2 illustrates is that, according to Scripture, the Church IS built on “persons” or ministries other than Christ Himself. And the ministry of St. Peter is primary among these.

(cont.)

 

[Randy_Carson]

The Achilles Heal of the Papacy Theory

The Papacy is not a “theory.” It is a historical fact.

If indeed Peter was the head of the church with successors as the voice of Christ and the basis of unity, where is this voice during the turbulent years of persecution and heresy before Constantine

? Excuse me??? Have you even bothered to read Church history?? Look at the statements of Pope Clement I, Pope Anicetus, Pope Victor, Pope Zephyrinus, Pope Callistus, Pope Pontian, Pope Anterus, Pope Fabian, Pope Cornelius, Pope Stephen I, Pope Sixtus II, Pope Dionysius, Pope Felix I, Pope Miltiades, and Pope Sylvester. All of these Popes are on record issuing teaching and settling disputes that effected the universal unity and orthodoxy of the Church before the reign of Constantine. The fact that you do not know this again illustrates your ignorance.

Someone will say, “They went to their deaths as martyrs.” But so did the apostles, yet we have their writings well-preserved for us.

We also have the decrees of the Popes listed above. Go look them up.

Where are the writings of the popes from 60 AD to 325 AD? (Clement’s letter is not from him as a singular bishop but from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, not to the singular bishop of Corinth.)

The statement you just made is sheer foolishness, and again reveals your ignorance. Clement writes in the name of the church of Rome because he is the bishop of Rome. In the Apostolic understanding, a church consists of a flock (the Sacramental Body) and its bishop (the Sacramental head) as an intrinsic WHOLE. Thus, to speak of a church is to speak of its bishop, and vise-versa. Likewise, like a true Protestant, you assume that Christianity is a mere academic exercise --that is, you apparently believe that the role of a Pope (or any bishop) is identical to the role of a theologian, who produces theological writings. But, that is not the case. The Pope is a shepherd, as was St. Peter. St. Paul, not St. Peter, produced the majority of the New Testament Scriptures because Paul happened to be the Church’s first theologian. It is not the role of the Pope to produce theological works, but to shepherd the people of God and to maintain them in unity and orthodoxy --that is, to approve of theological works or prohibit them (see 2 Peter 3:15-16)… And this is illustrated quite clearly in the decrees and decisions (and sometimes theological teachings) which come down to us from the pre-Constantinian Popes.

We have something recorded ABOUT some of the other alleged popes but not a single written word FROM them.

a) That is not true. We have many of their writings. And b) It doesn’t matter, since the job of these Popes was to make decisions which safeguarded the Church’s unity and orthodoxy, and we know what those decisions were. Also, your statement above can be applied to Jesus Christ Himself, Who never wrote one word.

But correct me if I am mistaken.

You are mistaken. Consider yourself corrected. Also, try looking up the writings of Pope Anterus and Pope Fabian (we have their epistles), as well as the decree of Pope Stephen I (as preserved in Eusebius), and Pope Dionysius (preserved in Eusebius and Athanasius), and Pope Miltiades (preserved in Eusebius).

Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Thanks again Randy!

Must be nice to have friends in high places.

 

[PJM]

Papal Infallibility

Mt. 16: 13-19

13 “ Now when Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock, I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 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.”

1. Jesus choose Caesarea Philippi to actually “Start” His Church.

1. Keep in mind that “words used in the bible” have been Divinely Inspired, and thus we must search out there meanings as used at the time of pronouncement, keeping in mind the “time,” the “location,” the “speaker,” and to whom the “words were intended.”
2. Jesus chooses Caesarea Philippi for the following reasons. It was the Site of a huge and very active pagan population. It is located on a large hill, and had the areas largest Pagan Temple. To protect the Temple it was built behind the cover-protection of a HUGE 500’ rock.

We note in verse 14, that Jesus asked the question: ”who do people say that I am?” In verse 15 He asked His twelve deciples, “but who do YOU say that I am?” And we find that they are speechless. Then Simon Peter replies: “You are the Christ.” Jesus replies in verse "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.

Notice the name change: In the bible, whenever God changes a name, that person is called to a particular and prominent role. For example: Abram to Abraham, or John the Baptist being named John, not Zachary after his father, upon the Angel’s direction from God.

Verse 18, Jesus specifies that I (singular) Jesus will build My (singular) Church (singular) upon this rock (singular). And warrants with His own merits (too soon come in His Crucifixion) that it is and will be THE TRUTH, and that Satan shall never prevail against Her.

Next in verse 19 Jesus says: I (singular) will give to you Simon Bar-Jona (also singular), the key (singular) to the gate of Heaven (singular).

Now to be sure that we understand the significance of these words we share the following.

In the Old Testament times it was common practice for the major cities to be “walled in.” They actually were surrounded by wall that had GATES, and the gates, especially the “Main gate” actually had a KEY.

Also it was common to have a KING of the City (Jesus is in this role.) And a Prime Minister who actually had COMPLETE Power and Authority to rule and administer the city. The key carrier, actually had sole possession of the “key to the city (the city is a symbol of the Kingdom of God) and ran independently the city, day-in and day-out. The carrier of “the Key,” answered to NOONE except the KING. Simon Peter was given the “Key to the KINGDOM of Heaven,” With complete and total authority to Rule and Administer “the Kingdom.”

To be sure that everyone CLEARLY understood His message, Jesus in verse 19 goes on to say as further proof of His Singular intent: “, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Why did Jesus, who is God use these very words? Because the words “to bind,” and “to Loose,” were Rabbinical Terms, Binding in Jewish Law. At the time of their pronouncement they were spoken by a Jew, to Jews who would clearly have understood the significance of the words, and their Binding authority. That is why we never read about any attempts to usurp the Power of Simon Peter by any other Apostle! They understood exactly what Jesus said, what Jesus had done, and what Jesus meant.

17: “And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. This verse gives assent by God the Father to the decision Jesus Proclaimed, and also of the Presence and assent of the Holy Spirit who make know “the Will of The Father.”

2 Chronicles 19: 10-11 “whenever a case comes to you from your brethren who live in their cities, concerning bloodshed, law or commandment, statutes or ordinances, then you shall instruct them, that they may not incur guilt before the LORD and wrath may not come upon you and your brethren. Thus you shall do, and you will not incur guilt. 11 **And behold, Amariah the chief priest is over you in all matters of the LORD; and Zebadiah the son of Ishmael, the governor of the house of Judah, in all the king’s matters; and the Levites will serve you as officers. Deal courageously, and may the LORD be with the upright!" **

** Common Sense**

1. Jesus knew of King David and his Walled Cities
2. Jesus knew King David used “Prime Ministers.”
3. Jesus appointed Simon Peter as ‘Prime Minister of His Kingdom
4. Jesus admitted in front of Pilate: John chapter 18: 33 Pilate entered the praetorium again and called Jesus, and said to him, “Are you the King of the Jews?” 34 Jesus answered, “Do you say this of your own accord, or did others say it to you about me?” 35 Pilate answered, “Am I a Jew? Your own nation and the chief priests have handed you over to me; what have you done?” 36* Jesus answered, “My kingship is not of this world; if my kingship were of this world, my servants would fight, that I might not be handed over to the Jews; but my kingship is not from the world.” 37* Pilate said to him, “So you are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say that I am a king. For this I was born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Every one who is of the truth hears my voice.”

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel,

I’d be interested in your replies to Steve Ray’s views of your topic here, posted courtesy of Randy, …posts 427 and 428 I believe.

Whenever you get a chance, of course.

Catholic author and apologist, Stephen Ray, responded to Daniel’s post via email to me today. I was given permission to post his responses here:

Quote:
This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.1. In order for the papacy or an earthly head of the church with successors to be true as a definer and protector of truth, it would logically have to be described from the beginning of the church in the apostolic period and not as a later development.

Why does this have to be true? Wouldn’t this claim then be imposed on all development of doctrine such as the canon of Scripture. In other words, for the truth of sola scriptura to be true, it would logically have to have been in existence from the first, which of course not the case. Further, in my book Upon this Rock I demonstrate quite conclusively that the concept of the Primacy of Peter in Rome was quite well understood and practiced in the early Church. For the very few documents that survived the first centuries, we have a very strong case for the primacy of Rome.
REPLY: 1. So this is an admission that the papacy is not defined from the beginning. 2. The need for the papacy to be defined from the beginning adheres to the definition itself as the infallible definer of truth. 3. Ray admits we have very few documents for Roman primacy (and none from Popes) which itself contradicts the notion of Roman primacy.

Quote:
2. For the office of papacy to be true, it would need to be described with qualifications for successors, in the inspired writings among the gifts given by Christ for church unity when he ascended into heaven in Ephesians 4:7-16, yet the papacy is conspicuously absent.

How does he know it was NOT described with qualifications. We know that the Alexandrian Library in Egypt was massively stocked with books and documents that no longer exist. We unhappily lost much of what was written and practiced in the early Church. But, even saying that, does this fellow have any documentation from the early Church to affirm a 27 writing canon from the earliest years, or the word “Trinity”? He is very free with “it would logically have to be true” when he points at us but not so freely with his own position.
REPLY: This again is an admission that the papacy with qualifications for successors is not in any known literature in the early centuries.

Quote:
3. Such a fundamentally important central role as the papacy, in order to be true, would be a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians: Luke, James, John, Paul, and Peter himself, yet there is not a single mention.

And where do we find these same men repeating the express doctrine of a New Testament canon or the clearly expressed theologies of the two natures of Christ or the three Persons in the hypostatic union of the Trinity? In fact, there are many things that are taken for granted today that were not expressly stated in the NT. Protestants live with this every day with their traditions. Reading the writers of the NT within the context makes it pretty clear about the papacy if someone takes the blinders off.
REPLY: Again admitting the papacy is not in scripture, then claiming it’s “pretty clear.”

Quote:
4. Although “head of the church” is a phrase, office, and title in scripture, only Christ and never Peter was ever referred to as such.

This would, of course, be true in that the NT is more expressly interested in establishing who Jesus was in the documents of Scripture. One does not have to find something expressly stated in order to find it believed and universally practiced. I would suggest Dave Armstrong’s book about proofs of the Papacy from the Bible. Jesus is the head of the Mystical Church and baptized believers are the members. But the Church is not just an amorphous invisible blog or mist. It is a real organization of real people in the Body of Christ which needs to have an address to live out the faith like the Lord intended. Jesus left a shepherd, a head of the visible church as the source of unity and teaching. This can be substantiated in the NT unless one refuses to remove the blinders.
REPLY: Another admission, Peter’s headship is not expressly stated. He claims substantiation but offers no support for it.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

(continued from Steve Ray with replies from Daniel Keeran)

Quote:
5. Peter is not explicitly identified as the head of the church in the Jerusalem council in Acts.15; rather James makes the closing summary, although even James is not identified as sole head or bishop of the Jerusalem church.

James quotes Peter and the OT as the infallible source of theology on the matter. It doesn’t to say Peter was the head expressly as it was quite clear to those who attended and by the theological determination who was the head. James was the bishop of Jerusalem sitting in the chair that was vacated by Peter to become the teacher of the world as St. John Chryostom says. Our friend makes too much of “explictely” and this can certainly and effectively be turned on him much more so than on us. His tradition falls far short if he wants to apply the same standard to himself. Too often Protestants judge Catholic practice by Protestant ideals. What happens if we judge Protestant practice by Catholic ideals?
REPLY: Peter is not quoted as a SOLE infallible source. And Steve again admits Peter is not identified as head in Acts 15. There was no singular bishop anywhere at this time. Peter was not identified as the head of the church nor by any similar phrase.

Quote:
6. Peter is never identified in scripture as the singular bishop of the Jerusalem diocese or of any diocese.

Peter alone was given the keys in Matthew 16 and singularly headed the Church in the book of Acts. It seems that there was a college of bishops that worked together with one at the lead. This is very likely regarding Peter. In Scripture no one is expressly stated as bishop of Jerusalem and yet anyone who knows history knows that this is what existed and from the earliest times.
REPLY: “It seems…”? Peter’s prominence does not constitute headship. History declares there were no singular bishops of any church at that time, and Steve admits this for Jerusalem in scripture.

Quote:
7. If there was an infallible head of the church and voice of Christ on earth with successors after Peter, there are no claims, writings, or pronouncements from them until Victor blunders onto the scene with his error, even though the period was fraught with heresies, and the entire NT was written when the apostles and church were persecuted from the beginning.

Maybe our opponent has never heard of St. Clement? This guy really needs to read my book, Upon this Rock, which documents the primacy of Rome from the apostolic age.
REPLY: The letter called “Clement” has no evidence for a singular bishop anywhere, let alone a Pope. Where’s papal paper trail?

Quote:
If the church was intended to be built on none other than the pope or person of Peter, why is he not mentioned at all by one of the most important first Christians in the following passage speaking of who the church is built upon?Ephesians 2:19-22 “Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

In another place, Paul writes that it is Jesus that is the foundation, and does not mention Peter or any of the apostles. Does that mean that Paul is wrong in Ephesians or 1 Corinthians 3? We see various “foundations” in various metaphors used by NT writers. Peter is the rock in Matthew, Jesus in 1 Cor., the apostles and prophets in Ephesians, and the 12 apostles in Rev. One cannot draw all their conclusions about the Church and its leadership for one verse in Ephesians.
REPLY: Peter is not mentioned as head of the church or by any similar phrase in the NT. Peter’s name as Rock does not mean he was head of the church or this would have been a repeated theme.

Quote:
The Achilles Heal of the Papacy TheoryIf indeed Peter was the head of the church with successors as the voice of Christ and the basis of unity, where is this voice during the turbulent years of persecution and heresy before Constantine? Someone will say, “They went to their deaths as martyrs.” But so did the apostles, yet we have their writings well-preserved for us. Where are the writings of the popes from 60 AD to 325 AD? (Clement’s letter is not from him as a singular bishop but from the church of Rome to the church of Corinth, not to the singular bishop of Corinth.) We have something recorded ABOUT some of the other alleged popes but not a single written word FROM them. But correct me if I am mistaken. I would find their writings most interesting.

Like I said, I gave pages and pages of documentation from the early Church. Just because one doesn’t read history or do their research does not mean it does not exist. I would also suggest that this friend read the Treatise on the Development of Doctrine by Cardinal Newman. The papacy can be demonstrated from the first centuries, but we also accept the concept of the development of doctrine (as must the Protestant, especially with the canon and their sola scriptura) which puts everything in its proper place. I am proud to be a Catholic rooted in Scripture and the early Church!
REPLY: Another admission that the papacy was a “development of doctrine.” There is no papal paper trail for successors who were the vicar of Christ from Linus on.

 

[paul_c]

The word of God is known by the testimony it bears to the heart (Heb.4:12).

What does this mean to you? That whatever feels right to you is the word of God?

 

[utunumsint]

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.

Then you of all people should be able to see the clear leadership role played by the bishops of Rome throughout the first three hundred years of church history. To claim they are silent is to be dishonest. To reject all secondary sources is academically dishonest. I hope you didn’t try to pull that stunt in your MA studies.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

We DO have direct correspondence from Peter, so if the popes are successors of Peter and of Christ, where are their letters preserved for us? They are nonexistent because Peter was not head of the church and he had no successors claiming to be the voice of Christ.

You probably should have taken your degree in classical studies. Then you wouldn’t make such statements.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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?

Jesus said, “you shall know the truth…”
John, “hereby do we know that we know him…”

**Truth is knowable **by the individual reading the word of God. Jesus said it is received by **honest and sincere **hearts.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

We do have the writings of Julius Caesar and others. But aside from that, there is a MAJOR difference between mere human leaders and the leaders who claim to be “God on earth.” Am I overstating the title here? Where is the paper trail of these divinely led and appointed individuals for the first 300 years?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Non-scriptural support of infant baptism

The inscription are very useful for establishing the fact that infant baptism began as a result of parents’ fearing their child would die. They show that it was NOT the custom to baptize children after birth but before death.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Jesus said, “you shall know the truth…”
John, “hereby do we know that we know him…”

**Truth is knowable **by the individual reading the word of God. Jesus said it is received by **honest and sincere **hearts.

In the present day we know Him through His Church, which has the inspired word and the spoken word.

Context is everything. You need the whole verse to begin with.

1Jn 2:3 And by this we know that we have known him, if we keep his commandments.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The Papacy is not a “theory.” It is a historical fact.

You are mistaken. Consider yourself corrected. Also, try looking up the writings of Pope Anterus and Pope Fabian (we have their epistles), as well as the decree of Pope Stephen I (as preserved in Eusebius), and Pope Dionysius (preserved in Eusebius and Athanasius), and Pope Miltiades (preserved in Eusebius).

Mark Bonocore
The Catholic Legate

Very impressive! Is there a single volume that has all of these papal letters and statements? I would like to examine it. Tell Mark I sincerely appreciate all his work on this.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

**Truth is knowable **by the individual reading the word of God. Jesus said it is received by **honest and sincere **hearts.

**1Ti 3:15 But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.

Eph 3:10 That the manifold wisdom of God may be made
known to the principalities and powers in heavenly places through the church**

Why does the inspired, written, word of God tell us that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, instead of scriptures? Why does the inspired, written, word of God tell us that the manifold wisdom of God may be made known through the Church, instead of scriptures?

Now, one last time, since you have avoided it multiple times, who does one believe when there are thousands of denominations preaching “truth” as revealed to them through Holy Spirit guided interpretations of sacred scriptures?

Where did Jesus say, "it is received by **honest and sincere **hearts, referencing reading scriptures?