The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Daniel_Keeran]

Prodigal Son1, it is very true that there is no central authority, or bishops in the “churches of Christ”, they are the most stict congregationalists within Protestantism. There is no one web site that speaks for them all. But OTOH, many CofC congregations have individual web-sites, perhaps Dan’s congregation has one, but he will not reveal it to us.

I keep giving a site that is representative of the basic doctrine, that all CofC’s share, that also makes it very clear the derision that they have for the Catholic church, but as well for all other churches but their own.

It is:

www.bible.ca

that is not com but ca, it is a Canadian site.

For some reason that I am unable to fathom, everyone here continues to ignore me, and I am certian that Dan finds that delightful, but I am telling the truth. It’s odd but people here respond to Catholic former Mormons and former SDA’s, but I am ignored.

Please go to www.bible.ca I swear I am telling the truth.

pipper, I wonder if some think you are advocating churches of Christ because even when you speak against them, it seems to commend them.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

pipper, I wonder if some think you are advocating churches of Christ because even when you speak against them, it seems to commend them.

No Daniel, pipper’s message is as loud and clear as the link he recommends.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The leaders claim to be the guardians of God’s Revelation on earth.

I think Catholics claim more than that: vicar of Christ, and other titles. Is it correct to say when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” it is the infallible word of God? If so, when did the term “ex-cathedra” or seat or teaching chair of Peter begin and how did this idea evolve? Was everything Linus said infallible or only when he was sitting in a special chair or making special intro like: “The following is from God.”?

Catholics believe the papal statement hold special value, and if so, why did the Church not collect them and present them as a volume as they claim for the NT?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Cyprian died in 258.

Now look closely at the inscriptions again.

OK I’ll look this up. It may be good evidence even if the research is old. I don’t think they had radio-carbon dating in 1900.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I think Catholics claim more than that: vicar of Christ, and other titles. Is it correct to say when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” it is the infallible word of God? If so, when did the term “ex-cathedra” or seat or teaching chair of Peter begin and how did this idea evolve? Was everything Linus said infallible or only when he was sitting in a special chair or making special intro like: “The following is from God.”?

Catholics believe the papal statement hold special value, and if so, why did the Church not collect them and present them as a volume as they claim for the NT?

Christ gave the example of the chair of authority and that God’s truth could be spoken through it, even through sinful men.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Everything a Pope says is not infallible.

While we’re on the subject of infallibility, you have told us we are wrong at every turn, where did you receive the authority to speak infallibly? See how this works?

 

[PRmerger]

I think Catholics claim more than that: vicar of Christ, and other titles.

Please look to the Catechism to see what Catholics claim about the papacy, Daniel. We do not claim more than that. The leaders are the guardians of God’s Word. Nothing more, nothing less.

Is it correct to say when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” it is the infallible word of God?

When he speaks ex cathedra, he is protected from teaching error in the areas of faith and morals. Nothing more, nothing less.

If so, when did the term “ex-cathedra” or seat or teaching chair of Peter begin and how did this idea evolve? Was everything Linus said infallible or only when he was sitting in a special chair or making special intro like: “The following is from God.”?

It began in the apostolic age, as noted in Matthew, by the guidance of Christ himself.

I know you know that not everything Linus said was infallible, Daniel.

Catholics believe the papal statement hold special value, and if so, why did the Church not collect them and present them as a volume as they claim for the NT?

Do the creeds count? And the writings of the councils?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Christ gave the example of the chair of authority and that God’s truth could be spoken through it, even through sinful men.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Everything a Pope says is not infallible.

While we’re on the subject of infallibility, you have told us we are wrong at every turn, where did you receive the authority to speak infallibly? See how this works?

Here are my questions:

1. After the NT reference to the seat of Moses, when did the term “ex-cathedra” or seat or teaching chair of Peter begin and how did this idea evolve?
2. Is it correct to say when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” it is the infallible word of God? 3. Was everything Linus said infallible or only when he was sitting in a special chair or making special intro like: “The following is from God.”?
3. Catholics believe the papal statement holds special value, and if so, why did the Church not collect them and present them as a volume as they claim for the NT?

 

[PJM]

=Daniel Keeran;5301384]I think Catholics claim more than that: vicar of Christ, and other titles. Is it correct to say when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” it is the infallible word of God? If so, when did the term “ex-cathedra” or seat or teaching chair of Peter begin and how did this idea evolve? Was everything Linus said infallible or only when he was sitting in a special chair or making special intro like: “The following is from God.”?

Catholics believe the papal statement hold special value, and if so, why did the Church not collect them and present them as a volume as they claim for the NT?

The answer to you’re last question is that the RCC is a LIVE and GROWING church even today. Thus Definitve statements" are an on going process.

The Catholic Church teaches and holds that a Teaching need not be issued “from the chair of Peter” to bind Catholics and humanity.

**Can. 750 §1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them.

§2. Each and every thing which is proposed definitively by the magisterium of the Church concerning the doctrine of faith and morals, that is, each and every thing which is required to safeguard reverently and to expound faithfully the same deposit of faith, is also to be firm-ly embraced and retained; therefore, one who rejects those propositions which are to be held definitively is opposed to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.

Can. 751 Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

Can. 752 Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

Can. 753 Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

Can. 754 All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.**

The most definitive proclaimation /Teachings on Infallibility are from the Council of Trent and especially Vatican Council 1.

Because these but reflect long held understanding and practice in action, they really say nothing new. The clairification is really as much for those ourside the embrace of the RCC and those of us in it.

Love and prayers,

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Please look to the Catechism to see what Catholics claim about the papacy, Daniel. We do not claim more than that. The leaders are the guardians of God’s Word. Nothing more, nothing less.

When he speaks ex cathedra, he is protected from teaching error in the areas of faith and morals. Nothing more, nothing less.

It began in the apostolic age, as noted in Matthew, by the guidance of Christ himself.

I know you know that not everything Linus said was infallible, Daniel.

Do the creeds count? And the writings of the councils?

Maybe I misunderstand the papacy. I thought he was supposed to address all errors, heresies, speak for Christ, write letters to the whole church on what to believe, etc. From your statement, he sounds like just a nice wise man. I thought he had power with councils, to change doctrine, make exceptions to the “rule”, etc.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Here are my questions:

1. After the NT reference to the seat of Moses, when did the term “ex-cathedra” or seat or teaching chair of Peter begin and how did this idea evolve?
2. Is it correct to say when the Pope speaks “ex-cathedra” it is the infallible word of God? 3. Was everything Linus said infallible or only when he was sitting in a special chair or making special intro like: “The following is from God.”?
3. Catholics believe the papal statement holds special value, and if so, why did the Church not collect them and present them as a volume as they claim for the NT?

First, I do not want to pass up the discussion of the chair of Moses, how did the multitudes know what Christ was speaking about? The chair of Moses is not written about anywhere else in scriptures? Did the multitudes reject what He said because it wasn’t specifically written to thier satisfaction? No, they accepted what He taught them through the oral tradition.

Of course, now, your’e probably going to challenge the term “excathedra” because it’s not written specifically in scriptures. Where are the terms Trinity or sola scriptura?

Below is from the Catholic encyclopedia. Below that are links to the encyclopedia that explain infallibility and the Pope.

Literally “from the chair”, a theological term which signifies authoritative teaching and is more particularly applied to the definitions given by the Roman pontiff. Originally the name of the seat occupied by a professor or a bishop, cathedra was used later on to denote the magisterium, or teaching authority. The phrase ex cathedra occurs in the writings of the medieval theologians, and more frequently in the discussions which arose after the Reformation in regard to the papal prerogatives. But its present meaning was formally determined by the Vatican Council, Sess. IV, Const. de Ecclesiâ Christi, c. iv: “We teach and define that it is a dogma Divinely revealed that the Roman pontiff when he speaks ex cathedra, that is when in discharge of the office of pastor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme Apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church, by the Divine assistance promised to him in Blessed Peter, is possessed of that infallibility with which the Divine Redeemer willed that his Church should be endowed in defining doctrine regarding faith or morals, and that therefore such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves and not from the consent of the Church irreformable.”

Infallibility

The Pope

As for your last question, let’s turn the tables here. You believe in the Protestant theology, but have not produced any writings supporting that theology from the early Christians, prior to the 1500s. If Protestantism is the truth, why didn’t the early Christians write it down?

Catholics believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Papal statements are not scriptures. They are teachings from the Church, just as your pastor teaches his congregation. Does your pastor write down all his words?

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe I misunderstand the papacy. I thought he was supposed to address all errors, heresies, speak for Christ, write letters to the whole church on what to believe, etc. From your statement, he sounds like just a nice wise man. I thought he had power with councils, to change doctrine, make exceptions to the “rule”, etc.

Yes–I’m surprised at your lack of scholarship on this, Daniel. Given the length of this thread I would have thought your understanding of the papacy was more informed.

But, no, he is not just a wise man.

I think some might criticize your understanding of God as a nice, wise, man, too, but that would be disrespectful to your theology and display their ignorance of your faith, yes?

 

[paul_c]

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?

The only one who was God on Earth was Jesus Christ and he left no paper trail whatsoever…

 

[paul_c]

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.

Daniel, this is just plain ignoring the facts. They were baptized as infants before 100 AD, were they not? Of course they were baptized before death. That is axactly the point of baptism- for the forgiveness of sins and to give one the grace to be saved when they die.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

First, I do not want to pass up the discussion of the chair of Moses, how did the multitudes know what Christ was speaking about? The chair of Moses is not written about anywhere else in scriptures? Did the multitudes reject what He said because it wasn’t specifically written to thier satisfaction? No, they accepted what He taught them through the oral tradition.

Of course, now, your’e probably going to challenge the term “excathedra” because it’s not written specifically in scriptures. Where are the terms Trinity or sola scriptura?

Below is from the Catholic encyclopedia. Below that are links to the encyclopedia that explain infallibility and the Pope.

As for your last question, let’s turn the tables here. You believe in the Protestant theology, but have not produced any writings supporting that theology from the early Christians, prior to the 1500s. If Protestantism is the truth, why didn’t the early Christians write it down?

Catholics believe the Bible is the inspired word of God. Papal statements are not scriptures. They are teachings from the Church, just as your pastor teaches his congregation. Does your pastor write down all his words?

So you view the papal statements as I would view those of my “pastor”? OK, now I understand why the papal statements were not written down for the first 300 years.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Daniel, this is just plain ignoring the facts. They were baptized as infants before 100 AD, were they not? Of course they were baptized before death. That is axactly the point of baptism- for the forgiveness of sins and to give one the grace to be saved when they die.

This has significant implications and perhaps belongs to the “Fate of Infants that die Unbaptized” thread, although already discussed there.

The claims for Peter as singular head of the church with unique power and keys, require that Christ be present in his successors to the same degree as in Peter. This being the case, such a claim needs to be supported by a paper trail. Otherwise, the claims should be revised or retracted.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

This has significant implications and perhaps belongs to the “Fate of Infants that die Unbaptized” thread, although already discussed there.

The claims for Peter as singular head of the church with unique power and keys, require that Christ be present in his successors to the same degree as in Peter. This being the case, such a claim needs to be supported by a paper trail. Otherwise, the claims should be revised or retracted.

Ok, following your example, you claim your Church was the Church founded by Christ. Such a claim needs to be supported by a paper trail. Otherwise, the claims should be revised or retracted.

Can you not see the double standard you are using in this discussion? I assure you, every Catholic here can plainly see that you ignore evidence presented, even from scriptures, and you stay with your agenda ignoring all evidence or putting the spin to evidence against logic.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

The only one who was God on Earth was Jesus Christ and he left no paper trail whatsoever…

Actually, there is a very significant paper trail in the apostles to whom Christ gave the Holy Spirit who wrote the NT. The paper trail for the popes is nonexistent; therefore the papal claims are unsupported.

The Catholic church claims to have preserved the NT and codified it in the 4th century. Why then did the Catholic church not preserve the early papal statements and codify them at least by the 4th century? Why do we only have the letter of Clement, who was certainly not a singular bishop of Rome? If this letter was preserved, why not other letters from other “popes”??

 

[tukfryer]

Christ gave the example of the chair of authority and that God’s truth could be spoken through it, even through sinful men.

Mat 23:1 Then Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples,
Mat 23:2 Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses.
Mat 23:3 All things therefore whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do: but according to their works do ye not. For they say, and do not.

Everything a Pope says is not infallible.

While we’re on the subject of infallibility, you have told us we are wrong at every turn, where did you receive the authority to speak infallibly? See how this works?

So what is it Jesus is speaking of? If what you are calling evidence of authority why did Jesus not do as they said? I think He is referring to the Law of Moses, that is what they should observe not the extras that were added by the Pharisees. Does that ring any bells? Jesus says in Mark do not follow their traditions that were added to the Law of Moses. Ring any bells? As far as Gods truth being spoken threw sinful men, true as long they are reading from Moses and not themselves. In contrast what does that say about the NT letters? Our Torah of the new covenant. Shall we listen to the holders of it or do what it says.

Phil 1:15 Some indeed preach Christ even from envy and strife, and some also from goodwill: 16 The former preach Christ from selfish ambition, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my chains; 17 but the latter out of love, knowing that I am appointed for the defense of the gospel. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is preached; and in this I rejoice, yes, and will rejoice.

Defilement Comes from Within
Mark 7:1 Then the Pharisees and some of the scribes came together to Him, having come from Jerusalem. 2 Now when[a] they saw some of His disciples eat bread with defiled, that is, with unwashed hands, they found fault. 3 For the Pharisees and all the Jews do not eat unless they wash their hands in a special way, holding the tradition of the elders. 4 When they come from the marketplace, they do not eat unless they wash. And there are many other things which they have received and hold, like the washing of cups, pitchers, copper vessels, and couches.
5 Then the Pharisees and scribes asked Him, “Why do Your disciples not walk according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashed hands?”
6 He answered and said to them, “Well did Isaiah prophesy of you hypocrites, as it is written:

  ‘ This people honors Me with their lips,
  But their heart is far from Me.
   7 And in vain they worship Me,
  Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’**

8 For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men**—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do.”
9 He said to them, “All too well you reject the commandment of God, that you may keep your tradition.

The CC claim to the chair of Peter is evident in nearly every one of your post is that evidence of infallibility in contrast to the above verses?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Ok, following your example, you claim your Church was the Church founded by Christ. Such a claim needs to be supported by a paper trail. Otherwise, the claims should be revised or retracted.

Can you not see the double standard you are using in this discussion? I assure you, every Catholic here can plainly see that you ignore evidence presented, even from scriptures, and you stay with your agenda ignoring all evidence or putting the spin to evidence against logic.

Yes there is a double standard.

1. The church I belong to does NOT have or claim a succession of God-appointed leaders but only the NT as authority.
2. The church you belong to DOES claim a succession of God-appointed leaders and therefore should have a God-preserved paper trail all the way from Linus onward.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Yes there is a double standard.

1. The church I belong to does NOT have or claim a succession of God-appointed leaders but only the NT as authority.
2. The church you belong to DOES claim a succession of God-appointed leaders and therefore should have a God-preserved paper trail all the way from Linus onward.

So the Catholic Church has to provide a paper trail, explicitly worded to your satisfaction, but your Church does not have to provide anything except your word that it is so because you said it was?

How many times has it been explained to you, that the early Christian Church suffered great persecution, even under the penalty of death. Once the persecutions went away, it was time to catch up, on just a couple of hundred years.

Your claim that your Church was the Church founded cannot be supported by any documentation, prior to or after the persecutions. In fact, you haven’t produced any documention prior to the 1800s.

I’m afraid no one’s buying what you’re selling, or as local people here phrase it, “we smell what you’re stepping in.”