The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[SteveGC]

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.

Pause for a moment, Daniel…pause for reflection on what you are demanding here.

I mean, let’s actually even pretend that no such “paper trail” exists as you demand it?

What sort of Christian are you actually? You sound to me like a existentialist, like a Christ Scientist. Do you not believe in anything that is not written down?

Reflect also for a bit on the sheer arrogance of your position and demand. “Lord, in order for me to believe in everything you set forth for me, I demand proof in WRITING of all of it. Because, Lord…I deserve it, and don’t think you can speak to me in any other way than with words in a book”.

You go even a step further, and demand it be “explicit”. I’m not quite convinced you even are comfortable with the notion of “faith”.

Dan, do you believe in the Bible because it is a book which says within itself that it is inspired by God? I don’t. It’s also why I don’t follow the Quran, or the Veda, which make similar self-claims of inspiration. I believe in and follow the Bible, Dan, because something outside of it confirmed for me that it was authentic, and contained the essence of Truth, Jesus Christ. Books are not self-authenticating. They need outside authentication. The Holy Spirit is useful for this, but clearly not to each individual on their own.

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that everything is written down for you, Dan? Did He tell you what scripture was inspired? I doubt it. So why do you believe in the Bible as you have it?

 

[utunumsint]

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? This meaning can be developed from Matthew 16 in terms of a deeper understanding and significance of what it means to be rock upon which the church is built and also based on the historical position and prominence of the church of Rome, successor to Peter’s authority.

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.

The meaning of Matthew 16 became more important as the expectation that the second comming was imminent began to abate. This the list of gifts described in 4:7-16 by no means invalidates the papacy.

Paul for example, does not mention bishops or deacons, or presbyters during his early missions to the Thessalonians, and the Corinthians, and yet these offices become much more prominent in his later letters to Timothy and Titus. Does this make the office of bishop deacon and presbyter invalid in your estimation?

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.

The fundamental and central role of Peter is evident from scripture. What more do you want? It is also evident in the tone of Clement’s letter to the Corinthians, and of Ignatius’ attitude towards Rome, and of bishop Dionisius’ response to Soter years later concerning Clement’s letter.

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.

Agreed. So what is your point with this?

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.

As Marc, I believe, mentioned, James quotes Peter as his authority in promugating the decree. Thus, on a doctrinal level, Peter is elevated on a par with scripture.

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

He is identified later as the bishop of Rome.

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.

Do you even read our responses to your posts? Or perhaps you cover your eyes when you see something that goes against your theory?

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.”

Because you miopically focus on scripture alone without reference to history, or historical context, which is strange since you claim to have an MA in history.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

So you don’t think Christ knew what was going to happen to Him, and that He would soon build a Church to replace the old covenant with a new covenant? Remember, at the time He said that, the old law was God’s truth, just as His Church teaches the new law, which is also God’s truth.

Jeremiah 31:31 foretold the replacing of covenants, as confirmed in Hebrews 8.

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?

I still claim that Peter was the prime minister of Christ’s Church. No other logical explanation has been given for Christ re-naming Peter, Kiphas (rock) as He said He would build His Church upon that rock, the keys He gave to Peter, the authority to bind and loose, and promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To ignore that section of scriptures, is one’s attempt to fit the scriptures to their “new”, new because it only came about with the Protestant reformation, theology, in my opinion. We should be fitting our theology to the scriptures and His Church.

 

[tukfryer]

So you don’t think Christ knew what was going to happen to Him, and that He would soon build a Church to replace the old covenant with a new covenant? Remember, at the time He said that, the old law was God’s truth, just as His Church teaches the new law, which is also God’s truth.

Jeremiah 31:31 foretold the replacing of covenants, as confirmed in Hebrews 8.

I still claim that Peter was the prime minister of Christ’s Church. No other logical explanation has been given for Christ re-naming Peter, Kiphas (rock) as He said He would build His Church upon that rock, the keys He gave to Peter, the authority to bind and loose, and promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To ignore that section of scriptures, is one’s attempt to fit the scriptures to their “new”, new because it only came about with the Protestant reformation, theology, in my opinion. We should be fitting our theology to the scriptures and His Church.

I see you sill miss the point that “chair” claims are not evidence that people are subject to. Nor that you are right and just before the Lord.

Pause for a moment, Daniel…pause for reflection on what you are demanding here.

I mean, let’s actually even pretend that no such “paper trail” exists as you demand it?

What sort of Christian are you actually? You sound to me like a existentialist, like a Christ Scientist. Do you not believe in anything that is not written down?

Reflect also for a bit on the sheer arrogance of your position and demand. “Lord, in order for me to believe in everything you set forth for me, I demand proof in WRITING of all of it. Because, Lord…I deserve it, and don’t think you can speak to me in any other way than with words in a book”.

You go even a step further, and demand it be “explicit”. I’m not quite convinced you even are comfortable with the notion of “faith”.

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that everything is written down for you, Dan? Did He tell you what scripture was inspired? I doubt it. So why do you believe in the Bible as you have it?

I do think that he places the burden of proof on you because you point to it as evidence.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

I see you sill miss the point that “chair” claims are not evidence that people are subject to. Nor that you are right and just before the Lord.

The people are subject to those that sit upon the chair. Whether I am right and just before the Lord is for Him to judge and not you.

Please explain your last statement of, “Nor that you are right and just before the Lord.”

I do think that he places the burden of proof on you is because you point to it as evidence.

So everyone that makes a claim put us in the position of proving our point? We have more than proven a point. He chooses to ignore it.

We are on a Catholic forum. If one wants to make a claim against the Catholic Church, it’s on them to provide evidence and not speculation.

 

[SteveGC]

The funny thing about “Reformed” Christianity can be summed up in the basic assumption about God’s guidance for His beloved creation…which is this…

God created humans. No books were ever created directly by God. As humans began to write things down for record, it was ALWAYS (and to this day remains) as an accompaniment to human teaching, never a stand-alone instrument without some sort of prior or cooperating human influence. Sacred Scripture is no different. God always used humans in salvation history. Seth, Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, all the prophets, all the generations of Israel, to authentically move faith and righteousness throughout the land.

He even used Himself…as a HUMAN, in the person of Christ, to do this for Jew and Gentile alike.

See the pattern? It is HUMANS God predominantly uses throughout history to connect with and relate to His beloved. Not books. Not written records.

Along come the Reformers, and now…all of a sudden…the new mentality is: Here’s the Holy Spirit and a Book. Everybody have at it!

It completely and unabashedly flies in the face of God’s historic methods of reaching His people. I just don’t see how people can find realism and logic in the notion that there is no longer a need for the human element in Christian leadership and preservation of singular truths regarding the Christian faith and morals. It has always been this way. And now, in the individualistic modern world of “show me” and “don’t tell me what to do”, all of a sudden, that traditional divine interaction is null and void?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Pause for a moment, Daniel…pause for reflection on what you are demanding here.

I mean, let’s actually even pretend that no such “paper trail” exists as you demand it?

What sort of Christian are you actually? You sound to me like a existentialist, like a Christ Scientist. Do you not believe in anything that is not written down?

Reflect also for a bit on the sheer arrogance of your position and demand. “Lord, in order for me to believe in everything you set forth for me, I demand proof in WRITING of all of it. Because, Lord…I deserve it, and don’t think you can speak to me in any other way than with words in a book”.

You go even a step further, and demand it be “explicit”. I’m not quite convinced you even are comfortable with the notion of “faith”.

Dan, do you believe in the Bible because it is a book which says within itself that it is inspired by God? I don’t. It’s also why I don’t follow the Quran, or the Veda, which make similar self-claims of inspiration. I believe in and follow the Bible, Dan, because something outside of it confirmed for me that it was authentic, and contained the essence of Truth, Jesus Christ. Books are not self-authenticating. They need outside authentication. The Holy Spirit is useful for this, but clearly not to each individual on their own.

Did the Holy Spirit tell you that everything is written down for you, Dan? Did He tell you what scripture was inspired? I doubt it. So why do you believe in the Bible as you have it?

Atheists ask me the same question. My answer is that the NT has the fulfillment of hundreds of detailed messianic prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ. The authors of the NT were credible eyewitnesses because of the historical accuracy of their record and the fact that they died for their claims, as impoverished pacifists. The scripture can be known to be the word of God because it is living and active, penetrating and judging the heart (Heb.4:12).

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The funny thing about “Reformed” Christianity can be summed up in the basic assumption about God’s guidance for His beloved creation…which is this…

God created humans. No books were ever created directly by God. As humans began to write things down for record, it was ALWAYS (and to this day remains) as an accompaniment to human teaching, never a stand-alone instrument without some sort of prior or cooperating human influence. Sacred Scripture is no different. God always used humans in salvation history. Seth, Abraham, Noah, Moses, David, all the prophets, all the generations of Israel, to authentically move faith and righteousness throughout the land.

He even used Himself…as a HUMAN, in the person of Christ, to do this for Jew and Gentile alike.

See the pattern? It is HUMANS God predominantly uses throughout history to connect with and relate to His beloved. Not books. Not written records.

Along come the Reformers, and now…all of a sudden…the new mentality is: Here’s the Holy Spirit and a Book. Everybody have at it!

It completely and unabashedly flies in the face of God’s historic methods of reaching His people. I just don’t see how people can find realism and logic in the notion that there is no longer a need for the human element in Christian leadership and preservation of singular truths regarding the Christian faith and morals. It has always been this way. And now, in the individualistic modern world of “show me” and “don’t tell me what to do”, all of a sudden, that traditional divine interaction is null and void?

They seem to think God would do less than men. Take the founders of this country. They wrote the constitution and did not send it to every American and say, here interpret this for yourself. They established a legislative body to interpret the constitution for us.

 

[SteveGC]

I do think that he places the burden of proof on you because you point to it as evidence.

No I don’t. That’s my point. I don’t need such evidence. It defies all human logic, and moreover, defies factual divine history, that no inspired human office is needed on earth today. Authentic, inspired human teaching has always been needed, and will always be needed…until the end of the age.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No I don’t. That’s my point. I don’t need such evidence. It defies all human logic, and moreover, defies factual divine history, that no inspired human office is needed on earth today. Authentic, inspired human teaching has always been needed, and will always be needed…until the end of the age.

Then why do all the “authentic, inspired human teaching” of Protestants disagree if there’s only one truth and no authority is needed?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.”

The persecution excuse is invalid since we all know the NT was written during intense persecution in which all apostles died. Since we have the NT preserved by the Church, where are the papal successor’s statements of this “inspired human office” preserved by the church???

 

[tukfryer]

I still claim that Peter was the prime minister of Christ’s Church. No other logical explanation has been given for Christ re-naming Peter, Kiphas (rock) as He said He would build His Church upon that rock, the keys He gave to Peter, the authority to bind and loose, and promised that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. To ignore that section of scriptures, is one’s attempt to fit the scriptures to their “new”, new because it only came about with the Protestant reformation, theology, in my opinion. We should be fitting our theology to the scriptures and His Church.

WOW i had to take another look at this statement you affirm that you practice as the Pharisees did. Fitting YOUR theology to scripture and his church.

Isn’t that what you accuse those of doing that dont follow your theology fitted to the scriptures. Double standard indeed. Should n’t we be looking for the truth instead. The CC authority has certainly gone to its head.

1 Corinthians 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes, that you may learn in us not to think beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up on behalf of one against the other. 7 For who makes you differ from another? And what do you have that you did not receive? Now if you did indeed receive it, why do you boast as if you had not received it?

Proverbs 28:25 An arrogant man stirs up strife, But he who trusts in the LORD will prosper.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

No I don’t. That’s my point. I don’t need such evidence. It defies all human logic, and moreover, defies factual divine history, that no inspired human office is needed on earth today. Authentic, inspired human teaching has always been needed, and will always be needed…until the end of the age.

If the papacy from Linus onward is this “inspired human offfice” where are the inspired statements preserved for us for the first 300 years?? Call me a doubting Thomas.

 

[SteveGC]

Atheists ask me the same question. My answer is that the NT has the fulfillment of hundreds of detailed messianic prophecies written hundreds of years before Christ. The authors of the NT were credible eyewitnesses because of the historical accuracy of their record and the fact that they died for their claims, as impoverished pacifists. The scripture can be known to be the word of God because it is living and active, penetrating and judging the heart (Heb.4:12).

That’s all fine and good, Dan.

But the bottom line is that, without a Bible, I’d still be a Christian.

You on the other hand…could you honestly say the same?

That is how pivotal the book is for you. Without it, you’re likely lost.

So, the issue is…how important it must be for you to fully understand why you are able to have a copy of the Bible in your possession. And how potentially arrogant it is of you to ignore or discredit those who made it possible for you to have it.

 

[SteveGC]

Then why do all the “authentic, inspired human teaching” of Protestants disagree if there’s only one truth and no authority is needed?

Exactly. Good question.

Their answer is: because they don’t actually claim any human inspired teachers. The HS is their sole guide through solely the Bible. No big deal if we all don’t agree. That’s the mantra.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

WOW i had to take another look at this statement you affirm that you practice as the Pharisees did. Fitting YOUR theology to scripture and his church

You can twist the written word, because you do not accept the authority to correct. I however can explain exactly what I’m saying.

Christ told the people to, “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.” He knew that in matters of faith and morals, God’s truth can be protected, even through sinful men.

Isn’t that what you accuse those of doing that dont follow your theology fitted to the scriptures. Double standard indeed. Should n’t we be looking for the truth instead. The CC authority has certainly gone to its head.

Proverbs 28:25 An arrogant man stirs up strife, But he who trusts in the LORD will prosper.

Christ built a Church and established ordained men of the Church. I submit to that teaching. Others come here with their own teachings, from their private interpretations. Who is serving? I accept what Christ left us, but puffed up, arrogant people come here and tell us they are the authority because they have the truth. I will stay with the Gosple as it was taught to us, for 2000 years, and not trust those with a different gospel than that.

Now, I’ll ask you explain your comments to me when you said, “Nor that you are right and just before the Lord.”

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The persecution excuse is invalid since we all know the NT was written during intense persecution in which all apostles died. Since we have the NT preserved by the Church, where are the papal successor’s statements of this “inspired human office” preserved by the church???

But your Church is the Church Christ founded, without any documentation until the 1800s?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

That’s all fine and good, Dan.

But the bottom line is that, without a Bible, I’d still be a Christian.

You on the other hand…could you honestly say the same?

That is how pivotal the book is for you. Without it, you’re likely lost.

So, the issue is…how important it must be for you to fully understand why you are able to have a copy of the Bible in your possession. And how potentially arrogant it is of you to ignore or discredit those who made it possible for you to have it.

As the word of God “endures forever” and as the seed of the kingdom is sown in honest and sincere hearts, I would hope that this word would come to me as well. If not, I would only be able to trust His mercy to save although, through no fault of my own, I am unable. to believe

 

[Ignatius]

This is a thread on whether or not the office of the papacy with qualifications for successors is mentioned in scripture.

You know, brother, that it really does not reflect well on you to run away from another thread where your point of view is loosing and your are not able to come up with convincing arguments, and start another thread on the same subject.
I only mention this in Charity because I thought you should be aware of how you discredit yourself by doing this.

Grace and peace to you.

Your servant in Christ.

 

[tukfryer]

The people are subject to those that sit upon the chair. Whether I am right and just before the Lord is for Him to judge and not you.

Please explain your last statement of, “Nor that you are right and just before the Lord.”

You really cant see the forest for the trees. Did Jesus approve of the Pharisees? No
As I showed in Mark Jesus is more clear about what it is that they should follow. The Law that they physically held.
Were the Pharisees just before the Lord? I would think not. So to recap the “chair” is not evidence that people are subject to. (Edited)