The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[Prodigal_Son1]

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.

Keep running the same circle. Writings have been provided, from the first 300 years, but they didn’t think to word everything explicitly to your satisfaction. So you brush them aside just as you do with scriptures.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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

Of course there is documentation in the NT as well as the early church writings. There are many collections of what members of the churches of christ write throughout the centuries but these of course contain error as well as truth, being uninspired. I have given links and reponses to this question before. The difference is that the churches of Christ do not claim to have an “inspired human office” of successors from Peter. If so, it would be reasonable to expect a preserved body of literature from these popes throughout the centuries.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Keep running the same circle. Writings have been provided, from the first 300 years, but they didn’t think to word everything explicitly to your satisfaction. So you brush them aside just as you do with scriptures.

Correct. The writings of the first three hundred years are inconclusive on the papacy except to document how it emerged gradually rather than being defined from the beginning as it should be if true.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

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. Nor that you are right and just before the Lord.

By pointing to that verse as foundation that supports your church you succeed in confirming the CC is the church of the NT Pharisees.

So you’re saying that scriptures contradict each other?

Jesus told them clearly.

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.

Jesus knew the power of God to protect His truth better than any man. He also knew man and his weaknesses, but still, whatsoever they shall say to you, observe and do.

I believe God is all powerful and can protect His word, whether written or spoken through the Church He built. Some seem to doubt His ability to do this.

 

[SteveGC]

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.

I don’t know.

And I don’t care. I don’t need for them to exist Dan. You do. I converted to Catholicism three years ago, not because I saw written proof that it succeeded inspirationally from Peter, and this “paper trail” made it all the way up to today. I converted because the Church is the most Christ-o-centric Church in the world, and because it makes no sense that Christianity is reduced to a Book and an individualized Holy Spirit tutor. Facts of where that has gotten the reformed world reinforce my decision that the Catholic Church is the only authentic means of Christianity.

You need written evidence. I find logical and spiritual evidence.
Good luck on your quest. But I suggest you consider altering your expectations, and aligning them more with how God has been known to interact with His beloved throughout history.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Correct. The writings of the first three hundred years are inconclusive on the papacy except to document how it emerged gradually rather than being defined from the beginning as it should be if true.

Ok produce the documentation that your Church is the Church Christ founded and that your Church has existed since the beginning of the Church? You believe that with no questions, but it’s not written about anywhere until the 1800s. Very odd.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

This thread is much more focused exclusively on the papacy and allows me to define and re-focus the points in the OP.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Ok produce the documentation that your Church is the Church Christ founded and that your Church has existed since the beginning of the Church? You believe that with no questions, but it’s not written about anywhere until the 1800s. Very odd.

The church of Christ has always existed wherever there is true baptism.

 

[PJM]

=Daniel Keeran;5302114]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 ONLY the Bible works for you.

How about 2 tim. 3:16 as starters, then re-read Mt. 16:18-19, and Mt. 18: 18. Is ot that you don’t understand these teachings or simply choose not to accept them?

I can supply a “paper trail” that goes back 2,000 years and list names, and dates of service in our consecutive and continuing list of Popes. Are you listening? For 2,000 consecutive years. But I take it that’s not sufficient for you?**

GOd be with you friend

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

The church of Christ has always existed wherever there is true baptism.

And where is your documentation from that Church that has existed since the beginning of the Church Christ built? There are no writings anywhere prior to the 1800s. You’ve even wrote books, but no one from your Church did for over 1800 years? That’s the same argument you’re using.

 

[SteveGC]

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

Exactly my point, Dan.

The Bible gives you this hope. The Bible allows you to do your part for God, and not have to rely exclusively on His Divine Mercy for your salvation.

How fortunate are you to have a copy of this Sacred Book. How well-versed are you in it’s origins? You should be an expert. And if you are, how well does it suit you that you have turned your back on, and denied, the assemblage that has labored to bring it to you?

 

[utunumsint]

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.

There are many such statements in the letter of St. Clements to the Corinthians. Or have you not read this letter?

Also, have you read Eusebius’ account of the bishops of Rome? There are many statements about what those bishops did and said and taught.

What about all the things said about them by theologians, and apologists and heretics? I actually consider the information provided by heretics and enemies of the church as highly reliable. The historical principle used is that of embarassement. Why would Tertullian bash the bishop of Rome for claiming the authority of the Keys unless the bishop of Rome had such authority?

Why would Hyppolitus bash Pope Callixtus for not condemning Sabellius for modalism, if Pope Callixtus did not have such authority?

It is amazing to me that you can repeatedly make claims with absolutly no basis in fact.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

**So ONLY the Bible works for you.

How about 2 tim. 3:16 as starters, then re-read Mt. 16:18-19, and Mt. 18: 18. Is ot that you don’t understand these teachings or simply choose not to accept them?

I can supply a “paper trail” that goes back 2,000 years and list names, and dates of service in our consecutive and continuing list of Popes. Are you listening? For 2,000 consecutive years. But I take it that’s not sufficient for you?**

GOd be with you friend

Where are the statements from Linus who was pope right after Peter for 9 years? Surely he had time to write something that God would have preserved for us in the Catholic church. Then there are the others in this “inspired human office.” Look at the long period many were in office, yet nothing written was preserved. Why not??

St. Linus (67-76) 9 years
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88) 11 years
St. Clement I (88-97) 9 years - the letter by his name shows there was NO singular bishop
St. Evaristus (97-105) 8 years
St. Alexander I (105-115) 10 years
St. Sixtus I (115-125) 10 years
St. Telesphorus (125-136) 11 years
St. Hyginus (136-140) 4 years
St. Pius I (140-155) 15 years
St. Anicetus (155-166) 11 years
St. Soter (166-175) he wrote a short letter but makes no claims
St. Eleutherius (175-189) 14 years
St. Victor I (189-199) 10 years, excommunicates churches for not observing his easter
St. Zephyrinus (199-217) 18 years
St. Callistus I (217-22) 5 years
St. Urban I (222-30) 8 years
St. Pontain (230-35) 5 years
St. Anterus (235-36) 11 years
St. Fabian (236-50) 14 years
St. Cornelius (251-53) 2 years
St. Lucius I (253-54) 1 year
St. Stephen I (254-257) 3 years
St. Sixtus II (257-258) 11 years
St. Dionysius (260-268) 8 years
St. Felix I (269-274) 5 years
St. Eutychian (275-283) 8 years
St. Caius (283-296) 13 years
St. Marcellinus (296-304) 8 years
St. Marcellus I (308-309) 1 year
St. Eusebius (309 or 310) 1 year
St. Miltiades (311-14) 3 years
St. Sylvester I (314-35) 21 years
St. Marcus (336) 1 year
St. Julius I (337-52) 15 years
Liberius (352-66) 14 years

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

And where is your documentation from that Church that has existed since the beginning of the Church Christ built? There are no writings anywhere prior to the 1800s. You’ve even wrote books, but no one from your Church did for over 1800 years? That’s the same argument you’re using.

No it is not the same argument. I do not claim an “inspired human office.” The church of Christ is known by God and wherever people received the seed of the kingdom, there was/is the church of Christ.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

No it is not the same argument. I do not claim an “inspired human office.” The church of Christ is known by God and wherever people received the seed of the kingdom, there was/is the church of Christ.

When you say the authority of the Catholic Church is not legimate and your’s is, it is very much the same thing. So is your answer there is no documentation, from an 1800 year span that your Church, is the correct Church?

 

[SteveGC]

No it is not the same argument. I do not claim an “inspired human office.” The church of Christ is known by God and wherever people received the seed of the kingdom, there was/is the church of Christ.

And the Catholic Church, then, should be included in your definition, Dan. We’re all baptized over here, brother.

So, why not just leave it be and go disciple unbaptized assemblies, since they’re the ones not fitting into your definition of the “Church of Christ”?

Your “Church of Christ” must have another agenda to it, hm?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

There are many such statements in the letter of St. Clements to the Corinthians. Or have you not read this letter?

Also, have you read Eusebius’ account of the bishops of Rome? There are many statements about what those bishops did and said and taught.

What about all the things said about them by theologians, and apologists and heretics? I actually consider the information provided by heretics and enemies of the church as highly reliable. The historical principle used is that of embarassement. Why would Tertullian bash the bishop of Rome for claiming the authority of the Keys unless the bishop of Rome had such authority?

Why would Hyppolitus bash Pope Callixtus for not condemning Sabellius for modalism, if Pope Callixtus did not have such authority?

It is amazing to me that you can repeatedly make claims with absolutly no basis in fact.

God bless,
Ut

Actually, you make excellent points. The things written by others to or about or against the bishop of Rome are useful for understanding its evolution. Tertullian was first to refer to the keys. Certainly when the singular congregational bishop (see Ignatius) became a regional diocesan bishop, the bishop arrogated authority to discipline churches within his diocese, e.g. Callixtus. What is the earliest evidence for the extent of the jurisdiction, i.e. ability to discipline within and beyond the diocese, of the Roman bishop? I do have a copy of Eusebius. Does it have a reference to the bishop of Rome as head of the whole church?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

And the Catholic Church, then, should be included in your definition, Dan. We’re all baptized over here, brother.

So, why not just leave it be and go disciple unbaptized assemblies, since they’re the ones not fitting into your definition of the “Church of Christ”?

Your “Church of Christ” must have another agenda to it, hm?

Not all in the Catholic church have received true baptism, but I think there is a rapidly growing movement to achieve this very thing.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Daniel,

Documentation has been provided, including scriptures. You reject the view because it isn’t word specifically to your satisfaction. When I presented the evidence of infant baptism, you tried to reject it because the markers weren’t worded to your satisfaction. It appears you are going to reject anything from Catholics, because it is not worded to your satisfaction. Or is it something you look for so you can spin it to stay with your agenda?

You deny the authority of the Catholic Church because the documentation, even though is there, is not worded to your satisfaction, yet you offer no documentation to support that your Church is the correct Church that Christ built. You have no difficulties with no documentation when it comes to your Church, but question Catholic documentation. Again, it certainly appears you have an agenda against the Catholic Church as opposed to seeking a truth.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

When you say the authority of the Catholic Church is not legimate and your’s is, it is very much the same thing. So is your answer there is no documentation, from an 1800 year span that your Church, is the correct Church?

How many times do I need to repeat myself? There is voluminous documentation of the existence of the church of Christ from 33 AD through the middle ages.