The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[tukfryer]

You really have a tough time with the “do as they say, not as they do” concept. And so, to you, “All that they tell you” in fact means “all that Moses said to do”, even though it’s written all that THEY (the Pharisee’s) tell you to do".

You believe this, even in light of the fact that a) the follow on words in Matt 23 clearly make a distinction about condemning actions and not doctrine, and b) that further NT writings show that Jesus does not condemn tradition. Jesus did not condemn the practices the Pharisee’s held to, He condemned their hearts as they practiced them… For they practiced them hypocritically, without faith.

We can see from Mark 7 that traditions were not acceptable.
Later in Matthew we read

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

Proselyte, derived from the Koine Greek προσήλυτος/proselytos, as used in the Septuagint for “stranger”, i.e. a “newcomer to Israel”[1]; a “sojourner in the land”[2], and in the New Testament[3] for a convert to Judaism from Paganism. It is a translation of the Biblical Hebrew word גר/ger[4].

All you have to do is look beyond the verse you interpret and see that your definition scarcely even applys to listening to them. Even the converts are made sons of hell, that don’t sound like a proper handling of the word of God. Cant you see Jesus starts small thats were you stop. Then He blast them from top to bottom.

See if what you believe is consistent with scripture.
Sit down and make a list of all the things Jesus pointed out about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and see If your interpretation still applies.

 

[PRmerger]

We can see from Mark 7 that traditions were not acceptable.
Later in Matthew we read

But you would not believe in the Gospel, had not the authority of the Catholic Church already provided it for you. (paraphrasing St. Augustine)

 

[PRmerger]

Maybe if you provide some examples it would provide some topic. with 33,000 differences it should be an easy task.

I’m eager to see your response to the examples provided you.

As cited most excellently by Prodigal:
**"There are many different doctrines.

Baptism
Rapture
Tongues (some believe others are not saved if they don’t speak in tongues)
Divorce
Abortion
Once saved, always saved
Music or no music (Singing or no singing)
Women pastors, no women pastors
Hell, or no hell
The Eucharist (Communion)
Sola scriptura/private interpretation
Ordination
Trinity vs. unitarianism
Church leadership, or no leadership
Head coverings or no head coverings
Health and wealth gospel
Drinking allowed, drinking not allowed
Attend weekly services, don’t have to go to Church
Judge others, don’t judge others
What’s a sin, what is not a sin
Charity or no charity (help one another or let them help themselves)

These are just a few examples. If you mix them up and take into consideration some denominations accept some of these, according to their interpretation, vs. another denomination that doesn’t accept the same list, you can come up with thousands of different teachings. The different combination of lists separate many denominations."**

 

[SteveGC]

It is rather sad that as you say there was no mandate for them to know yet it changed nothing.
I’ll not pursue it further
Thank you for your honest reply.

And thank you. But I think I will pursue it a bit further. Your stink on this Catholic Church = NT Pharisees is based on the notion that Jesus condemns tradition of men. And I agree that the Pharisee’s twisted to their pleasure, and then followed, some traditions. But the bottom line is that Jesus commanded that the faithful do all that they (the Pharisees) tell them to do. The point is one of authority, granted by God. It’s emphasized, and made more significant, by the fact that Jesus would admonish others to follow the Law that the Pharisees were charged with keeping, even as their example was sinful (sinful behavior, sinful twists on the Law). What this shows is the power of God to protect the obedient, even when those being obeyed are sinful. It also shows the divine utlization of fallen humans to promulgate the inspired Word throughout the world. The point we try to make here is that this method of Christian teaching did not die with the death of the last Apostle. It continues to this day, and will continue until the end of the age. You desire to link the condemnation of the Pharisees with the condemnation of the Catholic Church. There’s no link there at all, because the Church is Christ’s own, and is protected from such error as “added tradition”. There is, however, a significant link to the concept of divine use of humans in God’s plan of salvation.

Now, as for your argument that the Pharisees lacked authority from God because they themselves failed to recognize Christ…I never said their failure to recognize Him was, in itself, inconsequential. YOU said that I said it, but I didn’t. What I said was that this failure had no bearing on the fact that they had authority in keeping and promulgating God’s Law. You may want me to have said that it’s insignificant that men don’t recognize the time of their visitation…but you’re just twisting the issue and making me say something I never did. This isn’t about the critical nature of recognizing Christ, it’s about whether or not the Pharisees had authority regarding God’s Law. They did, regardless of their failure, and regardless of their man-made (condemned) twists of the Law.

tukfryer:

Proverbs 18:17
The first to present his case always seems right,
till another comes forward and questions him.

Clever. Irrelevant to this discussion, but clever nonetheless. I can play that fun game too…

*Proverbs 18:1 He who separates himself seeks his own desire,
He quarrels against all sound wisdom. *

 

[pipper]

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

WRONG, I was just explaining the so called “churches of Christ” extreme congregationalism, and the fact they have no single web page due to that extreme congregationalism.

I will never commend such a bible worshipping, telling falsehoods about history, hating, abusive denomination. I see your sect as just one of thousands of fundamentalist denominations in existence, nothing special, I just happened to have been raised and dunked in it under extreme duress.

Perhaps I should have mentioned your sect is hypocritical as well since 1, you condemn Catholics for honouring what you call the “traditions of MEN” while your church has plenty of traditions of men.

2, you and your sect-mates like to call us idolators for “worshipping” statues and icons, while you raise the bible to a God and commit idolatry by worshiping it.

Daniel, you have really raised my ire, and I am sure that was your intent.

 

[pipper]

Well we know that in his infallible, infinite wisdom, Daniel knows that some Catholics are baptized by sprinkling, rather than full immersion and while it was good enough for the ECFs, it is not good enough for Daniel. Therefore, Daniel has pronounced them invalidly baptized. This is all based on his translation of the word baptized in scripture, which he claims to mean immersion.

Paul, no Catholic has ever been baptised by “sprinking” many if not most have been baptised by pouring. Methodists and Presbyterian sprinkle a couple of drops on their children’s head, but we pour there is a difference.

“Sprinkling” is a word used by people who reject any form on baptism other than submersion, it is a sign of ignorance on their part.

 

[tukfryer]

And thank you. But I think I will pursue it a bit further. Your stink on this Catholic Church = NT Pharisees is based on the notion that Jesus condemns tradition of men. And I agree that the Pharisee’s twisted to their pleasure, and then followed, some traditions. But the bottom line is that Jesus commanded that the faithful do all that they (the Pharisees) tell them to do. The point is one of authority, granted by God. It’s emphasized, and made more significant, by the fact that Jesus would admonish others to follow the Law that the Pharisees were charged with keeping, even as their example was sinful (sinful behavior, sinful twists on the Law). What this shows is the power of God to protect the obedient, even when those being obeyed are sinful. It also shows the divine utlization of fallen humans to promulgate the inspired Word throughout the world. The point we try to make here is that this method of Christian teaching did not die with the death of the last Apostle. It continues to this day, and will continue until the end of the age. You desire to link the condemnation of the Pharisees with the condemnation of the Catholic Church. There’s no link there at all, because the Church is Christ’s own, and is protected from such error as “added tradition”. There is, however, a significant link to the concept of divine use of humans in God’s plan of salvation.

Now, as for your argument that the Pharisees lacked authority from God because they themselves failed to recognize Christ…I never said their failure to recognize Him was, in itself, inconsequential. YOU said that I said it, but I didn’t. What I said was that this failure had no bearing on the fact that they had authority in keeping and promulgating God’s Law. You may want me to have said that it’s insignificant that men don’t recognize the time of their visitation…but you’re just twisting the issue and making me say something I never did. This isn’t about the critical nature of recognizing Christ, it’s about whether or not the Pharisees had authority regarding God’s Law. They did, regardless of their failure, and regardless of their man-made (condemned) twists of the Law.

Clever. Irrelevant to this discussion, but clever nonetheless. I can play that fun game too…

*Proverbs 18:1 He who separates himself seeks his own desire,
He quarrels against all sound wisdom. *

I would enjoy continuing the debate but Michael Francis has seen fit to “lets see delete and edit my post and issue me 25 demerits” so you see my hands are tied. Looks like Prodigal Son1 got his feelings hurt. Any way Im being told to keep my mouth shut.

13 “But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you shut up the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither go in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in.

15 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you travel land and sea to win one proselyte, and when he is won, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.

You carry on and do as the Pharisees tell you.

The eyes of the LORD keep watch over knowledge,
but he frustrates the words of the unfaithful.

 

[PRmerger]

Clever. Irrelevant to this discussion, but clever nonetheless. I can play that fun game too…

*Proverbs 18:1 He who separates himself seeks his own desire,
He quarrels against all sound wisdom. *

:dancing:

OhmyGOSH, I love that you did this, Steve!

See, tuk, Catholics can cite Scripture verses to point the finger, too.

“More weighty than wisdom or wealth is a little folly!” Eccl 10:1

 

[PRmerger]

You carry on and do as the Pharisees tell you.

You think we should disobey Christ’s command to do so?

Does your church teach that you should ignore some of Christ’s commands?

I’m pretty certain that your church ignores at least one of Christ’s teachings–that to divorce and re-marry is to commit adultery. I’m guessing that your church has over-ridden that command and re-written it as its own tradition of man. Am I correct, tuk?

“So, now, O children, listen to me; instruction and wisdom do not reject!” Prov 8:32

 

[utunumsint]

The letter called Clement is not from him but from the church and says nothing about the authority of any singular bishop but refers only to plural bishops.

Dionisius of Corinth claims it came from Clement. Ireneaus, who was ordained in Rome, and received his episcopacy in Rome, mentions only Clement as the bishop of Rome. Are you going to say that are wrong?

While Ignatius refers frequently to a singular bishop of other congregations, he conspicuously refers to none at Rome, known for its conservatism.

There are many possible reasons why he did not specifically name the bishop of Rome, one of which was danger. It is well known that in the time of Paul, there were actual members of Ceasar’s household (which was another name for the massive burocracy surounding the Emperor in Rome) who were part of the Roman church. To be openly associated with Christianity often ment swift execution, or a forced recantation of Christ and all Christian belief. I’m sure Ignatius was aware of these issues.

Hermas refers to a plurality of “presbyters who preside” and refers by name to two leaders Clemens and Grapte. Again, there was no singular bishop in Rome at this time. Clemens, not Pius, was to circulate the letters.

If Piux reigned in 140-155, and Soter reigned 166-175, that means there was a mere 10 years between the two. Now, we know for a fact that Polycarp went to Soter alone, as the head of the church of Rome. We also know that Dionisius of Corinth singled our Soter as the bishop of Rome, alone. So from this, we can clearly see that you have read too much into your quotes from Hermas, refusing to see what is obviously a singular bishop. We also have evidence from the muratorian fragment that says explicitly “But Hermas wrote the Shepherd (74) very recently, [7c] in our times, in the city of Rome, (75) while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair (76) of the church of the city of Rome.” One chair alone is mentioned.

Do you wish to reconsider your point here?

Because of a division over observance. What is interesting is that they did not reach agreement except to accept their differences, and Polycarp did not defer to Soter’s view.

Soter simply did not insist on excersising his rightful authority over a matter of observance.

I’ll respond to the rest of your points later.

God bless,
Ut

 

[stephraim]

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?

First, you are most definitely overstating the title. Second, the Davidic dynasty was chosen by God, but we have no royal decrees from each king. Third, we don’t have writings from **all **Roman emperors or pharaohs (who did claim to be “God on earth”), so your logic that we must have writings from all to prove their existence is flawed.

 

[utunumsint]

Did they not regard the authority of Paul who told Christians not to judge one another over the observance of a day? (Romans 14). Surely this demonstrates arrogance on Victor’s part. He loved to be pre-eminent like Diotrephes.

I can accept that this is your interpretation of the event based on your theological presuppositions about the church. For me, it is a prime example of the authority that Rome held from the very beginning.

The bishop of Rome came to be highly regarded but not as head of the church and having juridical power over the whole church.

Did the bishop of Rome speak as the head of the church with juridical power over the whole church?

Callixtus promulgated the decree in Rome, and Tertullian felt obligated to attack it in Carthage. Why? Why should he care what the bishop of Rome thinks on any given issue if his opinion ony applies to his own region?

Obviously because Cornelius’ view was important but as head over the whole church? He made no such claim.

Actions sometimes speak louder than words.

God bless,
Ut

 

[paul_c]

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
Comparing the Catholic Church’s leadership to the Pharisees is a bit misguided. .The Pharisees were really focused on the minutia of the law while missing the point that they were supposed to be kind to others. I fail to see how that applies to the Catholic church, which rusn hospitals, schools and helps the poor and disabled in dozens of ways. Also, the Church is not fixated on a set of rules, contrary to what you might believe. The precepts of the church, the minimum recommendations for living a sacramental live are described in the catechism as follows

:

paul c as you can clearly see I did not make that statement or infer such a thing.
Your brothers in the CC made that comparison, in context of supporting apostolic succession.

Are you not going to support your statement?

Quote:

Originally Posted by paul c
You are misinterpreting this. It says to do as the leaders say because they speak with authority given to them by God but not to follow their example when they sin. Is that so hard to understand?

Or are you softening the implication by stating I made that connection

I don’t know what you are accusing me of. In both statements, I am explaining that Jesus said to follow the Pharisees when they discussed the law but not to follow them in their personal sins.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

First, you are most definitely overstating the title. Second, the Davidic dynasty was chosen by God, but we have no royal decrees from each king. Third, we don’t have writings from **all **Roman emperors or pharaohs (who did claim to be “God on earth”), so your logic that we must have writings from all to prove their existence is flawed.

The prophets of the OT spoke for God and we have their writings. The “popes” are alleged to speak for God but we do NOT have their writings. Therefore, the papal theory is false.

The Catholic participants in this forum should be open to Catholic scholarship on the development of the ministry and of the papacy. Otherwise it looks like you are simply defending and particular private opinion. The book titled Papal Primacy is a good place to review the latest in Catholic scholarship on the subject.

Papal Primacy by Klaus Schatz
(Translator), Linda M. Maloney (Translator), John A. Otto
Paperback: 208 pages
Publisher: The Liturgical Press (January 1, 1996)
Language: English

 

[stephraim]

The prophets of the OT spoke for God and we have their writings. The “popes” are alleged to speak for God but we do NOT have their writings. Therefore, the papal theory is false.

Do we have all the writings of the prophets? Show me where in Scripture the prophecy “He shall be called a Nazorean” is. This prophecy must then be false, according to your logic, because we can not find it. There are many more numerous examples. Plus, you continue to refuse letters *responding *to papal letters as evidence that they wrote. Some are even quoted in Eusebius.

Rome has even been sacked and had it’s archives burned by the Gauls in 387 BC, the Visigoths in 410, the Vandals in 455, the Ostrogoths in 546, the Arabs in 846 (who even looted old St. Peter’s Basilica).

Remember, too, that Jerome was hesitant to include the Deuterocanonicals because no Hebrew originals could be found, yet fragments were uncovered in the Qumran findings. Matthew is supposed to have written his Gospel in Aramaic, yet we only possess the Greek. We do have writings about all these, though, just as we have writings about letters and decrees and actions of popes.

The Catholic participants in this forum should be open to Catholic scholarship on the development of the ministry and of the papacy. Otherwise it looks like you are simply defending and particular private opinion. The book titled Papal Primacy is a good place to review the latest in Catholic scholarship on the subject.

Papal Primacy by Klaus Schatz
(Translator), Linda M. Maloney (Translator), John A. Otto
Paperback: 208 pages
Publisher: The Liturgical Press (January 1, 1996)
Language: English

That the papacy has developed is not disputed, just as the doctrines of the Most Holy Trinity and the hypostatic union of Jesus have developed. The Spirit has led us into the Truth, though all these were held since the beginning. That the Roman Church held a primacy, though, is not disputed, as evidenced by the numerous epistles and correspondence and actions and deeds mentioned in so many previous posts.

Have you read some of the standard works on the papacy? There are wonderful insights and arguments presented. Here are a few:

The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, by Rev. Luke Rivington, M.A.
Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims, by Dom John Chapman, O.S.B.
Anti-Janus: An Historico-Theological Criticism of the Work entitled “The Pope and the Council” by Janus, By Dr. Hergenrother
Catholic Controversy: A Reply to Dr. Littledale’s “Plain Reasons”, by H.I.D. Ryder
The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged “Salmon”, by B.C. Butler

 

[stephraim]

William Hendriksen
member of the Reformed Christian Church
Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary

The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view.

New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), page 647
JPK page 14
**
Gerhard Maier
leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian**

Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which — in accordance with the words of the text — applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis.
*
“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate”
Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context
(Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), page 58
JPK pages 16-17*

Donald A. Carson III
Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
(two quotations from different works)

Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock”. The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), page 368
JPK pages 17-18

The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter.

Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary — New Testament, vol. 2
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), page 78
JPK page 18

John Peter Lange
German Protestant scholar

The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun… The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock”, etc.

Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8
(Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), page 293
JPK page 19

 

[stephraim]

John A. Broadus
Baptist author
(two quotations from the same work)

Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.

But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho”. The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha”… Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.”

Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew
(Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), pages 355-356
JPK page 20

J. Knox Chamblin
Presbyterian and New Testament Professor
Reformed Theological Seminary

By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church”. As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus.

“Matthew”
Evangelical Commentary on the Bible
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), page 742
JPK page 30

Craig L. Blomberg
Baptist and Professor of New Testament
Denver Seminary

Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter”, parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ”, as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.

The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22
(Nashville: Broadman, 1992), pages 251-252
JPK pages 31-32

David Hill
Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies
University of Sheffield, England

On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely.

“The Gospel of Matthew”
The New Century Bible Commentary
(London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), page 261
JPK page 34

Suzanne de Dietrich
Presbyterian theologian

The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon”, the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community.

The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16
(Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), page 93
JPK page 34

Donald A. Hagner
Fuller Theological Seminary

The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built… The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock… seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy.

Matthew 14-28
Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b
(Dallas: Word Books, 1995), page 470
JPK pages 36-37

 

[stephraim]

The letter called Clement is not from him but from the church

Then how do you know it was from him? Obviously in Corinth they thought it was from him.

Hermas refers to a plurality of “presbyters who preside” and refers by name to two leaders Clemens and Grapte. Again, there was no singular bishop in Rome at this time. Clemens, not Pius, was to circulate the letters.

"You will write therefore two books, and you will send the one to Clemens and the other to Grapte. And Grapte will admonish the widows and the orphans. But you will read the words in this city, along with the presbyters who preside over the Church.”

You forgot that Hermas says it is only Clement’s duty to send the revelations to the churches abroad. Again, it sounds more like Grapte is a catechist. And this written contemporaneously with Justin. We know from Justin’s First Apology of ca. 150 that "there is then brought to the **president **of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and **he **taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when **he **has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the **president **has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Again, in Catholic hierarchy, all bishops are presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops. We do refer to presbyters as pastors too, for they shepherd their flock, yet, “his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.”

What is interesting is that they did not reach agreement except to accept their differences, and Polycarp did not defer to Soter’s view.

It is also interesting that Polycarp traveled to Rome to consult with her Bishop, rather than Corinth or Ephesus or Antioch or other ancient and apostolic churches so much closer. Finally, the Church of Rome’s position prevailed.

Yes, I also highly regard this letter but do not believe Clement was a Pope.

Dionysius did.

The bishop of Rome came to be highly regarded but not as head of the church and having juridical power over the whole church.

Yet final appeals were to be made to the Bishop of Rome and his decision was binding.

Of course, by Tertullian’s time bishops held power over their dioceses. Tert. thought all Christians had the keys and he waffled on the role of the bishop of Rome.

In his orthodox period he accepted the primacy of Rome. As a semi-Montanist and Montanist, he disregarded it and derided it.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then how do you know it was from him? Obviously in Corinth they thought it was from him.

You forgot that Hermas says it is only Clement’s duty to send the revelations to the churches abroad. Again, it sounds more like Grapte is a catechist. And this written contemporaneously with Justin. We know from Justin’s First Apology of ca. 150 that "there is then brought to the **president **of the brethren bread and a cup of wine mixed with water; and **he **taking them, gives praise and glory to the Father of the universe, through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and offers thanks at considerable length for our being counted worthy to receive these things at His hands. And when **he **has concluded the prayers and thanksgivings, all the people present express their assent by saying Amen. This word Amen answers in the Hebrew language to γένοιτο [so be it]. And when the **president **has given thanks, and all the people have expressed their assent, those who are called by us deacons give to each of those present to partake of the bread and wine mixed with water over which the thanksgiving was pronounced, and to those who are absent they carry away a portion.

Again, in Catholic hierarchy, all bishops are presbyters, but not all presbyters are bishops. We do refer to presbyters as pastors too, for they shepherd their flock, yet, “his own peculiar services are assigned to the high priest, and their own proper place is prescribed to the priests, and their own special ministrations devolve on the Levites. The layman is bound by the laws that pertain to laymen.”

It is also interesting that Polycarp traveled to Rome to consult with her Bishop, rather than Corinth or Ephesus or Antioch or other ancient and apostolic churches so much closer. Finally, the Church of Rome’s position prevailed.

Dionysius did.

Yet final appeals were to be made to the Bishop of Rome and his decision was binding.

In his orthodox period he accepted the primacy of Rome. As a semi-Montanist and Montanist, he disregarded it and derided it.

Great job, stephraim!

Catholics on this thread have provided very well reasoned and logical explanations, along with sources to support their belief. Daniel on the other hand has only provided what he believes and denied any scriptural interpretations and writings from the early Church fathers, solely based on how they were phrased, without consideration that, while they are not phrased as he would prefer, even the great possibility of them being authentic and meaning what we say is there.

There also seems to be a double-standard in this discussion, as to some things not specifically phrased as he would like in reference to Catholic beliefs, when compared to him providing answers to questions put forth addressing other things that are not specifically phrased, at all, or partially, to support his views and beliefs. Instead of responding to those other issues with no phrasing, or phrased to anyone’s satisfaction, he continues to chip away at the “rock” with the same repeated arguments.

Now would be a good time for Daniel to provide sources to support his views. Just as he states the writings do not specifically say they are from the Pope, or someone stating that he is the leader of the Church, Daniel has not provided any writings of anyone, prior to the 1800s, stating there was no leader or denying a leadership role on those men we have discussed,

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Do we have all the writings of the prophets? Show me where in Scripture the prophecy “He shall be called a Nazorean” is. This prophecy must then be false, according to your logic, because we can not find it.

The Messianic prophecies refer to the NZRT (branch), so it is there a number of times.

There are many more numerous examples. Plus, you continue to refuse letters *responding *to papal letters as evidence that they wrote. Some are even quoted in Eusebius.

Certainly different bishops of Rome are quoted briefly in Eusebius but not as the head of the church since Eusebius does not refer to anyone as a singular head of the whole church. He did not refer to the papacy at all.

Rome has even been sacked and had it’s archives burned by the Gauls in 387 BC, the Visigoths in 410, the Vandals in 455, the Ostrogoths in 546, the Arabs in 846 (who even looted old St. Peter’s Basilica).

Such threats did not destroy the NT and so should not have destroyed the archives of those who allegedly spoke for God.

Remember, too, that Jerome was hesitant to include the Deuterocanonicals because no Hebrew originals could be found, yet fragments were uncovered in the Qumran findings. Matthew is supposed to have written his Gospel in Aramaic, yet we only possess the Greek. We do have writings about all these, though, just as we have writings about letters and decrees and actions of popes.

We do have early copies and fragments of the NT letters/books, but where are those of the alleged spokesmen of God in the popes, their own letters and decrees? Did the Catholic church not deem them important enough to preserve?

That **the papacy has developed **is not disputed, just as the doctrines of the Most Holy Trinity and the hypostatic union of Jesus have developed. The Spirit has led us into the Truth, though all these were held since the beginning.

This admission is all that is needed to support my view that the office of the chief spokesman of God was not established with successors in the NT.

That the Roman Church held a primacy, though, is not disputed, as evidenced by the numerous epistles and correspondence and actions and deeds mentioned in so many previous posts.

The church was highly regarded but not in any exclusive way as the sole source of truth, until much later times.

Have you read some of the standard works on the papacy? There are wonderful insights and arguments presented. Here are a few:

The Primitive Church and the See of Peter, by Rev. Luke Rivington, M.A.
Bishop Gore and the Catholic Claims, by Dom John Chapman, O.S.B.
Anti-Janus: An Historico-Theological Criticism of the Work entitled “The Pope and the Council” by Janus, By Dr. Hergenrother
Catholic Controversy: A Reply to Dr. Littledale’s “Plain Reasons”, by H.I.D. Ryder
The Church and Infallibility: A Reply to the Abridged “Salmon”, by B.C. Butler

What are dates for the above? Have you read Papal Primacy at Liturgical Press? What is your opinion?