The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[mark_a]

This thread is on papacy and I am aware that a common CF tactic is to de-rail.

When I’m at a theological dead end with one of you haters of Catholicism, I always de-rail a thread with the Catholic slam-dunk, contraception.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

If the church had authority to define doctrine in Acts 15, then the church has authority to do likewise for future generations. You have a trunkated church my friend because your church does not follow the pattern left us by the apostles as described in Acts 15 nor does it have any kind of Petrine office, which is why the protestant churches are so sadlyl fragmented today.

For all your bombast and boasting about following scripture, you guys don’t seem to put much stock in it.

God bless,
Ut

There is a major catch. In Acts 15 there were inspired apostles who were guided into ALL truth. Direct **inspiration ceased **after the deaths of those on whom the apostles laid hands. Therefore, any decisions of man after that carry no authority unless they refer back to inspired scripture. There is no perpetual Petrine office laid out in scripture. Therefore, it is of man, not of God.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Simple question. If God gives legitimate authority to human governments and EXPECTS submission to that authority – isn’t it very natural for God to invest in His Church AT LEAST the same legitimate authority?

IMHO – Protestants are spooked out by authority because rebellion against authority is in their spiritual DNA – it’s in their very name – they PROTEST against Catholicism.

MonFrere

All human governments maintain order by threat of force against those who threaten disorder by stealing, assault, fraud, etc. In this way they are servants of God to punish evil and reward good. The papacy and human government are different fruits.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Catholic Answers staff apologist Tim Staples answers Dan Keeran this way:

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.

This is the same type of argument that is made against the Trinity, the Hypostatic Union, the Canon of Scripture, etc. The term “Trinity” is never mentioned in the New Testament and is never mentioned in the writings of the apostolic fathers. It is first mentioned in AD 181 by St. Theophilus of Antioch. There is no systematic treatment of the Trinity in the New Testament. Texts have to be gathered from all over the New Testament and made into a systematic treatment of the Trinity. This first point assumes an unbiblical Sola Scriptura mentality that is unbiblical and unhistorical. But when it comes to the Papacy, the truth is, it was described in quite a remarkable way, albeit not a systematic one, from the beginning in texts like Matthew 10:2, 16:13-18, Luke 22:29-32, John 21:15-17, just to name a few and it is seen in action in Acts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, and 15. The early Church is replete as well with examples of Papal primacy, from the letter of Clement to the Corinthians in the first century, to St. Ignatius’ letter to the Romans in the second century, St. Irenaeus’ “Against heresies,” also in the second century, to Pope St. Dionysius’ letters to Patriarch Dionysius of Alexandria in the third century, St. Cyprian’s multiple letters in the third century and much more. I would suggest you get a hold of my CD set called “The Shocking Truth About the Papacy and the Early Church Fathers” where I document all of the above and much more.

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.

Again, this assumes the unbiblical notion of Sola Scriptura, which is a self-refuting principle. Let’s apply the Canon of Scripture to the above-mentioned criteria for the papacy: “For the Canon of Scripture to be true, there would need to be the canon described and laid out for us with qualifications for which books of the Bible were to be contained in the Canon, which writings were in fact inspired, and the defining criteria for books to be both excluded and included in the canon…” If we apply the above criteria, virtually all of the most important doctrines of the Faith go up in smoke. The truth is: the Bible is not a self-help book. It was written in the context of an authoritative Church which the infallible authority of Christ to define controversial areas of disagreement as they arise over the centuries (cf. Matt. 18:15-18). What we find in more detailed and a more systematic system presented in the New Testament are the areas where there was the most controversy in the first century. For example, we have responses to the early “fathers” of Gnosticism, especially in St. John’s writings, responses to the “Judaizers” by St. Paul, responses to Ebionites’ denials of Christ’s divinity, etc. But again, it is not as though the Papacy was not presented in the New Testament. It was, as I said above.

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.

This is bogus for two reasons. First, no Catholic would expect the Papacy to be “a central repeated theme” of the first century or any century. It is not the central teaching of Christ or the Church and never has been. The Trinity of the central mystery of the Christian Faith and you don’t find it to be “a central repeated theme of writings by the first Christians” either. What you find are authoritative writings dealing with the issues that were being attacked, misunderstood and causing controversy at the time. If you comb over the volumes of writings by Pope John Paul II and Benedict XVI, you will not find the Papacy to be a “central repeated theme” in their writings. What you find are authoritative writings to the Church. This is what we have always seen in the New Testament and throughout the history of the Church. Second, the Papacy is, in fact, taught, though not by using the term “Papacy” in many places in the New Testament as I said above.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

The term “head” with reference to the visible Church is used in I Cor. 12:21: “… the head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you…” This is not likely to be a reference to Christ as the invisible head because 1. He doesn’t need us, we need him. 2. The context is speaking of the visible Church and 3. The whole chapter is dealing with the various gifts of the Spirit in the Church to the various members of the Church. Christ is not a member of the Church; he is God. So who is the visible head of the Church? Peter. He is called “the [chief] apostle in Matthew 10:2. He is uniquely given the keys of the Kingdom in Matt. 16:18. His faith is guaranteed to never fail so that he may “strengthen the brethren” in Luke 22:29-32. He is given all of the sheep by the Chief Shepherd in John 21:15-17, etc.

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.

This is a misrepresentation of the plain words of Scripture. St. Peter was, in fact, in charge at the Council in Acts 15. When the Judaizer heresy threatened to tear the fledgling Church apart and the Council was convened, it was Peter who arose first “when there had been much disputing” (vs. 6) and declared the theological truth of the matter in verses 7-11. And notice the response in verse 12. “They all kept silence…” They went from disputing to silence when St. Peter spoke. And notice, he speaks for all when he declares “We believe…” And the matter on a theological level is no longer as matter of discussion. It is settled. When St. James speaks he begins by saying, “Symeon has related…” Or, “Peter has spoken…” And he repeats what Peter had said. He then gives his personal judgment on the matter when he says, in verse 19, “Therefore, [as a result of what Peter had declared] it is my judgment…” He does not speak for all as St. Peter did, but only gives his judgment. And he gives his judgment of a pastoral application of the universal truth St. Peter had declared. Then, notice, all of the apostles agree and they write a letter in unison to deliver to the trouble churches (verses 22-29) and Acts 16:4 explicitly says it was a decision reached by “all of the apostles and elders,” not by James alone. In other words, when Peter speaks, he speaks first, alone and decisively on a theological level in universal terms and there is no question of the matter. When James speaks, he speaks using his personal judgment and then all of the apostles and elders must agree on the matter and send the decree as such.

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

As the great fourth-century Patriarch of Constantinople, St. John Chrysostom said when asked why St. Peter was not made Bishop of Jerusalem, he said, “St. Peter was not Bishop of Jerusalem, he was bishop of the entire world.” In truth, St. Peter was head of the Church at Jerusalem until he moved his See to Antioch and then finally to Rome, but what St. John Chrysostom was emphasizing was what we see in Scripture, St. Peter was visible head of the entire Church as well as being an Apostle and Bishop of “a diocese” as this fellow has said.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

This is wrong, as I said above. And Victor did not “blunder,” he was prudent in not excommunicating the entire Eastern Church due, at least in part to the intercession of St. Irenaeus of Lyons. No one denied he has the authority to do it. In fact, we know from Tertullian who wrote in his diatribe against the Pope, “De Puditicia” (on Modesty) after he had left the Church (and contradicted his earlier teaching when he was still Catholic), in paragraph 1, speaking directly to Pope St. Calixtus I:

**I hear that there has even been an edict set forth, and peremptory one too. The Pontifex Maximus—that is, the Bishop of Bishops issues an edict: “I remit, to such as have discharged the requirements of repentance, the sins both of adultery and of fornication.” **O edict, on which cannot be inscribed, “Good deed!” And where shall this liberality be posted up? On the very spot, I suppose, on the very gates of the sensual appetites, beneath the very titles of the sensual appetites. There is the place for promulgating such repentance, where the delinquency itself shall haunt. There is the place to read the pardon, where entrance shall be made under the hope thereof. But it is in the Church that this edict is read, and in the church that it is pronounced; and the Church is a virgin! Far from Christ’s betrothed be such a proclamation!

And BTW – Tertullian was here hammering the Pope for having the audacity of declaring that sins of adultery and fornication could be forgiven by Jesus Christ! But notice, Tertullian gives us insight into what Christians believed about the Papacy in the early third century. He was “Pontifex Maximus” (still an official title of the Pope today) and Bishop of Bishops. If we skip down two chapter 21 of this same book, we see even more explicit evidence that the Bishop of Rome, of whom he speaks, was understood by Catholics to have the authority of St. Peter via the promise of Christ in Matthew 16. Tertullian writes:

I now inquire into your opinion, to see from what source you usurp this right to “the Church.” If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon his rock I will build My Church to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom,” or, “Whatsoever thou shall have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, Conferring this gift personally upon Peter?

Notice, he here hammers the idea that St. Peter had successors revealing this to be what Christians then believed as he had joined the heretical sect known as the Montanists. This is not only a change from what Christians believed from the first century, but it was a change from what Tertullian himself had taught 20 years earlier when he said in his ******Prescription Against Heretics ******22:

Was anything withheld from the knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be built,”(6) who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”(7) with the power of "loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?”

And in chapter 36:

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of the apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood!

 

[Randy_Carson]

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

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.”

This is a classic example of a false either/or proposition. The answer is both/and. I Cor. 3:11 does not mention the “apostles and prophets” as being the foundation of the Church when it says, “No other foundation can any man lay, except that which has been laid, Jesus Christ.” Why did St. Paul not mention the apostles in I Corinthians? He didn’t have to! You don’t have to say everything in every verse of Scripture. St. Peter’s headship was not in question here. He is visible head because Christ made him so. This does not then mean that Jesus is not also the head. Both are true just as Jesus is called our one, unique intercessor/mediator in I Tim. 2:5 and Hebrews 7:24-25 and yet all Christians are called intercessors/mediators in I Tim. 2:1-2 and I Peter 2:5-9. Christ is our one, unique “teacher” in Matt. 23:8 and yet there are many who are called “teacher” in the Church in Eph. 4:11, James 3:1, etc. Christ is our one, unique shepherd and bishop in I Peter 2:25 and yet we have many “shepherd” and “bishops” in the Church in I Tim. 3:1ff, Eph. 4:11, etc. The truth is: Christ being our one foundation does not mean the apostles cannot be our foundation in Christ. Christ being our one head does not mean that he cannot establish Peter as his and our visible head on earth. And, according to Scripture and history, that is precisely what Jesus Christ did.

The Achilles Heal of the Papacy Theory

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

This fellow is very much mistaken. Again, I refer to my CD set, “The Shocking Truth About the Pope and the Early Church Fathers” for many examples. Also, I recommend Steve Rays book, “Upon This Rock.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is a major catch. In Acts 15 there were inspired apostles who were guided into ALL truth. Direct **inspiration ceased **after the deaths of those on whom the apostles laid hands. Therefore, any decisions of man after that carry no authority unless they refer back to inspired scripture. There is no perpetual Petrine office laid out in scripture. Therefore, it is of man, not of God.

Dan-

Could you please show the verses which teach explicitly that:

a. Public revelation ceased with the death of the last apostle.
b. There are to be no more apostles (since not all apostles accomplanied Jesus throughout his three-year ministry).

Clearly, you believe these things to be true, but can you support them by scripture alone?

Or are they extra-biblical doctrines which are binding on the consciences of all true believers?

If the latter, what does this tell us about sola scriptura?

 

[paul_c]

There is a major catch. In Acts 15 there were inspired apostles who were guided into ALL truth. Direct **inspiration ceased **after the deaths of those on whom the apostles laid hands. Therefore, any decisions of man after that carry no authority unless they refer back to inspired scripture. There is no perpetual Petrine office laid out in scripture. Therefore, it is of man, not of God.

Isn’t this statement an indictment of all those that believe the holy spirit inspires them to understand the scriptures? Doesn’t this view simply blow away the entire concept of sola Scriptura. Doesn’t this in fact mean we need to follow the inspired teaching of the Church to interpret scripture since the Catholic Church’s view dates back to the inspired Apostles?

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

St. Peter as the leader of the apostles, and therefore as head of the Church, is scripturally without dispute. This has demonstrated from every possible angle - as this is page 48 of this thread with numerous scriptural passages to give evidence to this fact.

None of the scriptures listed show Peter to be head of the church. The fact Peter was A LEADER does not make him THE LEADER let alone HEAD of the church. The simple fact is that Christ alone, and never Peter, is EVER identified as HEAD and CHIEF SHEPHERD.

Let’s reason in reverse. Concerning scripture – could you agree that those who determined the first canons possessed the Holy Spirit? For without it – How could they determine what they were examining was 1) accurate pious writings 2) what God inspired as scripture. Case in point – I can read to a Protestant sections out of Wisdom and I can read sections out of Proverbs. NO ONE can tell the difference. But, with the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, the Church determined that both were “scripture”. Without the Holy Spirit this determination WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE. Even a man as pious as St. Jerome couldn’t “on his own” be perfect on this point. This is WHY the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary for making judgements that cannot be made by purely natural means. The Holy Spirit is JUST AS CRITICAL for the determination of scripture as it was in protecting the men who wrote scripture. Before the canonization of scripture the Church operated perfectly fine in accepting these writings as accurate pious writings. It wasn’t necessary for the operation of the Church to have these writings formally declared as scripture.

So, when the Church formally declared the early canons of scripture we can be certain that these men possessed the Holy Spirit. At the time of the determination of these canons the papacy was alive and functioning.

If what you propose were indeed the truth; that the Holy Spirit would think the papacy to be an apostasy, then there should be a ruckus on the level of the Arian controversy. But like many posters have demonstrated this ruckus simply did not exist. The Holy Spirit cannot bear sin - it cleanses us from sin; so, corporately it would certainly have cleansed the church of the concept of a central authority to rule the Church. Jesus did promise the Church protection and that the Holy Spirit would lead the church into truth. If the papacy is totally of “human origin” then certainly the Holy Spirit wouldn’t have permitted its becoming central governing arm of the Church. But if the papacy was the Petrine office given to St. Peter working its way out in the affairs of men then its origin is NOT of human origin. Why?

The Catholic Church only recognized what was already recognized as inspired writings. How do we know what is inspired? The honest and sincere heart receives it when it penetrates and judges the heart (Heb.4:12 and Luke 8:15) just as when it was first preached.

The development of the human being certainly applies here. At conception there is no heart, there is no brain, there are no bones, there are no organs. Yet, at conception all of these have their moment of inception which is TOTALLY NATURAL. You cannot say that the heart isn’t of “natural origin” because it wasn’t there at conception.

This is human reasoning; not in scripture.

The Catholic understanding of scripture gives a clear path as to the movement of the “conception and birth of the Church” from Ceseara Philipi to Jerusalem to Rome. Just as Jesus “grew” and his self-understanding became more and more clearly determined in His mind – the Body of Christ “grew” in its self-understanding and became more and more clearly determined in Her mind. To deny development is to deny life itself.

Again, you use human reasoning here, the error of some ECF’s who incorporated Greek philosophy. Scripture that was written when the church began and spread has no reference ot Peter as head of the church nor to any such office other than Christ alone. If Peter was known by all to be head of the church there would have been at leat one clear reference, but there is nothing. The **unity that all grow into in Christ is through gifts given to men, with no office for Pope or any similar singular head **(Eph.4). There were no singular bishops of churches until after the NT was written.

Do we need a Pope or did Christ give such a gift to his church? Rather than human reasoning, let Paul tell us what Christ has given us to become mature:

Ephesians 4:3-13
"Make every effort to **keep the unity **of the Spirit through the bond of peace. There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to one hope when you were called— one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. But to each one of us grace has been given as Christ apportioned it. This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he led captives in his train and gave gifts to men. (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.) It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up until we all reach unity in the faith and in the knowledge of the Son of God and become mature, attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”

 

[Randy_Carson]

None of the scriptures listed show Peter to be head of the church. The fact Peter was A LEADER does not make him THE LEADER let alone HEAD of the church. The simple fact is that Christ alone, and never Peter, is EVER identified as HEAD and CHIEF SHEPHERD.

As Tim Staples responded:

The term “head” with reference to the visible Church is used in I Cor. 12:21: “… the head cannot say to the feet, I have no need of you…” This is not likely to be a reference to Christ as the invisible head because 1. He doesn’t need us, we need him. 2. The context is speaking of the visible Church and 3. The whole chapter is dealing with the various gifts of the Spirit in the Church to the various members of the Church. Christ is not a member of the Church; he is God. So who is the visible head of the Church? Peter. He is called “the [chief] apostle in Matthew 10:2. He is uniquely given the keys of the Kingdom in Matt. 16:18. His faith is guaranteed to never fail so that he may “strengthen the brethren” in Luke 22:29-32. He is given all of the sheep by the Chief Shepherd in John 21:15-17, etc.

 

[Randy_Carson]

John Henry Newman addressed the matter of doctrinal development in his seminal work, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, which written while Newman was yet an Anglican Protestant. In this ground-breaking work, Newman traces the development of numerous distinctively Catholic doctrines including the papacy and comes to the inescapable conclusion that these “new” doctrines were, in fact, authentic developments from, rather than additions to, primitive Christianity.

The following passages are from the Introduction:
[Some Protestants say], “There are popes against popes, councils against councils, some fathers against others, the same fathers against themselves, a consent of fathers of one age against a consent of fathers of another age, the Church of one age against the Church of another age:”—Hence they are forced, whether they will or not, to fall back upon the Bible as the sole source of Revelation, and upon their own personal private judgment as the sole expounder of its doctrine. This is a fair argument, if it can be maintained, and it brings me at once to the subject of this Essay . . .
“Before setting about this work, I will address one remark to [these people]:—Let them consider, that if they can criticize history, the facts of history certainly can retort upon them. It might, I grant, be clearer on this great subject than it is. This is no great concession. History is not a creed or a catechism, it gives lessons rather than rules; still no one can mistake its general teaching in this matter, whether he accept it or stumble at it. Bold outlines and broad masses of colour rise out of the records of the past. They may be dim, they may be incomplete; but they are definite. And this one thing at least is certain; whatever history teaches, whatever it omits, whatever it exaggerates or extenuates, whatever it says and unsays, at least the Christianity of history is not Protestantism. If ever there were a safe truth, it is this.
“And Protestantism has ever felt it so. I do not mean that every writer on the Protestant side has felt it; for it was the fashion at first, at least as a rhetorical argument against Rome, to appeal to past ages, or to some of them; but Protestantism, as a whole, feels it, and has felt it. This is shown in the determination already referred to of dispensing with historical Christianity altogether, and of forming a Christianity from the Bible alone: men never would have put [history] aside, unless they had despaired of it … To be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.” (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Introduction, 4,5, 1878)

The entire book is available online here: newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

For Daniel, the section on the development of the papacy is here: newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter4.html#section3

 

[sodak]

Therefore, any decisions of man after that carry no authority unless they refer back to inspired scripture.

Where is THAT in the Bible? I notice you are ducking a WHOLE LOT of questions!

hint - when you find yourself in a hole, quit digging… You haven’t answered my questions yet either… I wonder why…

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is a major catch. In Acts 15 there were inspired apostles who were guided into ALL truth. Direct **inspiration ceased **after the deaths of those on whom the apostles laid hands. Therefore, any decisions of man after that carry no authority unless they refer back to inspired scripture. There is no perpetual Petrine office laid out in scripture. Therefore, it is of man, not of God.

This cannot be true, and the Word of God illustrates the fallacy of this thinking.

2 Timothy 2:1-2

You then, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable men who will also be qualified to teach others.

There are four generations of believers contained in this one passage: 1. Paul himself, 2. Timothy, who was Paul’s disciple, 3. Those whom Timothy would disciple, and 4. Those to whom Timothy’s disciples would preach.

The Apostle Paul laid hands on Timothy…was Timothy an Apostle, too? Because Paul seems to suggest that those Timothy would select would also have real authority to teach others.

Nor is there any biblical evidence that this process of succession from one Church leader to another would ever stop. At no time in scripture do we see anyone saying, “Listen to me and obey what I have preached to you…until, of course, all scripture has been written and compiled at which time it really doesn’t matter what the leaders in the Church have to say since they will have no real authority at that point.”

Finally, does the Church today have authority to judge matters that have come up in our era? Matters of science or morality about which the Bible is silent?

Tell us, Daniel: Jesus said “Whatever you bind on earth is also bound in heaven”…what does “whatever” mean?

 

[PRmerger]

There is a major catch. In Acts 15 there were inspired apostles who were guided into ALL truth. Direct **inspiration ceased **after the deaths of those on whom the apostles laid hands. Therefore, any decisions of man after that carry no authority unless they refer back to inspired scripture. There is no perpetual Petrine office laid out in scripture. Therefore, it is of man, not of God.

Yet there is no Scriptural evidence that the apostles laid hands on Luke, right?

 

[MonFrere]

None of the scriptures listed show Peter to be head of the church. The simple fact is that Christ alone, and never Peter, is EVER identified as HEAD and CHIEF SHEPHERD.

IMHO - one needs to be blind deaf and dumb not to see that St. Peter was the leader of the apostles. Even early is Jesus’ ministry he demonstrates that natural ability that makes him a natural leader. Who gave the VERY FIRST sermon of the VERY FIRST PENTECOST (the birthday of the Church)? It was St. Peter. Who is ALWAYS listed first among the lists of the apostles. Is this all coincidental that time and again St. Peter is the one given first listing? He is ALWAYS among the three Jesus brings along with him when there is a special event to take place; e.g. the transfiguration, the raising from the dead of the daughter of the head of the synagogue. Jesus clearly had a heirarchy of disciples - there were the 70 - the 12 - the 3 - and finally the ONE (St, Peter). Jesus has absolutely NO PROBLEM with delegating His authority. Not only does Jesus’ have a single leader; he also has an elite inner circle; and larger and larger circles of authority.

(Mat 28:18-20) And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, And remember, I am with you always, to the end of the age."

The moment Jesus reveals that all authority has been given to him He delegates - THEREFORE (the word of transition connect what comes before with what comes after) go and make disciples.

To not see this is akin to those who deny the Holocaust. This doesn’t take any degree of intellectual acumen. Just a rudimentary acknowledgement of the face value of the biblical text is all that’s necessary. A totally unspiritual man could read the Gospels and Acts and see that St. Peter was a leader, the leader of the Apostles after Jesus’ ascension.

And don’t forget the last part of the quote from St. Matthew above – I am with you always, to the end of the age. Jesus is intensely loyal to His own. Look at the loyalty He demonstrated to the Jewish people. He NEVER gave up on them. Yet, Protestants interprete history in such a manner that demonstrates no such like loyalty to the Church that He entered into covenant with by first becoming man and meeting us at our level and then with that humanity spilled his blood in covenant saying in Matthew as ALL AUTHORITY was given to Him that He personally would be with His chosen to the end of the age. That is the level of committment that Jesus gave to His Church. Protestants have Jesus throwing the Catholic Church under the bus from the get go. I’ve heard Protestant clergy say that when the Catholic Church refused the doctrine of sola fide God formally rejected the Catholic Church. This is so bizarre!! You guys just make this up on the fly.

The Catholic Church only recognized what was already recognized writings. How do we know what is inspired? The honest and sincere heart receives it … (Heb.4:12 and Luke 8:15).

All that’s necessary to recognize of all early church writings which was scripture was an honest and sincere heart? You can’t believe this!! You’ve demonstrated a far greater degree of intelligence that to accept such an inept conclusion. Like I wrote before most people will get confused with the book of Proverbs and the book of Wisdom. Honest and sincere hearts cannot tell the difference – they sound the same. Both Hebrews and Revelation were topics of dispute as to their canonicity. I think 2 Peter also was controversial. It took more that honest and sincere hearts to tell the difference. The highly scholarly St. Jerome had a different opinion on the deutero-canonicals – of which he later changed his mind; which demonstrates that again, an honest and sincere mind isn’t enough.

If Peter was known by all to be head of the church there would have been at leat one clear reference, but there is nothing.

Well I think it is there in spades. The Jews can tell me of their history and if I want to find out about their history. I can trust them for an accurate accounting of their history. The Catholic Church can tell me of their history. I can trust them for an accurate accounting of their history. All you can tell me is what you think the Bible says about Christianity. You have no history to retell. Where were you during the Marcion controversy, the Arian controversy, the Donatist controversy, the advance of the Moslems, each and every ecumenical council of the Church. Where is your history? All you have is a unique interpretation of scripture totally divorced from it’s historic context. IMO - this absolutely kills your credibility to be a messenger of the truth of Christianity because you were not there from the beginning to tell me the great stories of the heros of the Church. The Jewish people can tell me of the great rabbis and great leaders of their people. The Catholic Church can do the same; we have a great history of great stories of the advancing of the kingdom of God among men. That history is as long as Christianity itself. It was the Catholic Church that made up that history. Frankly, without leadership, you cannot have a history. Your dim view of authority is the very cause you don’t have a history and cannot tell a credible story of 2000 years of the march of Christianity through time. You may have convinced yourself that none of this matters. But it does matter. If Christianity is to survive the present advance of Islamic terrorism against the West and Judaism it’s going to need to be in the forefront of history. If 2000 years of Christianity leads with a disjunct bands of men without any objective leadership and each band speaking different things we are in trouble indeed.

MonFrere

 

[kepha1]

Again, you use human reasoning here, the error of some ECF’s who incorporated Greek philosophy.

Please name which ECF is guilty of imposing Greek philosophy regarding the development of doctrine. I will remind you again and again to support this assertion with clear and explicit quotes.

Scripture that was written when the church began and spread has no reference ot Peter "

…message truncated…
Eph.4). There were no singular bishops of churches until after the NT was written.

No reference? This is a lie and repeating a false assertion this way will not make it true. You have repeatedly been given many scriptural references and you just keep claiming they aren’t there.

“…no singular bishops of churches until after the NT was written” There were bishops before their were established churches and before the enscriptuation of the New Testament. The first New Testament book was written some 20 years after Pentacost, and you want us to believe there was no church in existence until the first enscripuration of the NT… This is that Protestant myth that the Bible came before the church and it is absurd…

Do we need a Pope or did Christ give such a gift to his church? Rather than human reasoning

, let Paul tell us what Christ has given us to become mature:

There is NOTHING in Ephesians 4 that says there is no Pope, and there is NO implication that having a Pope is equal with human reasoning. That is a straw man argument and unreasonable.

Ephesians 4:3-13

“Make every effort to keep the unity
"…message truncated…"
attaining to the whole measure of the fullness of Christ.”
Sorry, but there is NOTHING in this verse that disproves the papacy, and you certainly do not accept what has always been believed as to where Jesus descended to. These verses are more about unity than maturity, a unity that your spiritual ancestors unbiblically rejected. Thus, you cannot doctrinally mature.
Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.”

Where in scripture are you exempt from this verse? Better still, what year did this verse expire? You keep telling us there is no central authority but your private interpretation of the bible. Why do I dare say “your interpretation”? You have your own distinct theology, distinct even from other Protestants.

I appeal to you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree and that there be no dissensions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and the same judgment.1 Cor. 1:10

So how is it that you can accept 1 Cor. 1:10 as authoritive when you reject it and truckloads of evidence that shows we are of one faith with the early church?

Is there any evidence in the ECF writings that indicate they believed as you do? The same mind and the same judgment has accepted the papacy for 2000 years, and it is not the dominating dictatorship that came out of a 16th century Nominalist mindset with all its malicious propaganda about the papacy. If you like to discuss errors, we can start with Nominalism that dictates to you how the Bible is read.

You have your own distinct theology, distinct even from other Protestants. Is there any evidence in the ECF writings that indicate they believed as you do? I say no. That is why they have to be dismissed, or quoted out of context, or emphasized the few areas where they disagreed BEFORE THE CHURCH MADE A CLEAR RULING ON ANY ISSUE. Can you name one ECF who rebelled afterwards? No, you can’t.

Your arguments are loosely associated, which gives you the advantage of having a very unequal playing field. You have all the room to run in circles.

 

[kepha1]

Daniel:
Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles. If your theory is correct, that there is no papacy, then somewhere in the bible there must be at least ONE other Apostle who is named ahead of Peter. Please provide the chapter and verse where any other one Apostle speaks on behalf of all the other Apostles or is named ahead of Peter.

Now I am going to recap the questions to avoid any confusion:

1). Please name which ECF is guilty of imposing Greek philosophy regarding the development of doctrine.
2). What year did Hebrews 13:17 expire?
3). Can you name one ECF who rebelled after the Church clarified a teaching? Just one, Daniel.
4). Which OTHER Apostle is named first whenever they are listed with Peter. Chapter and verse please.

 

[guanophore]

1. The papacy is not found in scripture but preceeded scripture. Correct?
2. So it should be found clearly identified in scripture. Correct?

Yes, the primacy of Peter and the Petrine gifts are clearly found in scripture. The term “papacy” is a very late Latin term used in the Western Church to describe these.

However, you are in error that things authorized by God are necessarily “clearly identified in scripture”.

For example, the word “Trinity” is not found in scripture, and by the cults that deny it by using Scripture, it does not appear to be so “clear” to everyone.

The list of books that belong in the Bible (canon of scripture) are clearly from God, yet are not found in scripture.

Why is this relevant? God has been breathing scripture for at least 5000 earth years, going back to the books of Moses.

The length of time between when something occurred and historical reference to it occurs is not relevant either. By that criteria, the whole NT canon could not be admitted, since it was not defined until 382. So also the concept of the Trinity. Just because this term was not used previously to the second century, does not mean the idea was post-aposolic.

1. The first announcement of any bishop of Rome is Victor (189-199)…

What do you mean “announcement of any bishop”? The Church was under persecution unto death! Did you think they would “annouce” themselves?

When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (Lactantius The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

He was the “voice of Christ” on earth?

I think you misunderstand the nature of the vicar of Christ. It does not mean that every word out of his mouth represents “the voice of Christ”.

The primacy of the bishop of Rome developed over time, but began with the strength of the Church there. In spite of the fact that none of the Apostles had ever been to Rome, we see Paul greeting the Church in Rome this way:

" First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, because your faith is proclaimed in all the world." Rom 1:8-9

How did it happen that the faith of the Roman Church was world renowned?

We see that later, both Peter and Paul labored together in Rome:

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the Churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles. For with this Church, because of its superior origin, all Churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world; and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the Apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

By the latter part of the second century, the Church in Rome was considerd to be “superior in origin”. How did this happen? It was the teaching of both Peter and Paul that solidified the doctrine of the faith. That church, more than all the others, “maintained the Apostolic Tradition”. For this reason, disputes were referred to Rome for solution. This practice influenced the role of the successor of Peter. That role was different than it was immediately after the death of the Apostles Peter and Paul. The first successors needed only to hold fast to the Apostolic Tradition. After the third pope, though, heresies began to arise that required action on the part of the successor of Peter on a wider scale. This is when the role of “feed my sheep” “take care of my lambs” became much broader.

I am sure that none of the Apostles ever imagined what it is like to fill Peter’s shoes today.

 

[guanophore]

Yes. Before the NT was written, Jesus said to the apostles to receive the Holy Spirit. However, from Matt 16, they knew Peter was to be the head of the whole church, and so they took this for granted which is why it did not have to be mentioned anywhere in scripture when the apostles and prophets wrote it. Correct?

Because the Apostles understood that Jesus is the Head of His Body, the Church. He commissioned Peter with specific gifts and duties for the ministry that belonged to Him. Where God guides, He provides. The primacy of Peter is found all through the Scriptures.

Matthew, chapter 16
18: And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. 19: I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Luke, chapter 22 – Jesus tells Peter to strengthen his brethren
31: “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat,
32: but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”

Jesus’ prayer is singular. He did not pray for all of them, just for Peter. Therefore, all those that wish to be preserved in faith better get in with Peter!

John, chapter 21 – Peter is given Christ’s flock to shepherd
17: He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, “Do you love me?” And he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Mark, chapter 16 – Peter is mentioned separate from the others
7: But go, tell his disciples and Peter that he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him, as he told you."

Luke, chapter 24 – risen Jesus appeared to Peter first
34: who said, “The Lord has risen indeed, and has appeared to Simon!”

Acts, chapter 1 – Peter headed the meeting to elect Matthias
13: and when they had entered, they went up to the upper room, where they were staying, Peter and John and James and Andrew, Philip and Thomas, Bartholomew and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus and Simon the Zealot and Judas the son of James.
14: All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
15: In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,
16: "Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.

Acts, chapter 2 - Peter leads the Apostles
14: But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them, "Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and give ear to my words…
37: Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?”
38: And Peter said to them, “Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.
39: For the promise is to you and to your children and to all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him.”
40: And he testified with many other words and exhorted them, saying, “Save yourselves from this crooked generation.”
41: So those who received his word were baptized, and there were added that day about three thousand souls.