The Office of the Papacy in Scripture

[guanophore]

Acts, chapter 3 - Peter performs first miracle after Pentecost
6: But Peter said, “I have no silver and gold, but I give you what I have; in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, walk.”
7: And he took him by the right hand and raised him up; and immediately his feet and ankles were made strong.

Acts, chapter 5 – Peter inflicted first punishment
1: But a man named Anani’as with his wife Sapphi’ra sold a piece of property,
2: and with his wife’s knowledge he kept back some of the proceeds, and brought only a part and laid it at the apostles’ feet.
3: But Peter said, “Anani’as, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back part of the proceeds of the land?
4: While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? How is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.”
5: When Anani’as heard these words, he fell down and died. And great fear came upon all who heard of it.
6: The young men rose and wrapped him up and carried him out and buried him.
7: After an interval of about three hours his wife came in, not knowing what had happened.
8: And Peter said to her, “Tell me whether you sold the land for so much.” And she said, “Yes, for so much.”
9: But Peter said to her, “How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Hark, the feet of those that have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out.”
10: Immediately she fell down at his feet and died. When the young men came in they found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband.
11: And great fear came upon the whole church, and upon all who heard of these things

Acts, chapter 8 – Peter is first to excommunicate a heretic
20: But Peter said to him, "Your silver perish with you, because you thought you could obtain the gift of God with money!
21: You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is not right before God.

Acts, chapter 10 Peter receives divine revelation, and opens the Church to the Gentiles
44: While Peter was still saying this, the Holy Spirit fell on all who heard the word.
45: And the believers from among the circumcised who came with Peter were amazed, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out even on the Gentiles.
46: For they heard them speaking in tongues and extolling God. Then Peter declared,
47: “Can any one forbid water for baptizing these people who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?”
48: And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days.

Acts, chapter 15 – Peter reminds the council that God made the choice.
7: And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, "Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.

Galatians, chapter 1 – Paul visits Peter after conversion
18: Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days

Paul lays his “gospel” out before Peter and the others, to make sure he had not “run in vain”.
Gal 2:2-3
2 I went up by revelation; and I laid before them (but privately before those who were of repute) the gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, lest somehow I should be running or had run in vain.

In several other places Peter’s name is mentioned separate from the others as well as speaking for them. Peter’s name is mentioned 195 times, more than all the other apostles combined. His name is always first in all the lists of the Apostles.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

There is no scripture that says Peter was THE head of the church or any similar phrase, nor even chief or the leader of the apostles. Frequency of mention does not constitute Peter’s headship or one could say Paul was vice-President because he was mentioned so often in the book of Acts and in such key roles, e.g. Paul spoke to the emperor of Rome.
The phrase “head” of the church is often used but only referring to Christ alone.

When Pope Stephen in 250 AD declares himself successor of Peter, he uses language lifted drectly from the **spurious Clementine Homilies **written 3 decades prior.

 

[mark_a]

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

Would this be true also of Luke?

If not, why not?

 

[utunumsint]

There is no scripture that says Peter was THE head of the church or any similar phrase, nor even chief or the leader of the apostles. Frequency of mention does not constitute Peter’s headship or one could say Paul was vice-President because he was mentioned so often in the book of Acts and in such key roles, e.g. Paul spoke to the emperor of Rome.
The phrase “head” of the church is often used but only referring to Christ alone.

When Pope Stephen in 250 AD declares himself successor of Peter, he uses language lifted drectly from the **spurious Clementine Homilies **written 3 decades prior.

I’d respect your point of view more if you’d actually address some of the point raised by Tim, Marc, and Steven.

As for the last point, I haven’t a clue how you can come to make this claim given we only have three or four sentences from Stephen reported in Cyprian’s letter. For your claim to have any kind of validity whatsoever you would have to show what passages Stephen was quoting from. A hard thing to do since his entire docemtation consists in the few words reported by Cyprian.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

There is no scripture that says Peter was THE head of the church or any similar phrase, nor even chief or the leader of the apostles. Frequency of mention does not constitute Peter’s headship or one could say Paul was vice-President because he was mentioned so often in the book of Acts and in such key roles, e.g. Paul spoke to the emperor of Rome.
The phrase “head” of the church is often used but only referring to Christ alone.

When Pope Stephen in 250 AD declares himself successor of Peter, he uses language lifted drectly from the **spurious Clementine Homilies **written 3 decades prior.

Are there any scriptures to indicate anyone rejected the leadership of Peter? Are there any writings prior to the 1500s where anyone rejected the leadership of Peter?

Catholics have provided lists and lists of explanations of why we believe Peter was a leader, you keep saying it’s not in scriptures. Private interpretation of scriptures is not specifically stated in scriptures, yet you fully believe that. Sola scriptura is not specifically stated in scriptures, yet you fully believe that. It really appears to be what fits your theology Daniel, seriously. It’s really going to take more than your repeated assertions to convince anyone.

I’ve challenged you once and asked, “let’s research the Church father’s writings and see whose doctrines their doctrines support more”, but you won’t address that, even though you claim those writings belong to your Church. I also noticed you caveated the statement by saying “they made mistakes”, but again you offer no sources from that time period to support your view. Everything you have offered came from post 1500s, or was simply stated as your opinion.

 

[mawst]

None of the scriptures you list explicitly define and identify the office of Pope with qualifications for successors. The quotes from the early post-NT literature provide good documentation of the emergence of the papacy but not its defined existence from the beginning.

Peter was acknowledged to have Primacy. The sort of “full blown papacy” is not going to be found explicitly in scriptures. As with the doctrine of the trinity, and the dual natures of Christ, it is a development which stems from deeper understanding of scriptures, and of course, authority not given just to Peter, but the Apostles as well, to bind and loose and govern the Church on Earth.

You can say the papacy as we have it today is not explicitly stated in scriptures, however you cannot pretend that the Apostles were not given authority to develop the Church, it’s government, or define doctrines. This definition of official doctrine began before Jesus’ death, and increased in scope as the Orthodox Church (meaning the Catholic, Apostolic Church) was challenged by Heretics, and those who thought since they had a “better idea” they could start something and call it authentic.We see very clearly in scripture how heresy was dealt with by the first century church, and how the development of doctrine progressed from the Bible, the fathers, and history.

God bless.

gratia et pacem tibi

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

Are there any scriptures to indicate anyone rejected the leadership of Peter? Are there any writings prior to the 1500s where anyone rejected the leadership of Peter?

Of course after 325, the early Catholic church had the full financial and legal support of Imperial Rome. Any opposition was marginalized and driven into hiding. The true church remained pacifist while the imperial church justified Christians in the military. Scripture did not reject the singular leadership of Peter because he had none, and no scripture claims he was THE leader of the church or of any group within the church.

Catholics have provided lists and lists of explanations of why we believe Peter was a leader, you keep saying it’s not in scriptures.

Is it another tactic to misrepresent opposing views? I NEVER said scripture does not describe Peter in a leadership role, but that he is NEVER described as a singular leader or head of the church.

Private interpretation of scriptures is not specifically stated in scriptures, yet you fully believe that. Sola scriptura is not specifically stated in scriptures, yet you fully believe that. It really appears to be what fits your theology Daniel, seriously. It’s really going to take more than your repeated assertions to convince anyone.

I have expressed my views on this numerous times.

I’ve challenged you once and asked, “let’s research the Church father’s writings and see whose doctrines their doctrines support more”, but you won’t address that, even though you claim those writings belong to your Church. I also noticed you caveated the statement by saying “they made mistakes”, but again you offer no sources from that time period to support your view. Everything you have offered came from post 1500s, or was simply stated as your opinion

The only post-NT writing I have refered to is a little book by Hans Grimm who is a descendant of non-Catholic Christians from the 12th century in Alsace. As for the ECF’s, the development of doctrine (historical theology) can be easily traced from “First Clement” through the 4th century as regards the papacy and many other practices and beliefs.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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…

The end of direct inspiration has been adressed in previous posts; see Acts 8 and also I Corinthians 13 where faith, hope, and love outlast prophecy, tongues, and revelation. I don’t think Catholic theology asserts otherwise.

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

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.

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…

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.

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.

Victor was a very powerful bishop of Rome but never did he assert he was the successor of Peter or even the head of the whole church. He did assert an excommunication of eastern churches who observed a different paschal feast and was soundly rebuked by Irenaeus whereupon he retracted.

The first bishop of Rome to assert that was head of the church and successor of Peter was Pope Stephen in 250 AD, three decades after the same words he used were written in the spurious Clementine Homilies. The modern notion of the papacy was defined in this spurious document.

 

[MonFrere]

Of course after 325, the early Catholic church had the full financial and legal support of Imperial Rome. Any opposition was marginalized and driven into hiding.

How convenient! The “real” heretics have more history that your “true church”. You want me to believe that, historically speaking, the heretics of history got more press that the “true church”. The “true church” doesn’t even command a footnote!! There’s 50 times more information about the history of the ancient Jews of the Old Covenant than about the Church of the New Covenant of which God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son; which is more recent to our day by CENTURIES. How people can believe something so lacking in credibility is truly unbelievable. The ancient Jews have a history. The “false” Catholic Church has a history. The “true church” has no history. How could any person with any reasonable degree of sophistication believe this?

MonFrere

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

I’d respect your point of view more if you’d actually address some of the point raised by Tim, Marc, and Steven.

As for the last point, I haven’t a clue how you can come to make this claim given we only have three or four sentences from Stephen reported in Cyprian’s letter. For your claim to have any kind of validity whatsoever you would have to show what passages Stephen was quoting from. A hard thing to do since his entire docemtation consists in the few words reported by Cyprian.

God bless,
Ut

I already quoted the spurious Clementine Homilies. Firmillian (256 AD) says the claim of Stephen to be successor of the throne of Peter, is folly. Firmillian rejects that Stephen has any authority to “overshadow” the “truth of the Christian Rock.”

“And in this respect I am justly indignant at this so open and manifest folly of Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter on whom the foundations of the Church were laid, should introduce many other rocks and establish new buildings of many churches; maintaining that there is baptism in them by his authority. …Nor does he understand that the truth of the Christian Rock is overshadowed, and in some measure abolished, by him when he thus betrays and deserts unity …Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter.”

 

[Daniel_Keeran]

How convenient! The “real” heretics have more history that your “true church”. You want me to believe that, historically speaking, the heretics of history got more press that the “true church”. The “true church” doesn’t even command a footnote!! There’s 50 times more information about the history of the ancient Jews of the Old Covenant than about the Church of the New Covenant of which God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son; which is more recent to our day by CENTURIES. How people can believe something so lacking in credibility is truly unbelievable. The ancient Jews have a history. The “false” Catholic Church has a history. The “true church” has no history. How could any person with any reasonable degree of sophistication believe this?

MonFrere

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

 

[paul_c]

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

Why are you bringing out this quote? what does it apply to?

 

[MonFrere]

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

and I find our first Pope gives an excellent commentary of this scripture …

(Acts 4:8-12) Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel, 9 If we this day be examined of the good deed done to the impotent man, by what means he is made whole; 10 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 ** Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.**

… the scripture in Matthew is a favorite on all people who want to hold on to a belief that is held by a scant few. It’s a favorite all those who want some cover as to why their “church” has no history.

In all of history there is only ONE BEING capable of saving men — that is about as NARROW a path or a way as you’re going to find. And, in my case, as in the case of most Christians, I didn’t find Jesus - HE FOUND ME.

My whole argument stands. Where is your history? You’re fond of quoting Catholic saints; those individuals with an “St” before their name. That makes them Catholic. Where are your “saints” that didn’t falter in holding on to the faith once given to the saints — another favorite scripture to those who find themselves incapable of making a dent in the world of Christianity. One small case in point — with all the attacks on Christianity by those opposed to the gospel and salvation in and through Christ – WHO IS THEIR TARGET? Who is the quintessential Christian? It’s the Catholic Church. Do they come after you? Do they even know you exist? Judaism grew into a known quantity – EVEN AFTER EXILE and CAPTIVITY. Should we expect so much less from the bearers of the New Covenant (a better and much greater covenant than the old) that they are virtually nonexistent? IMO - this is a completely fair and valid question and the scripture in Matthew is totally inadequate to give a satisfactory answer.

MonFrere

 

[YADA]

One runs the risk of reading into Is.22:22 meanings that Jesus did not intend. In order to tell us what meanings Jesus intended, we need Jesus or even an apostle or other inspired person, to tell us what part of the meaning of keys in Is.22:22 is intended by Jesus use of “keys”. Lacking this, we must look to what occurred afterward.

And as an example of what occurred after … we have Peter [and Peter alone] declaring that the office Judas vacated with his betryal be filled [complete with OT referecnes to an ‘office’] - not one of the Apostles nor disciples questioned that decision.

We have Peter receiving inspiration on dietary laws and opening the Church to the gentiles baptizing the Household of Cornelius …

We have Peter rising to speak [first] at the Jerusalem Council …

We have Paul [even after preaching] having to go and meet with Peter to gain acceptance and a stamp of orthodoxy upon his preaching for it to be accepted …

Pope is a rendiditon of the term Abba [father] … clearly a term used by those in a leadership [episcopal] role - even Paul used the term for himself … and the Prime Minister is so recognized by the people of God - in his singular role - as Christ’s representative … he is not Christ, what he is is the one chosen to and who serves Christ*** and the people of Christ***

---

Peter did not need to proclaim his role … Peter was too busy proclaiming Christ and the Good News [Gospel] of Salvation.

On the other hand Dan, you proclaim yourself to be the arbitor of biblical interpretation, the sole authority, the One Who Knows … you have made yourself greater then Christ - because Christ clearly spoke the words that are a quotation of Isaiah with no qualifications …

I clearly see a singualr head of the Church founded by Christ on Peter - as Christ said. The Church - CHrist pormised - would not fall prey to the assualt upon it by Satan. The Church [people of God] for whom Jesus prayed would be “One” … unified.

The Chuch that existed before your “Bible” did - the Church who made a gift of that same Bible to you and which you use falsely

You can say I do not understand the scriptures … but that does not mean that your assertion is true … and in point of fact … I read and interpret those scriptures and my interpretation [in the Sola Scripture World you live in] is equally as valid as yours - evidenced by the plurality of christian belief, practice and intepretation in the Protestant churches …

I think what really gets to you is that we are so happy and willing to stay in the Church Christ founded …

 

[Randy_Carson]

Matthew 7:13-14 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.”

Except that Jesus commanded the Apostles to make disciples of all nations.

Your “true church” has not done this. No one has ever heard of your offbeat sect. Therefore, if you were the “true church”, you would have failed to carry out Jesus’ instructions.

Of course, there is another Church that started around 2,000 years ago that has a billion members in every country and on every continent proclaiming the Good News of Jesus Christ…

But you don’t want to talk about that Church, do you?

 

[YADA]

The Book is the only written source that is inspired. It reaches out to the heart of all who diligently seek God.

But how do we actually "know" that the BIBLE is God breated or the ONLY WRITTEN SOURCE THAT IS INSPIRED? …

I guess one could assert that the Hebrew wirtings OT are … but I know of no place that is written in those writings [self declared as it were] but that would be the jewish tradition … so an appeal to that tradition could be made …

As for the New Testament … the New Testament writers make no such claim … SOLA SCRIPTURA is not there … nor is the claim of them being “God Breathed” or “Inspired by the Holy Spirit” …

I know that I accept the Church’s teaching that this is so … this belief and teaching is found in the writings of the early church fathers but it is not explicit in the NT scripture …

So Dan …

How do you know that the Bible is in fact “the only written source that is inspired”??? …

Where did you find this list of which writings comprise this sole source ???

If the catholic church can’t get church organization and leadership right … why do you take their word for what comprises the NT and accept it as it was handed to you ?

 

[kepha1]

Victor was a very powerful bishop of Rome but never did he assert he was the successor of Peter or even the head of the whole church. He did assert an excommunication of eastern churches who observed a different paschal feast and was soundly rebuked by Irenaeus whereupon he retracted.

The first bishop of Rome to assert that was head of the church and successor of Peter was Pope Stephen in 250 AD, three decades after the same words he used were written in the spurious Clementine Homilies. The modern notion of the papacy was defined in this spurious document.

You have developed a reputation for refusing to answer questions. This is not dialogue.

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.

 

[YADA]

There is no scripture that says Peter was THE head of the church or any similar phrase, nor even chief or the leader of the apostles. Frequency of mention does not constitute Peter’s headship or one could say Paul was vice-President because he was mentioned so often in the book of Acts and in such key roles, e.g. Paul spoke to the emperor of Rome.
The phrase “head” of the church is often used but only referring to Christ alone.

When Pope Stephen in 250 AD declares himself successor of Peter, he uses language lifted drectly from the **spurious Clementine Homilies **written 3 decades prior.

Why was the Apostle Simon re-named Cephas?

Why were not all of the apostles renamed?

In Salvations history what was God’s purpose for re-naming people?

Who are those re-named and what role did they have?

Did they act collegially with their contemporaies as just one of the group? Or sis thay serve some singular leadership role?

Why is Jesus the fullfillment of the “Davidic Kingdom”? Why is that language used?

 

[utunumsint]

I already quoted the spurious Clementine Homilies. Firmillian (256 AD) says the claim of Stephen to be successor of the throne of Peter, is folly. Firmillian rejects that Stephen has any authority to “overshadow” the “truth of the Christian Rock.”

There are two types of legendary documents: those based on falsehoods, and those based on truths. For example, much of what is written about in the Illiad is over 700 years old from the author’s perspective, and yet much of what he wrote is true, nonetheless.

The Clementine epistle may be spurious, but it rests upon a basis of commonly accepted historical truths about the origins of the papacy as attested by all the other quotes we have posted concerning the bishop of Rome that predates the epistle.

As for Firmilian and Cyprian’s responses to Stepehn, I have two comments: Everyone love the authority figure and appeals to the authority when it aids in supporting one’s cause or faction, but as soon as that authority takes an opposing position, angry and often thoughtless words are called forth from those censured. This is human nature. Before this conflict Cyprian was want to proclaim the infallible authority of the bishop of Rome.

My second point is this: Stephen’s position prevailed, and both the actions and words of Cyprian and Firmillian were chastised by Augustine several years later when this issue arose again with the Donatists. This is always the pattern during the early years of controversy. Eventually, it is always the bishop of Rome’s position that wins out.

And frankly, this is also the pattern shown in Acts 15. Even thoug through Peter’s decision a decree was sent forth, the Judaising tendency continued. This does not invalidate the authority of Peter and the council, but shows that councils and papal decrees are remedial measures that take time to be processed, and sometimes have to be repeated again and again.

God bless,
Ut