The Two Heads of The Church in Scripture

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholicray
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

catholicray

Guest
The debate is over Protestants! I found the Papacy in Sacred Scripture. 😛

Ephesians 5:23 - RSVCE

For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.

Now, how does that reveal the Papacy?

You’ll have to note that this particular passage is dealing with two whole persons. The husband as a complete person and the wife as a complete person. There is another passage in Scripture that deals with the headship of Christ and is an analogy of one person. This passage, however, is not an analogy that deals with only one person.

So where is the understanding of the Papacy? Well, you have to consider the wife in the analogy as a complete act, head to toe. Another way to think about this is to ask yourself if the wife, referred to in this passage, is headless. Is the husband the head of a headless wife?

Thus, a husband is the head of his wife, who has her own head, as Jesus is the head of the Church, who has her own head.
 
“Thou art Cephas, and upon this cephas” I will build my Church is a far closer to the Papacy.

Those who think they know Greek will sidetrack the discussion of petros, petra, and lithos and they wax eloquent about the matter.

Minor problem: Christ did not give the command in Greek; he gave it in Aramaic, and because the term for rock in Greek is in the feminine, and giving Peter a feminine name made no sense, the masculine was used in the translation.

Furthermore, anyone reading the Fathers of the Church (and particularly those considered the Apostolic Fathers) will see almost immediately that not only Scripture supports Peter as the head, but also those who followed him (i.e. the bishops of Rome).

Getting into a bible quoting contest with Protestants is to play their game. As in, to lose. The subject matter goes far deeper than tossing quotes back and forth. Don’t get caught in shallow waters.

As an addition, Christ is the head of the Church, and he named one to “stand in his place”. Having a Pope does not dismiss Christ’s headship.
 
Ha! Once again text alone misses the humor. Should have put an LOL in there somewhere. I wonder if Sola Scriptura runs into this same problem?
 
Except for the fact that Paul is emphasizing the headship of husband over the wife, and Jesus over the Church, not of the Best Man over the wife, etc.

This also ignores the fact that Protestants don’t necessarily disagree with a hierarchical polity such as the Romans Church has, but with the claim of infallibility in that hierarchy. Nice eisegesis though.
 
Last edited:
Doesn’t matter what he is emphasizing you have to take the whole analogy not just bits and pieces.
 
catholicray said:
Doesn’t matter what he is emphasizing you have to take the whole analogy not just bits and pieces.
Click to expand...
Right, and the analogy is not talking about polity, or even the Pope. It is talking about the Church being submissive to Christ himself.
 
And it affirms his headship within an analogy of two bodies.
 
Define the word “His” and again, the analogy is speaking of wife being submissive to the husband, just as the Church is submissive to Christ.
 
Else it ought to say A mans head is the head of his body as Jesus is the head of the Church.
 
You are analogizing the analogy now? Interesting hermaneutics.
 
Last edited:
M’kay. So your contention is that my wife should be submissive to a stand-in husband that I appoint in my stead? That’s what Paul is trying to say here when he uses the example of Jesus and the Church as the example for the Husband and Wife? Very interesting way to flip the passage on its head.

Remember, which part of the passage is the analogy (Christ and the Church) describing the other relationship (husband and wife).

You are also forgetting the example that Paul uses in that Christ died for the Church. He is pointing directly to Christ, not his successors.
 
Last edited:
There is elsewhere in Scripture where a single body analogy is used.
 
catholicray said:
Ha! So you’re wife has no authority when you are away? Better tell your children that.
Click to expand...
Again, you completely lost the point of the passage. The passage is discussing the relationship between husband and wife. Not wife and children. Again, eisegesis.
 
And you miss the depth of comparing a husband and wife to Jesus headship of the Church.
 
No, I am just not trying to bend the passage hopelessly out of context in a desperate attempt to defend something that is not remotely in view of the author’s intended message. We have this thing in hermeneutics where you interpret the passage in view of what the author intended, not in view of what I want to cram into the passage.
 
Last edited:
I understand what your saying about the passage and I agree the main point is for wives to be submissive to their husbands. I understand that the example given for submission is the Church. This is utterly the main idea. However hidden in the depths of this passage is an acknowledgment that husband and wife are comparable to the relationship of the Church to Christ. Or rather that a husband and wife ought to have the same relationship the Church does to Christ. I’m merely commenting on the fact that the analogy is one of two complete “persons” on both sides. If you do not acknowledge the complete “persons” on both sides of the analogy then the passage breaks down.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top