In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope

stpeterslist ^ | February 21, 2013 | HHAMBROSE

[NYer]

His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI receives a papal tirara - New Liturgical Movement

In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope

by HHAmbrose on Feb 21, 2013 • 11:44 pm No Comments

Listers, glory and honor to God for giving us the grace of the papacy. The Pope is the “Advocate of Christian Memory” and he holds the King’s people to the King’s laws until our Savior returns. Each year on February 22nd the Church celebrates the Cathedra Petri – the Chair of St. Peter.

This feast brings to mind the mission of teacher and pastor conferred by Christ on Peter, and continued in an unbroken line down to the present Pope. We celebrate the unity of the Church, founded upon the Apostle, and renew our assent to the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, extended both to truths which are solemnly defined ex cathedra, and to all the acts of the ordinary Magisterium.

The feast of the Chair of Saint Peter at Rome has been celebrated from the early days of the Christian era on 18 January, in commemoration of the day when Saint Peter held his first service in Rome. The feast of the Chair of Saint Peter at Antioch, commemorating his foundation of the See of Antioch, has also been long celebrated at Rome, on 22 February. At each place a chair (cathedra) was venerated which the Apostle had used while presiding at Mass. One of the chairs is referred to about 600 by an Abbot Johannes who had been commissioned by Pope Gregory the Great to collect in oil from the lamps which burned at the graves of the Roman martyrs. — New Catholic Dictionary¹

To commemorate this holy feast day SPL brings you a defense of the papacy with references to Scripture, the Western Church Fathers, the Eastern Church Fathers, and of course, the Medieval Popes.

 

The article addresses the following questions:

1. Did St. Peter hold any primacy amongst the Twelve Apostles?
2. Did Christ charge St. Peter with the office of the papacy?
3. Did St. Peter exercise his ministry from Rome?
4. What about the controversy of Sts. Peter and Paul?
5. Did the papacy continue after St. Peter and if so, to whom?
6. Did the Early Church speak of a hierarchal Church with bishops?
7. What of those who started their own “churches”?
8. What did the Eastern Early Church Fathers say about the Petrine Ministry?
9. Are all people subject to the papacy?

 

The following list is certainly not exhaustive. The Scripture studies alone could fill up volumes and a proper study of Church history is a lifetime of academic work; however, we’ve catalogued a quality sampling of sources with biblical and textual citations in order that you may be able to defend or maybe even discover for the first time the grace of the papacy.

 

Holy Scripture

1. St. Peter was Prince of the Apostles

“Prince of the Apostles” means that St. Peter held a certain primacy over the other eleven. Understanding St. Peter’s unique position among the twelve and the unique ministries he exercised lays an excellent groundwork for a discussion of Christ’s founding of the Papacy. There are three primary topics of focus for exploring the biblical articulation of the primacy of the Petrine ministry.

 

St. Peter’s Place of Primacy Among the Twelve
Sts. Peter, James, and John are a special group of disciples that are allowed to witness the Transfiguration² and accompany Christ to the Mount of Olives.³ In each event, St. Peter, the Rock, is singled out. At the Mount of Olives, Christ finds all three asleep, but it is St. Peter he addresses. During the Transfiguration, it is St. Peter who speaks for the disciples. In St. Luke 5:1-11, Christ calls his first disciples, and the first is Simon Peter. According to Cardinal Ratzinger, the “call of Peter appears as the original pattern of apostolic vocation par excellence.”⁴ Every time the disciples are listed, St. Peter is listed first.⁵ Furthermore, when referring to the disciples, sometimes only St. Peter is mentioned by name, e.g., “And Simon and those who were with him,” and “Now Peter and those who were with him”.⁶ St. Peter is the only one to try to walk on the water (Mt 14:28ff) and he is the one that brings up the famous question of how many times we must forgive.⁷ Even St. Peter’s shadow was an instrument of healing.⁸

 

Significance of the Name Change
While it was common for Rabbis to give nicknames or new surnames to their disciples, e.g., the Sons of Zebedee as the “Sons of Thunder,” it was uncommon to change a disciple’s first name. Christ gives Simon the new name “Peter” or Kephas (or Cephas) meaning rock.⁹ In the Old Testament, God changing someone’s name denoted a special calling, a new vocation, e.g., Abram to Abraham, Sarai to Sarah, Jacob to Israel, etc. St. Peter’s name change denotes that he will have a special vocation among the twelve. Obviously Christ was also referred to as the Rock, because he is the foundation of all things. However, in the rabbinical tradition, Abraham was also referred to as a rock: “Look to the rock from which you were hewn… look to Abraham your father” .¹⁰ Cardinal Ratzinger comments:¹¹

Abraham, the father of faith, is by his faith the rock that holds back chaos, the onrushing primordial flood of destruction, and thus sustains creation. Simon, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ and the first witness of the Resurrection, now becomes by virtue of his Abrahamic faith, which is renewed in Christ, the rock that stands against the impure tide of unbelief and its destruction of man.

 

The Papal Office Given to St. Peter by Christ
After the Resurrection, Christ appears to the Twelve and has a unique conversation with St. Peter. Christ, the Shepherd, asks St. Peter three times if he loves him. St. Peter responds yes all three times – presumably this passage should reflect his three denials. Christ also tell St. Peter and Peter alone: feed my lambs, tend my sheep, and feed my sheep. As the Vicar of Christ, St. Peter must care for the flock.¹² In Lk 22:31-34, two major Petrine themes are evident. First, Satan has taken a special interest in St. Peter. He will fail, but will repent. Second, after St. Peter has “turned again” to Christ, Jesus commissions him to “strengthen the brethren.” Another mission given only to St. Peter.

In Matthew 16:13-20, the most famous unique call is given to St. Peter: to be the foundation of the Church and to exercise the authority of keys of the kingdom. The office given to St. Peter is that of the Vicar within the Davidic Kingdom. The Vicar governs in the King’s stead, according to the King’s rules, while the King is gone.¹³ St. Peter is the Vicar of Christ, the Pope.

 

Concluding Thoughts and Suggested Reading
For all of this information plus a brief handling of the relationship between Sts. Peter and Paul, please reference 13 Biblical Reasons St. Peter is the Prince of the Apostles. The page citations and Scripture references for this section are taken from Cardinal Ratzinger’s Called to Communion, which was featured in The 6 Books by Pope Benedict XVI All Catholics Should Read.

A selection from “Christ’s Charge to Peter,” Raphael (1515)

2. Jesus Christ Founded the Papacy

According to Holy Scripture, the Office of the Papacy was instituted by Jesus Christ. In fact, he was the only person who had the authority to create such a position. SPL’s article 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy discusses the following questions:

1. What type of kingdom did Christ intend to bring?
2. What role did Christ intend for Saint Peter?
3. What is the biblical backing for St. Peter’s role in accordance with the Davidic Kingdom?
4. What is the position and what is its purpose?
5. What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say about St. Peter and the Papacy?
6. But in Greek, St. Peter’s name is Petros and Christ says, “upon this petra,” so Christ was not referring to St. Peter, was he?
7. Isn’t Christ The Rock?
8. I am a Christian, how can I follow both Christ and the Pope?
9. How can I have a personal relationship with Christ and have a “middle man,” the Pope?
10. Scripturally, what would be the overall reason Christ would want a Vicar for his Church?

We will address the first three questions here, because they lay out a proper biblical understanding of the Office of the Papacy.

 

1. What type of kingdom did Christ intend to bring?
Jesus Christ was descended from King David and referred to as “Son of David”¹⁴. King David was promised a descendent who would not only “rule forever,” but would sit on “David’s throne” forever¹⁵; thus, any conversation of what is and what is not properly intended by Christ, regarding his Kingdom, must be couched within the template of the Davidic Kingdom¹⁶.

 

2. What role did Christ intend for Saint Peter?
In the district of Caesarea Philippi, Christ asks his disciples “Who do men say that the Son of man is?” St. Peter responds, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus then says to St. Peter:

And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it. I will give you they 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.

Christ’s intention for the role of St. Peter within the kingdom is twofold: Christ changed Simon Bar-jona’s name to Peter meaning rock and he will be a foundation for Christ’s kingdom on earth, the Church, and secondly, St. Peter is given the “keys of kingdom,” which come with great authority¹⁷. It is important to note this is one of the few times Christ ever mentions the “Church.”

 

3. What is the biblical backing for St. Peter’s role in accordance with the Davidic Kingdom?
If Christ is giving St. Peter a role within his Church, his kingdom of God on earth, then it must be part of the Davidic Kingdom. The symbols of authority given to St. Peter are the “keys of the kingdom.” Looking to the Old Testament, it is clear that Christ is rewording a passage from Isaiah that speaks of a position within the Davidic Kingdom:

And I will place on his should the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.

Here a position within the Davidic Kingdom is described which has the key of authority to open and close, and is considered a position of security and authority when the King is away. Christ, who will sit on David’s throne forever, is using an Old Testament verse to elucidate a New Testament Kingdom position.

 

A section of the “Martyrdom of St. Peter” by Leonello Spada (1576–1622)

Early Church

3. St. Peter Exercised his Ministry from Rome

Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states:

“In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.”

Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?

The article 11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity is Centered on St. Peter and Rome is a sampling of the praise of and adherence to the Petrine Ministry – The Papacy. While the list gives three quality examples of Scripture connecting St. Peter with Rome, we will look here at a few choice quotes from the Early Church.

 

Taught in the Same Place in Italy
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:

“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).

 

St. Peter Announced the Word of God in Rome
In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters:

“After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).

 

Come to the Vatican and See for Yourself
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists:

“But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church.”

By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).

 

Sts. Peter and Paul, pray for us.

4. The Early Church on Sts. Peter and Paul

“Many modern day academics enjoy setting St. Peter and St. Paul in enmity with one another,” states SPL author Catherine, “however, the over emphasis of Galatians 2:11-14 by modern scholarship fails to acknowledge that even though they had a disagreement their mission of spreading the Gospel was the same. In this spirit, I present to you five reflections by members of the early church on the mutual impact that St. Peter and Paul had on the early church. Prayerfully ask the Holy Spirit to let St. Peter and St. Paul’s example of faithfulness unto death be your focus today and everyday.” Out of Catherine’s excellent list, we will focus on one particular passage by St. Irenaeus:

Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meeting; [we do this, I say] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; also [by pointing out] the faith they preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Against Heresies 3.3.2.

Along with the above quote, the other four passages from the Early Church demonstrate the Fathers focusing on Sts. Peter and Paul as brothers in the faith and fellow martyrs – not enemies vying for power within the Church. For a more biblical focus of the relationship between Sts. Peter and Paul see the above-mentioned list on St. Peter as Prince of the Apostles.

 

Crucifixion of St. Peter – Masaccio, AD 1426

5. The First Popes of the Catholic Church

In cataloguing the first ten popes of the Catholics Church, SPL hoped to address a few misconceptions. The first would be that the office of the papacy was simply given to St. Peter and then closed upon his death. The necessity of a Vicar of Christ with the Keys of Kingdom is present until the King returns and the Keys are returned to him. Secondly, we hoped to address the pernicious error that the papacy is a historical fiction within the Early Church and it did not materialize until medieval times. For our purposes, we’ll select the two popes that followed St. Peter from The First 10 Popes of the Catholic Church.

 

Pope St. Linus (67-76)
All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book “Adversus haereses”. As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian’s assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, Illustrious Men 15). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul in his 2 Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

We cannot be positive whether this identification of the pope as being the Linus mentioned in 2 Timothy 4:21 goes back to an ancient and reliable source, or originated later on account of the similarity of the name.

 

Pope St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
The second successor of St. Peter. Whether he was the same as Cletus, who is also called Anencletus as well as Anacletus, has been the subject of endless discussion. Irenaeus, Eusebius, Augustine, Optatus, use both names indifferently as of one person. Tertullian omits him altogether. To add to the confusion, the order is different. Thus Irenaeus has Linus, Anacletus, Clement; whereas Augustine and Optatus put Clement before Anacletus. On the other hand, the “Catalogus Liberianus”, the “Carmen contra Marcionem” and the “Liber Pontificalis”, all most respectable for their antiquity, make Cletus and Anacletus distinct from each other; while the “Catalogus Felicianus” even sets the latter down as a Greek, the former as a Roman.

 

The Martyrdom of Saint Clement c. 1480

6. The Apostles Appointed Bishops

The Early Church was the Early Catholic Church. First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians is an orthodox window into the infancy of the Church (AD 97) and particularly into the structure of the Church. The Early Church is not an ambiguous or mysterious time. It is a well recorded period with a great number of writings from the Early Church Fathers. Clement lived in Rome only a stone’s throw away from the Coliseum. He is seen as a successor to St. Peter and is considered the fourth Pope of Rome, following St. Peter, St. Linus and St. Anacletus.

Chapter XLII outlines a clear theology of succession from Christ to the Apostles to the Bishops of the Church. As an early Christian, how do you know if you belonged to the true Church? Well, does your community have a bishop? Did your bishop come from the Apostles who came from Christ our Lord who came from God the Father? It should be stressed this epistle is dated AD 97.

“The apostles have preached the gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ [has done so] from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first fruits [of their labours], having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture in a certain place, I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith.”

 

In Chapter XLIV, St. Clement shuts the book on any doubt that the apostles chose and declared men to lead as bishops after their death. It is apostolic succession in a clear and practical manner articulated in AD 97.

“Our apostles also knew, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that there would be strife on account of the office of the episcopate. For this reason, therefore, inasmuch as they had obtained a perfect fore-knowledge of this, they appointed those [ministers] already mentioned, and afterwards gave instructions, that when these should fall asleep, other approved men should succeed them in their ministry. We are of opinion, therefore, that those appointed by them, or afterwards by other eminent men, with the consent of the whole church, and who have blamelessly served the flock of Christ, in a humble, peaceable, and disinterested spirit, and have for a long time possessed the good opinion of all, cannot be justly dismissed from the ministry. For our sin will not be small, if we eject from the episcopate those who have blamelessly and holily fulfilled its duties. Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them. But we see that you have removed some men of excellent behaviour from the ministry, which they fulfilled blamelessly and with honour.”

It is important to note the universal authority in which Pope St. Clement I is writing. One cannot miss how early in the life of the Church this writing is and how the Church is already a hierarchal body that respects the teachings of the Bishop of Rome. Pope St. Clement I even commands the Corinthians at one point – this note and other are commented on in The Apostles Appointed Bishops: 9 Teachings from St. Clement AD 97.

 

The Schismatics of Dante’s Inferno by Gustave

7. Those Who Start Their Own Church Follow the Voice of Satan

The Pope as the Vicar of Christ and as the Advocate of Christian Memory stands as tent peg holding down the Universal Church of Christ, and no list on Church unity would be complete without the (in)famous epistle of St. Cyprian, AD 250.

Our Lord Jesus Christ is not returning to our world for a harem of “churches.” There is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church and it was founded by Christ and charged by him to St. Peter and the Apostles. However, there are now and always have been those groups that attempt to rend Christ from his Church – to recreate that which God gave us, the Church. In AD 250, St. Cyprian wrote an outstanding work entitled On the Unity of the Church. The epistle focuses especially on the topic of schism and those who would set themselves up as Church leaders and/or start their own “churches.” Without question, these groups are proto-protestant groups and the saint’s arguments apply just as much to our modern schismatic and heretical groups as they did to his ancient schismatic groups.¹⁸

 

The New Way of Satan

“He [Satan] has invented heresies and schisms, whereby he might subvert the faith, might corrupt the truth, might divide the unity. Those whom he cannot keep in the darkness of the old way [paganism], he circumvents and deceives by the error of a new way [schism/heresy]. He snatches men from the Church itself; and while they seem to themselves to have already approached to the light, and to have escaped the night of the world, he pours over them again, in their unconsciousness, new darkness.”

 

Upon This Rock

“There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, “I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, “Feed my sheep.”

 

Can the Spouse of Christ Be Adulterous?

“The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. He is a stranger; he is profane; he is an enemy. He can no longer have God for his Father, who has not the Church for his mother.”

 

Those Who Start Their Own Church Vomit Poison

“These are they who of their own accord, without any divine arrangement, set themselves to preside among the daring strangers assembled, who appoint themselves prelates without any law of ordination, who assume to themselves the name of bishop, although no one gives them the episcopate; whom the Holy Spirit points out in the Psalms as sitting in the seat of pestilence, plagues, and spots of the faith, deceiving with serpent’s tongue, and artful in corrupting the truth, vomiting forth deadly poisons from pestilential tongues; whose speech doth creep like a cancer, whose discourse forms a deadly poison in the heart and breast of every one.”

 

Priests and Sacrifice

“What sacrifices do those who are rivals of the priests think that they celebrate? Do they deem that they have Christ with them when they are collected together, who are gathered together outside the Church of Christ?”

Without a doubt this epistle of St. Cyprian is one of the most quotable letters of the Early Church Fathers. For more commentary and more unabashed Catholic quotes visit Those Who Start Their Own Church Follow the Voice of Satan: 11 Teachings from St. Cyprian AD 250.

 

St. John Chrysostom, pray for us.

8. The Eastern Fathers Supported the Petrine Ministry

Often times the papacy is misunderstood a “characteristic” of Western Christianity. In fact, nothing could be farther from the truth. The Catholic Church embraces the Eastern Catholic Churches along with the Roman Church and they are united in doctrine under the Holy Father, the Pope. SPL has catalogue an extensive collection of quotes from the Eastern Church Fathers supporting the Petrine Ministry.

St. Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (d. A.D. 638)

“Teaching us all orthodoxy and destroying all heresy and driving it away from the God-protected halls of our holy Catholic Church. And together with these inspired syllables and characters, I accept all his (the pope’s) letters and teachings as proceeding from the mouth of Peter the Coryphaeus, and I kiss them and salute them and embrace them with all my soul … I recognize the latter as definitions of Peter and the former as those of Mark, and besides, all the heaven-taught teachings of all the chosen mystagogues of our Catholic Church.” – Sophronius, Mansi, xi. 461

 

St. Theodore the Studite of Constantinople (d. 826)
Writing to Pope Leo III:

Since to great Peter Christ our Lord gave the office of Chief Shepherd after entrusting him with the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, to Peter or his successor must of necessity every novelty in the Catholic Church be referred. [Therefore], save us, oh most divine Head of Heads, Chief Shepherd of the Church of Heaven. (Theodore, Bk. I. Ep. 23)

 

Sergius, Metropolitain of Cyprus (649)
Writing to Pope Theodore:

O Holy Head, Christ our God hath destined thy Apostolic See to be an immovable foundation and a pillar of the Faith. For thou art, as the Divine Word truly saith, Peter, and on thee as a foundation-stone have the pillars of the Church been fixed. (Sergius Ep. ad Theod. lecta in Sess. ii. Concil. Lat. anno 649)

 

SPL has listed over 50 quotes of the Eastern Church Fathers: The Early Church in Jerusalem Followed the Pope: 7 Quotes from History, Constantinople: 25 Quotes from the Eastern Fathers on the Petrine Ministry, and Rome is the Apostolic Throne: 24 Quotes from Alexandria, Antioch, and Cyprus.

 

St. Peter, Prince of the Apostles, Vicar of Christ, pray for us.

Medieval

9. All Human Creatures Are Subject to the Pope

The following is a short compilation of quotes taken from previous Ecumenical Pontiffs of Rome: “Outside the Church there is no hope for salvation.” These quotes show us the confidence that our previous Bishops of Rome have had in their authority given by God Himself to be the Vicar of Christ here on Earth. As St. Augustine said, “Rome has spoken, the case is closed.”

“The universal Church of the faithful is one outside of which none is saved.”
Pope Innocent III, ex cathedra, Fourth Lateran Council (1215 AD)

 

“We declare, say , define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (1302 AD)

 

“You see, dearly beloved sons and venerable brothers, how much vigilance is needed to keep the disease of this terrible evil from infecting and killing your flocks. Do not cease to diligently defend your people against these pernicious errors. Saturate them with the doctrine of Catholic truth more accurately each day. Teach them that just as there is only one God, one Christ, one Holy Spirit, so there is also only one truth which is divinely revealed. There is only one divine faith which is the beginning of salvation for mankind and the basis of all justification, the faith by which the just person lives and without which it is impossible to please God and to come to the community of His children.[Rom 1; Heb 11; Council of Trent, session 6, chap. 8.] There is only one true, holy, Catholic church, which is the Apostolic Roman Church. There is only one See founded in Peter by the word of the Lord,[St. Cyprian, epistle 43.] outside of which we cannot find either true faith or eternal salvation. He who does not have the Church for a mother cannot have God for a father, and whoever abandons the See of Peter on which the Church is established trusts falsely that he is in the Church.[St. Cyprian,de unitat. Eccl.] Thus, there can be no greater crime, no more hideous stain than to stand up against Christ, than to divide the Church engendered and purchased by His blood, than to forget evangelical love and to combat with the furor of hostile discord the harmony of the people of God.[St. Cyprian, epistle 72.]“
Blessed Pope Pius IX, Singulari Quidem

 

Happy Feast of the Chair of St. Peter, listers.

 

1. Introduction to the Chair of St. Peter – SOURCE [↩]
2. Mark 9:2-8 [↩]
3. Mark 14:33 [↩]
4. Called to Communion, by Cardinal Ratzinger, 54 [↩]
5. Matt 10:2-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13 [↩]
6. Mk 1:36; Lk 9:32 [↩]
7. Mt 18:21 [↩]
8. Acts 5 [↩]
9. John 1:42; Mt 16 [↩]
10. Is 51:1-3 [↩]
11. 56 [↩]
12. John 21 [↩]
13. Is. 22 [↩]
14. Matt 1:1-2; 9:27-29; Mk 10:47, 48 [↩]
15. I Chron 17:14; Ps 89:35-36; Luke1:31 [↩]
16. cf. Is. 9:6-7; 11:1-3; Jer 33:14-15, 17, 19-21, 26; Ps 132:10-14, 17; Luke 1:31-33, 68-71; II Tim 2:8; Rev 5:5, 22:16; Rom 1:3 [↩]
17. Matt 16:13-20 [↩]
18. Novatian: Another impetus of the epistle was the first “anti-pope” who attempted to claim he was holier than the rest of the Church and claimed moral superiority, especially in not wanting to ever extend forgiveness to sins post-baptism. [↩]

Tags: Apologetics, Apostles, Apostolic Succession, Early Church Fathers, Eastern Catholic, Jesus Christ, Papacy, Quotes, Salvation, Scripture

[terycarl]

Now that I have answered your question, please be so kind to answer mine: Since Jesus and the thief on the cross were not Catholic, and the Bible does not say anything about being a Catholic, why would it be necessary for any Christian to be a Catholic?

until Christ died for our sins....we were under the old covenant

[terycarl]

you don't understand Reading the mind of another Freeper is a form of "making it personal." Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.

well, I guess that this admonition is justified, but by stating that he didn't understand, I was not reading his mind...I might have been pointing out that he did not understand the point that was being made at the time....he could be Einstien but he needn't have the ability to pick upn what was being discussed at the time

[boatbums]

Ah, there’s the interesting part. Having rejected the traditional 1500-year-old Christian (Catholic-Orthodox) canon, the revisers had to seek a different OT canon, namely the Jewish Masoretic (Hebrew), derived ultimately from the work of Rabbi Akiva, the father of Rabbinical Judaism. Rabbi Akiva and his circle (the School of Jamnia) developed their own list of OT canonical books for reasons that were non-Christian, and in fact, theologically anti-Christian.

Just what exactly is in these "Apocryphal" books that made them "Christian" that the Jewish leaders rejected them from their canon?

These books were supposedly written prior to the coming of Christ and some spoke of battles fought by the Jewish nation. Why would they have wanted to exclude such writings as the victorious Maccabees?

Isn't it true that these extra-biblical books were ALWAYS considered separately from the universally recognized inspired sacred writings contained in the Old Testament and that such notaries as Jerome, Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and Athanasius rejected them as divinely-inspired?

Isn't it true that these "extra" books were rejected as sacred inspired writings based on the facts that they contained errors and false teachings and because their authors were not recognized as Prophets of God? For a list of the errors in the Apocrypha, see http://carm.org/errors-apocrypha.

That being said, Jesus and Paul recognized the place of the Jews as, "Great in every respect. First of all, that they were entrusted with the oracles of God." (Romans 3:2) Seeing as they were the caretakers of God's written word since the time of Moses, did God take away this trust? Jesus never challenged their place.

It wasn't until the Council of Trent (1546 A.D.) that they were dogmatically decided on as belonging in the canon and this as a counter reaction to the Protestant Reformation.

From Reasons why the Apocrypha does not belong in the Bible:

There are no clear, definite New Testament quotations from the Apocrypha by Jesus or the apostles. While there may be various allusions by the New Testament to the Apocrypha, there are no authoritative statements like "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say." There are references in the New Testament to the pseudepigrapha (literally “false writings”) (Jude 14-15) and even citations from pagan sources (Acts 17:22-34), but none of these are cited as Scripture and are rejected even by Roman Catholics. In contrast, the New Testament writers cite the Old Testament numerous times (Mt. 5; Lk. 24:27; Jn. 10:35) and use phrases such as "thus says the Lord," "as it is written," or "the Scriptures say," indicating their approval of these books as inspired by God.

Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture by referring to the entire accepted Jewish Canon of Scripture, “From the blood of Abel [Gen. 4:8] to the blood of Zechariah [2 Chron. 24:20], who was killed between the altar and the house of God; yes, I tell you, it shall be charged against this generation (Lk. 11:51; cf. Mt. 23:35).”

Abel was the first martyr in the Old Testament from the book of Genesis, while Zechariah was the last martyr in the book of Chronicles. In the Hebrew Canon, the first book was Genesis and the last book was Chronicles. They contained all of the same books as the standard 39 books accepted by Protestants today, but they were just arranged differently. For example, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) were contained in one book. This is why there are only 24 books in the Hebrew Bible today. By Jesus referring to Abel and Zachariah, He was canvassing the entire Canon of the Hebrew Scriptures which included the same 39 books as Protestants accept today. Therefore, Jesus implicitly rejected the Apocrypha as Scripture.

The Apocryphal books do not share many of the characteristics of the Canonical books: they are not prophetic, there is no supernatural confirmation of any of the apocryphal writers works, there is no predictive prophecy, there is no new Messianic truth revealed, they are not cited as authoritative by any prophetic book written after them, and they even acknowledge that there were no prophets in Israel at their time (cf. 1 Macc. 9:27; 14:41).

This asserted "authority" the Catholic Church claims to define what is or isn't Holy Scripture denies the fact that it is God who is the author of Scripture and even the Catholic Church accepts this truth. If, therefore, God is the author and the preserver of His word, all the church and its members are authorized to do is receive, believe and obey what God has given forth. The Old Testament Jews understood this. There's no reason New Testament believers can't as well.

It seems that many Catholics throw out this challenge as if no other Bibles are "complete" and that they, alone, have the only "true" one. This is a false assurance considering the above information as well as the fact that ALL the early translations (even Martin Luther's) did include these Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books. They were simply placed in a separate section noted as for the reading and "edification" of the church but not for deriving doctrine because they were not accepted as Divinely-inspired.

It is also NOT a true statement that "Protestants" accept the Jewish canon rather than the Roman Catholic one. Again from the above source:

There are various divisions of the Hebrew canon. The Protestant Old Testament Canon contains 39 books while the Hebrew canon has 22 or 24. These are the exact same books as the Protestants have, but they are just arranged differently and some of the books are combined into one. For example, Kings is one book. There is not 1st Kings and 2nd Kings. Also, all of the 12 minor prophets (Hosea through Malachi) are one book in the Hebrew Canon.

The ONLY difference between the Bibles we have and the one used by the Catholic Church is these seven books. ALL of the others ones are identical. So the real question must be what is missing in a Bible that excludes these seven books? The answer is simply that the one that leaves them out is the TRUE Holy Scripture God meant us to know and trust. That's because they ARE from the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and given so that men and women of God may be complete, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Just what exactly is in these "Apocryphal" books that made them "Christian" that the Jewish leaders rejected them from their canon?

Why would you accept the authority of a small group of Jews to determine the canon of Scripture, over Christ's followers? They had more authority than Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"?

[terycarl]

Please bear in mind though, verga, that no matter how well trained one is in learning the Greek language, the way to understand the scriptures (no matter what language you read it in) is for the Holy Spirit to reveal the meanings.

the proper way to interpret the bible is to follow the Catholic Church....as Christ demanded...if everyone could interpret the bible on his/her own terms we would have millions of different interpretations.....doesn't work that way...listen to what the church teaches...follow it....believe it.

[Syncro]

I lit a candle for you.

It was much prayer and study (with guidance from the Holy Spirit) that influeneced my post to you that you did not comment on.

I put complete trust in God and His inspired word.

I’m glad you read my post, God’s word does not come back void.

[boatbums]

Why would you accept the authority of a small group of Jews to determine the canon of Scripture, over Christ's followers? They had more authority than Christ's Church, "the pillar and foundation of truth"?

Why would you accept the authority of group of followers of Jesus, 400 years after the last book of the Old Covenant was written, to dictate to the Jews (to whom belong the Oracles of God) what "their" sacred writings should contain? Why were these books placed within the Old Testament (the Jewish canon) instead of separately (as the Septuagint had them)or as part of the New Testament/Covenant? What the "church" decided to do (finally, after 1500+ years) was tell the Jewish people what did and did not belong in their sacred scriptures. Could you understand their concern and anger?

Finally, do you consider these seven books "inspired" by God and useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that everyone who belongs to God may be proficient, equipped for every good work? If yes, how do you explain their errors? Did God make mistakes?

[boatbums]

you are right....if you can show that in the last 2013 years the Catholic Church has erred in one of its statements or declarations....go fo it, you could get rich!!!(it didn't happen)

Have you gotten to post #416 yet? Do these council proclamations meet the qualification to be considered "statements or declarations" unable to be in error?

[Syncro]

So far

Your posts have denied scriptural truths and ridiculed salvation

And accused the brethren of doing something that was not done.

And typed a comment that virtually told another poster that what he posted about himself was a lie.

And now denying the Holy Spirit His power, and instead putting the Catholic church's teachings above Gods. Illustrated by your post to which I am responding now:

no matter how well trained one is in learning the Greek language, the way to understand the scriptures (no matter what language you read it in) is for the Holy Spirit to reveal the meanings.

the proper way to interpret the bible is to follow the Catholic Church....as Christ demanded...listen to what the church teaches...follow it....believe it.

No terycarl, I will continue to follow God instead of man.

God did not demand we follow the Catholic Church, He told us to follow Him and trust the Holy Spirit for guidance, not a church or a Catholic who denies the power of the Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit trumps Catholicism, sorry that is not understood universally through all denominations.

[Syncro]

So far your posts have denied scriptural truths and ridiculed salvation

And accused a poster of doing something that was not done.

And had no desire to apologize for posting falsely against another, even thought you did acknowleged you were wrong.

And typed a comment that virtually told another poster that what he posted about himself was a lie.

And now denying the Holy Spirit His power, and instead putting the Catholic church's teachings above Gods. Illustrated by your post to which I am responding now:

no matter how well trained one is in learning the Greek language, the way to understand the scriptures (no matter what language you read it in) is for the Holy Spirit to reveal the meanings.

the proper way to interpret the bible is to follow the Catholic Church....as Christ demanded...listen to what the church teaches...follow it....believe it.

No terycarl, I will continue to follow God instead of man.

God did not demand we follow the Catholic Church, He told us to follow Him and trust the Holy Spirit for guidance, not a church or a Catholic who denies the power of the Holy Spirit.

Holy Spirit trumps Catholicism, sorry that is not understood universally through all denominations.

[Boogieman]

Salvation is already complete though, at this point. It was completed on the cross, once and for all time. Christ returns next time, not to bring salvation, but to bring the sword.

[St_Thomas_Aquinas]

Why would you accept the authority of group of followers of Jesus,

• "On this Rock, I will build my Church." --Jesus

Do you agree that Jesus founded a church, His Church?

• "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."

Do you agree that Jesus' Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth?"

• "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Do you believe that if someone refuses to listen to Christ's Church, that he should be treated as an unbeliever?

Do you agree that Christ's Church is visible? If not, how are we to take our disputes to Christ's invisible Church? Was His command nonsensical?

Do you believe that Christ's Church has the final authority in determining the canon of Scripture? Or did Martin Luther, who isn't mentioned in Scripture? Or a gathering of Jews, around 90 A.D., about 60 years after Pentacost?

400 years after the last book of the Old Covenant was written, to dictate to the Jews (to whom belong the Oracles of God) what "their" sacred writings should contain?

You know that "the Jews" were not a monolithic group, and that various groups held various canons of Scripture, even at the time of "the council of Jamnia," which was simply a local group of Jews, who had no authority, even within Judaism.

Old Testament Canon

When you consider Luther's motivation and actions, that he originally sought to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament, because these books contained passages which contradicted his doctrines, particularly his doctrine of "faith alone," it is obvious that he wanted to remove the books of Maccabees from the Old Testament because 2 Maccabees (2 Maccabees 12:43-46) contradicted his rejection of Purgatory.

[Boogieman]

Yes, I’m still waiting to see if he is going to put his money where his mouth is and defend some actual proclamations, instead of just making blanket declarations. If they are all 100% correct, then it should be easy enough to say that the church encouraging violence and persecution against heretics is a-okay and Holy Spirit-inspired.

[Steelfish]

But that’s YOUR interpretation of Scripture. David Koresh, Joel Osteen, “Bishop” TD Jake, Rev. Wright; Rev. Sharpton, and pro-gay and lesbian marriage Lutherans plus 35,000 other “Christian” denominations all have THEIR view of Scripture.

We can’t have infinite number of TRUTHS. There is but One Christ, a One Truth given to His Apostles and their successors as taught by One Church until the end of time.

[Boogieman]

It’s not Biblical interpretation, it’s Biblical teaching. I am not saying, “hey the Olive tree represents this or that”. I am just paraphrasing what the Apostles wrote in plain language, which is unmistakeable. Even Christ himself said “It is finished” with his last breath.

If you don’t feel Christ’s death on the cross was a perfect enough payment to cover the wages of sin, for anyone, for all time, then I feel sorry for you and I hope God opens your eyes.

[Steelfish]

We can go on forever about the interpretation of Christ’s death. It sure opened the door to salvation to all of us but that doesn’t mean we get a free pass. This brings us back to the initial proposition, namely the authentic teachings of Christ as reflected not only in scripture, but in all what was handed down to the Apostles and their successors including those acts that were recorded and those that were not, what Christ said that was written and what was not written. Scripture alone won’t cut it. This is why in establishing His Church on earth He entrusted to Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. “Whatsoever thou shall bind on earth will be bound in heaven and whatsoever thou shall loosen on earth, shall be loosened in Heaven.”

And again we revert to the threshold question. Whose interpretation of Scripture, revelation, and tradition do we accept? You have on one hand the Catholic Church and on the other hand some 35, 000 other Christian denominations including the likes of Joel Osteen; “Bishop” TD Jake; Rev. Sharpton; Rev. Wright; David Koresh; Rev. Jim Jones; or gay and lesbian ordinations of Christian bishops like Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Anglicans or simply trust you own interpretation and judgment like what the Gnostics tried to do? To ask this question is to answer it.

[boatbums]

• "On this Rock, I will build my Church." --Jesus
Do you agree that Jesus founded a church, His Church?

Yes, Jesus established His body, called a "church" or called-out assembly, also it is the Bride of Christ. It was a "spiritual" house per Peter so it cannot mean it is restricted to a single organization/institution that imagines it alone can lay claim or copyright the name "Christians".

• "the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth."
Do you agree that Jesus' Church is "the pillar and foundation of truth?"

It most certainly SHOULD be where the truth Jesus taught is found. But no matter what a group calls itself, if it ceases to be the upholder of the truth, it ceases to be "a" church of the living God. That doesn't mean other local assemblies cannot continue to be the upholder of the truth. I think where Catholics get tripped up is when they read that the church is the "pillar and foundation of the truth", they believe it means THEIR church determines what is the truth. That is not what the verse says nor the context of the other verses. There IS truth, and a Christian church is to be a supporter and announcer of that truth. They don't have the authority to MAKE truth.

• "If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector."
Do you believe that if someone refuses to listen to Christ's Church, that he should be treated as an unbeliever?

Since this passage is speaking about a complaint between two believers and one has wronged the other, the wronged brother should make every effort to settle the matter between him and his brother. If the person refuses to correct his wrong action, the offended brother is told to bring two other members with him to face the offender to try to get him to repent of his wrong. It is ONLY then, that the matter is to be taken to the church (their mutual local congregation) in an effort to correct the offense. Obviously, this sounds like way more than a minor issue if it gets to this point. But, if the members of the church are unable to get the brother to correct his wrong action, they are to expel him from their fellowship. That's just what it says. Paul wasn't talking about hauling someone off to Rome to get them involved in it. To presume that is what Paul meant is ignorant of history seeing as there only WERE local assemblies. While the Apostles were still alive, disputes such as concerned ALL the young churches, such as whether or not the Gentiles had to be circumcised, were dealt with at the founding city of the faith, Jerusalem, and it is there that James settled the matter Paul brought to them. I don't, however, think this implies that ALL matters, large or small, must go to a central, overarching authority to decide matters of local interest. We have Paul's instructions for that. Also, treating someone like a "tax collector" or unbeliever only means they don't let the guy keep worshiping with them and being associated with their ministry, it doesn't mean they stop trying to win him back to the fellowship or quit loving him and reaching out to him.

Do you agree that Christ's Church is visible? If not, how are we to take our disputes to Christ's invisible Church? Was His command nonsensical?

Christ's church is obviously, or should be, a visible one, but it is also a spiritual house, per Peter. It is a body of believers and as the faith community grew, so did the different local churches. They should ALL be visibly the upholders of the truth as Jesus taught it, though. So, there is no ONE church, as if the only legitimate one is called by a specific title or sign on a door. Every believer is a member of Christ's body, his church, his bride, regardless of where they choose to worship. He knows His sheep and they know Him and follow Him. A false shepherd they will not follow. That's how you can tell the difference.

Do you believe that Christ's Church has the final authority in determining the canon of Scripture? Or did Martin Luther, who isn't mentioned in Scripture? Or a gathering of Jews, around 90 A.D., about 60 years after Pentecost?

Again, the "canon" was man's attempt to compile all the sacred books into one volume. At one time, each book was on its own scroll. Then recording processes change and codices were used (looks more like a book). The Jewish people always accepted the Torah, because they believed it came directly from God to Moses. As time went on, various prophets of God wrote down their prophecies received by the Holy Spirit. Various leaders wrote down the activities and actions of the Jewish people in what are called chronicles and they recorded the actions of the different kings and judges God set up among them. In the book of Deuteronomy (one written by Moses), God gave quite specific instructions for how the people would be able to tell the difference between true and false prophets. If what they predicted would happen, happened as they said it would AND they did not try to lead them to worship false gods, then that was a prophet of Jehovah. If the person who claimed to be God's prophet predicted something and it did not happen OR they tried to lead them to worship false gods, then they were NOT Jehovah's prophets AND they were to be executed. So, that tells me both the Jews and God were pretty respectful of the role of the prophets. It is no surprise that their words were recorded in sacred Scripture. There were major and minor prophets, but God showed them who they were to listen to as he also proved to them that he was the true God since only God could foretell the future exactly as he had done.

It was up to the church of believers to receive the writings passed down to them from the Apostles or their direct disciples and we have no reason to believe that they excluded the Old Testament seeing as Jesus and the New Testament writers quoted directly from nearly every one of the books in the Old Testament using words such as, "it is written", "thus sayeth the Lord", and so forth. They recognized what was and wasn't considered sacred Scripture which tells me that there already WAS an understanding and recognition of the body of writings we call the Bible. The Temple had every scroll of every book in it as did most of the local synagogues. They revered the writings as from God just as we Christians should today, because they ARE from God.

I said: 400 years after the last book of the Old Covenant was written, to dictate to the Jews (to whom belong the Oracles of God) what "their" sacred writings should contain?

You asked: You know that "the Jews" were not a monolithic group, and that various groups held various canons of Scripture, even at the time of "the council of Jamnia," which was simply a local group of Jews, who had no authority, even within Judaism.

Not sure what you mean by they were not a "monolithic group". If you mean they were not all of one tribe, then, yeah, we know they were twelve tribes all from Jacob who was the son of Isaac who was the son of Abraham. Under the leadership of Moses, they were a single "group" and they entered the Promised Land as a group. As years went by, they split off but they never stopped being the people of God. Again, he knows his own and all the promises God made to Abraham, to Isaac, to Jacob (Israel, Prince of God) and to Moses he WILL fulfill. Many prophecies are yet to be fulfilled but God is faithful and He will keep his promises.

When you consider Luther's motivation and actions, that he originally sought to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the New Testament, because these books contained passages which contradicted his doctrines, particularly his doctrine of "faith alone," it is obvious that he wanted to remove the books of Maccabees from the Old Testament because 2 Maccabees (2 Maccabees 12:43-46) contradicted his rejection of Purgatory.

I really don't care what Luther's motivations were. He translated the entire Bible into the German vernacular. He even translated all those books you accuse him of omitting. He never removed any books. As for the Apocrypha/Deuterocanonical books, he was hardly alone in viewing them as uninspired works. He was not the first to place them in a separate section from the mutually recognized inspired writings. Rather than question why Luther would do that for ALL of those seven books and not just the one you say he disagreed with, you should ask what motivated those at the Council of Trent to include them with the other inspired writings AS equally inspired. They had NOT done that prior. There were several high-ranking bishops there who also rejected these books being placed in the Old Testament canon. My question to you is what right they had to decide what was God-breathed Scripture and to mandate to the Jews what belonged in THEIR canon of the Old Testament. Unto them was the Oracles of God, Paul stated, so I seriously doubt he would have approved of Christians 1500 years later placing books that were NOT divinely-inspired along with those that were universally recognized AS from God. I do not give them that right. If Catholics want to read these books and think they came from God, go for it, just don't demand that every other Christian must also accept them. They do not hold a candle to those books that did come from God. He doesn't make mistakes.

And, just one more thought about that passage in Maccabees. How can anyone possibly think it is talking about there being a place called Purgatory from that? The men that were prayed for were idol worshipers! Wouldn't that be a mortal sin in Catholic thinking and wouldn't these men have gone to hell rather than Purgatory? Anyway, I think it is extremely shallow reasoning to base such a dogma on this passage and even less reason to think this was the only reason Luther and many before and after him rejected those books as inspired and sacred.

Thanks for the conversation. Have a blessed weekend.

[boatbums]

And again we revert to the threshold question. Whose interpretation of Scripture, revelation, and tradition do we accept? You have on one hand the Catholic Church and on the other hand some 35, 000 other Christian denominations including the likes of Joel Osteen; “Bishop” TD Jake; Rev. Sharpton; Rev. Wright; David Koresh; Rev. Jim Jones; or gay and lesbian ordinations of Christian bishops like Lutherans, Episcopalians, and Anglicans or simply trust you own interpretation and judgment like what the Gnostics tried to do? To ask this question is to answer it.

Please don't revert to this straw man argument! First of all, there are NOT 35,000 other Christian denominations. That bogus number has been disputed so many times here it is crazy to have to do so yet again. Secondly, it is pretending to think that the Catholic Church is unified on all questions of doctrine and dogma. It is a sham and there are numerous polls that prove beyond doubt that such unity is a pipe dream. Though "officially" there are stated beliefs and doctrines, only a small minority, if that, holds dogmatically to each and every one. I doubt you could get all those cardinals gathering in Rome to universally agree on every point. All throughout its history, the Catholic Church has had various theologians toss ideas back and forth to try to come to agreement. Often, there was NO unanimity but majority rules. One church father revered in one century becomes a heretic in the next. One Pope proclaiming dogma gets contradicted by the next one and that one gets overruled later. I know how dearly Catholics want to hold onto that equilibrium and believe it is all true whatever they are told, but declaring herself the One, True Church did not prevent Rome from falling into debauchery and excess. Even the current homosexual/pedophile scandal is nothing new. It's been going on for well over a thousand years if not longer.

Where we know who are the true body of Christ, his bride, is by their hearts and no one can see another's heart. That's something only God can do, so He knows his own and he couldn't care less what sign is posted outside a believer's house of worship. The true bride will show herself by her fruits, the fruits of the Holy Spirit. The "authentic" teachings of Jesus ARE found in Holy Scripture. That's why He gave it to us! It alone is the only objective and authoritative source we have for knowing what is or isn't truth. On the basic doctrine of our salvation, it is crystal clear that we are saved by grace THROUGH faith in Jesus Christ and NOT of our own works so that we cannot boast. Jesus did it ALL. He redeemed us by his precious blood shed upon the cross at Calvary so that the sin debt of the world would be paid IN FULL. It is only man-made religions that add onto that simple plan of salvation. Is it important to know about the nature of our God and how he has worked and will work in our world and lives? Sure, but it doesn't affect our salvation. That thief next to Jesus on the cross didn't need to know about the Trinity to be saved. He didn't have to get down from his cruel cross to get baptized "properly" to be saved. He didn't have to take a new members class to be saved or be able to quote Bible verses. He didn't even have to receive the Eucharist to be saved. But Jesus said, "Today, you will be with me in Paradise.".

We have the writings of the Apostles and their direct disciples that explain the doctrines Christians need to know to be good Christians and live lives that honor and glorify God. He certainly wants us to. He gave us the Holy Spirit to be our guarantee of eternal life and to lead us into all truth. He gave to the believers within each local church pastors and teachers and evangelists to equip and edify the saints to help us be all that God desires for us. He didn't leave us without the Comforter - HIS presence with us for all time. We CAN know we have everlasting life right now, because we believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and his grace is sufficient for us. What a wonderful plan God has for each one of us! It starts with being born again into HIS family by grace through faith in Christ. That is the simple - deceptively simple for some - plan of salvation.

[Cvengr]

If real Christians followed the Pope, would they be resigning from their assigned royal priesthoods when they felt they should do so? I’m so confused. /s

[Steelfish]

Oh, how nice! So when Christ gave His Apostles the Great Commission to go forth and teach all nations and established His Church that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, this was all pointless because we are all saved by God’s grace. There is no reason to teach and evangelize a single Truth.

But no worries. In your mind “the ‘authentic’ teachings of Jesus ARE found in Holy Scripture.” So all of His unrecorded words and deeds are redundant! And who do you think first sorted out the “authentic” from the “inauthentic”? Was it not up to the early Church Fathers and their successors to Peter and the early Church who adopted the books we call the “Bible” as authentic?

You see these select set of books did not drop from the sky. And it was the oral and received tradition of His disciples that believed in the Holy Eucharist and the First Mass. Some serious reading and scholarship might help.

A good place to start is to read the book: “How Christ Said The First Mass” by Fr. James L.Meagher D.D.This nearly 500 page book is replete with historical scholarship that will take some reading since it analyzes early Hebrew worship to what Christ’s disciples did. But then again, this takes serious study and its not the stuff your local corner street FourSquare Church pastor would bother to do or for that matter the Joel Osteens and Rev. Al Sharptons of this world.

And by the way if its not 35,000 denominations, I’ll settle for 5000 as a threshold number. Yes, there were sinners even among his Apostles. Tradition tells us that Christ fell on the road to His crucifixion (BTW, that’s not found in Scripture) and so would His earthy representatives fall as well. The Church is not simply a hotel for saints but also a hospital for sinners and its non-believers. But alas, any of that is not important. One wonders why one of the greatest non-Catholic Christian scholars converted to Catholicism was made a cardinal and is now a Blessed after whom universities have on-campus societies and clubs named after him. His name? Blessed Cardinal Newman. Here, in the US, the top-ranking Lutheran Theologian and scholar, Fr. Neuhaus not only converted to Catholicism, he admitted how he was led astray by the errors of Luther and fundamentalists.