Posted on 11/07/2013 10:07:49 PM PST by RBStealth
The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.
When I studied at Cambridge, I discovered that English Evangelicals define themselves over against the Church of England. Whatever the C of E is, they ain’t. What I’m calling “Protestantism” does the same with Roman Catholicism. Protestantism is a negative theology; a Protestant is a not-Catholic. Whatever Catholics say or do, the Protestant does and says as close to the opposite as he can.
Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” If you want to spot one these days, your best bet is to visit the local Baptist or Bible church, though you can find plenty of Protestants among conservative Presbyterians too.
Protestantism ought to give way to Reformational catholicism. Like a Protestant, a Reformational catholic rejects papal claims, refuses to venerate the Host, and doesn’t pray to Mary or the saints; he insists that salvation is a sheer gift of God received by faith and confesses that all tradition must be judged by Scripture, the Spirit’s voice in the conversation that is the Church.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstthings.com ...
Hey Sir good evening. I live in Texas and they carry the NAB in the local Christian book store. I think those Christian book stores like the regular Barnes and Noble book stores are all going away soon because people buy books, Bibles etc. on line or download to their electronic device. If you go to christianbooks.com they have a large supply and catalogue of Catholic books, Bibles and other items.
http://www.christianbook.com/catholic
I grew up in the North East and remember those Church supply stores which were mainly Roman Catholic. I was surprised I could never find a Bible there but could get a bunch of candles and robes for a good price:)
Thank you for your service to our country, Happy Veterans Day and good weekend to you and your family.
God Bless
“Probably quite a few. I had spent nearly 40 years as a Baptist before I saw ANYONE try to impose the Lord’s Supper on John 6.”
Impose? Wow. I guess that shows just how bad a lot of Protestant Bible study is.
“When challenged, you simply reach for the Bible and see what it has to say.”
That’s not what you do. 1) You’re most likely using translations like most people do. So you are very dependent on “what others believe”. This not only shows the short falls of sola scriptura, it shows the inherent intellectual dishonesty of Protestantism. 2) Early Christians had no problem seeing the Eucharist in John 6. They knew Greek as their first or second language. And you?
“Sorry, but we would. The Pope didn’t write the scriptures.”
Actually, Peter, the first pope, wrote two of the books of the New Testament.
“The Old Testament was accepted in its Protestant form by Jesus & the Apostles & the Jews.”
Actually, no. There’s no evidence of that whatsoever.
“The New Testament was largely settled by 150 AD, although each congregation had the option of deciding which books it accepted.”
Nope.
“Since the Roman Catholic Church did not come up with a binding list until the Council of Trent,...”
Be careful. See, for instance, the Council of Florence, Session 11. There may be no anathema attached to it, but someone could make a case that it was binding.
The best sense I have heard in weeks here on FR. Amen!
AH, so you live in Texas! You must be familiar then with the “Lucky Mary Lottery” candles. They are found in all HEBs alongside the other saints candles (one is for selling your house, there is also some kind of small statue you bury in your front yard to make your house sell faster..) It’s a busy aisle on Sat. mornings, just in time for the BIG LOTTO drawing. :)
However, it did not play out that way. Paul was chosen by Christ directly to bring the Gospel to the Gentiles (Galatians chapter 2).
Since it did not play out that way by the Biblical evidence, perhaps we should look closely to what Jesus actually said in Matthew 16. Small rock vs. Cliff Rock.
Did you include footnotes, endnotes and reference pages? Perhaps the PDF version is misleading.
I grew up Roman Catholic and although the Irish Catholics are not into candles and statues, my good friends and neighbors were Italian Catholics and they were. Frankly, in Texas Evangelicals and Roman Catholics (mostly old German and TexMex) get along fondly. It is very Texan. The White, Black, Hispanic and Asian "Prots" know the Roman Catholics were here first. The old line Roman Catholics know that even though we are "outsiders" we came to Texas for the same reason....To Worship Almighty God, become good Texas citizens and espouse conservative morals. So we all get along now y'all. But you would know this.
Repost:
There might be a 3x4” version that has 3000 pages, but other than that I think your pulling facts out of nowhere
I own 2 versions of the contemporary Catechism.
The only other comprehensive version was the Council of Trent Catechism....which runs 500-600pages in a standard format.
You can also run searches through Amazon on these and get page counts. 3000pgs. is collosal and something you pulled out of the thin air.
The Pope serves Christ as His vicor on Earth. Jesus set up this system. It is stated clearly in Scripture. If you don’t like the system you don’t simply have a problem with the Catholic Church you have a problem with Scripture and Jesus himself. Complain to Him about the Pope. It was HIS idea. Tell him he should not have renamed Simon Peter “the Rock.. and on this Rock I will build my church”. Tell Jesus he was wrong to tell Peter to “feed My sheep, feed my lambs...” Tell Him he was wrong about the Eucharist ... that it couldn’t possibly be His Body and Blood, that He was wrong to let many followers leave because they refused to believe it was His Body and Blood. Tell him you don’t want to “interpret” it the way he clearly states in the Gospels. Scripture supports Catholic Doctrine, not protestant doctrine, of which there is no such thing.
” 1) You’re most likely using translations like most people do. So you are very dependent on “what others believe”. This not only shows the short falls of sola scriptura, it shows the inherent intellectual dishonesty of Protestantism.”
Actually, the translations are extremely good. They are made by groups of outstanding scholars, whose knowledge of Greek and Hebrew exceeds anything I could learn. There are also excellent commentaries available to discuss the various meanings possible where the Greek or Hebrew allow it.
For example, this discussion of John 6:
http://www.studylight.org/com/rwp/view.cgi?bk=42&ch=6
My study is not based on what others tell me to believe. That is the Roman Catholic approach - don’t read for yourselves, just trust ‘tradition’.
“2) Early Christians had no problem seeing the Eucharist in John 6. They knew Greek as their first or second language. And you?”
Reading it into John 6 is simply bad reading. It takes it out of context. The CONTEXT comes immediately after the feeding of the 5000, and years before the Last Supper. Hmmmm...context. It is amazing how much easier it is to understand the scriptures when you accept the context, instead of pretending it doesn’t exist so you can read human theology into the text.
This is not a “Greek vs English” issue. Nor does using Latin as your authoritative version hellp.
I’ve never seen anyone read the Lord Supper into John 6 UNLESS they were told to by people with an agenda. It simply isn’t something a person reading on their own would do.
And yes, there is ample evidence that Jesus and the Apostles accepted the Jewish canon for the Old Testament - as Jerome understood. The comments of Jesus, recorded in scripture, sets it out: “Then he said to them, “These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” 45 Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures...”
Those are the 3 sections used by the Jews as the Old Testament, as attested to by Josephus:
“..we do not possess myriads of inconsistent books, conflicting with one another, [as the Greeks do]; but our books, those which are justly believed, are only 22…Of these, five are the books of Moses…the prophets after Moses wrote the events of their own times in thirteen books. The remaining four books contain hymns to God and precepts for the conduct of human life.”
The Psalms were sometimes rolled into the Law, as when Jesus spoke in John 10:34: “34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? [Cited from Ps. 82:6]. When that is done, we have 2 sections - The Law and the Prophets:
“Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. Matthew 5:17
“For all the prophets and the Law prophesied until John. Matthew 11:13
“The Law and the Prophets were proclaimed until John; since that time the gospel of the kingdom of God has been preached, and everyone is forcing his way into it. Luke 16:16
Philip found Nathanael and said to him, “We have found Him of whom Moses in the Law and also the Prophets wrote—Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph.” John 1:45
After the reading of the Law and the Prophets the synagogue officials sent to them, saying, “Brethren, if you have any word of exhortation for the people, say it.” Acts 13:15
I have no objection to someone reading the Apocrypha, but Jesus did not refer to it as scripture.
As for the New Testament, it was in common acceptance with minor variations very early on.
“The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, 1 Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the ‘Epistle of Barnabas,’ the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews,’ were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority.” - F.F. Bruce
You will notice they were in common acceptance as scripture centuries before Augustine and Jerome argued about the canon, and some 1400 years before the Council of Trent.
This is why I say were are not trying to be different than the Catholic Church. Our reasons for accepting the Old Testament as used by the Jews is that Jesus and the Apostles accepted it as such. The New Testament was largely settled by 150-200 AD, although even good Catholics could argue about the disputed books into Luther’s day without fear of condemnation.
God’s Word is amazing - as Jesus said: ““Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.”
And please notice I do not cite Luther as an authority, or Calvin, or any other Reformers. Take off the chains of human tradition, and simply read the Word of God.
Thanks for reposting. I missed the removed post. I am sure it was quite lively:)
>Thanks for reposting. I missed the removed post. I am sure >it was quite lively:)
no it wasnt lively, but it violated religion forum posting standards on some small point when I was using a figure of speech.
the part where I said you were ‘pulling facts out of nowhere’ actually used a very very sanitized figure of speech for a part of the anatomy.
I figured it out later, and saved my post in case it didnt pass muster...it didnt.
No big deal!
The very premise the "vicar" is built on is flawed. There is an effective way to see if Rome's premise based on Matthew 16 is correct. Check other Scriptures. Did Peter take a leadership role at the Jerusalem Council in Acts? He was a voting member and not the final voice. James the brother of Jesus was the leading voice.
Did Peter claim his Roman bishop and vicar role in his epistles. No he did not. We have no Biblical evidence Peter was in Rome.
The only interaction with the Roman church within the NT was Paul's epistle to the Romans and Paul in Acts going to Rome as a prisoner and then under house detainment where local church and synagogue leaders came to visit him.
Now we do know Jesus said in Matthew 16 the following and in Acts we see it fulfilled:
19 And I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed[d] in heaven.”
In Acts these keys were clearly exhibited by the Coming of the Holy Spirit. First at Pentecost where the children of Israel received the Holy Spirit first; then by Peter going to Samaria so the quasi Jews received the Holy Spirit, they received it second; then by Peter completing the fulfillment of the keys by going to the Gentile Cornelius' house where the Gentiles received the Holy Spirit after hearing and believing. Interesting that this account recorded in Acts 10 there were no hands laid on to receive the Holy Spirit as happened in Samaria. No hands laid on at Pentecost either. Peter was no doubt exercising authority given to him by Jesus Christ reference the keys. In effect, he was a "key" player in that he was present at Penecost, then with the Samaritans and then with the first known Gentiles. After that, Paul becomes the main preacher of the Gospel to the Gentiles. At this point the proclaimation/prophecy of Jesus is complete regarding the keys. The Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles now had the seed of the Gospel and those who believed received the Holy Spirit and were baptized. Peter mission complete, good and faithful servant.
The Bible tells us that Paul was not under the authority of Peter but directly from Jesus Christ:
Galatians 1:
11 But I make known to you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached by me is not according to man. 12 For I neither received it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
13 For you have heard of my former conduct in Judaism, how I persecuted the church of God beyond measure and tried to destroy it. 14 And I advanced in Judaism beyond many of my contemporaries in my own nation, being more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of my fathers.
15 But when it pleased God, who separated me from my mother’s womb and called me through His grace, 16 to reveal His Son in me, that I might preach Him among the Gentiles, I did not immediately confer with flesh and blood, 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me; but I went to Arabia, and returned again to Damascus.
18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I saw none of the other apostles except James, the Lord’s brother. 20 (Now concerning the things which I write to you, indeed, before God, I do not lie.)
21 Afterward I went into the regions of Syria and Cilicia. 22 And I was unknown by face to the churches of Judea which were in Christ. 23 But they were hearing only, “He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy.” 24 And they glorified God in me.
Therefore the Biblical evidence is not there to establish Peter as vicar. Vicar appears no where in the NT. If tradition wants to argue for a Pope, then why not Paul?
Basing a MAJOR doctrine on a Similtude is bad theology. So is basing the papacy on the response of Jesus Christ to a profession of faith. I wonder what the Roman church can come up with a literal doctrine of plucking eyes out and cutting off hands?
You would think just once Paul would have said "foolish Galatians, don't you know you are eating actual flesh and blood. Make sure the remaining hosts are properly handled." No we don't even see a hint of that. All we see is Paul telling the Corinthians not to come to the Lord's Table drunk and hungry.
I agree completely with this! In fact, the Southern Baptist Church of my grandparents that I went to, where I first heard the truth of the gospel of the grace of God through Jesus Christ and received Christ as my Savior - leaving the Roman Catholicism I was raised in up to then - not once said a word against Catholicism. They didn't need to since I could see for myself what the word of God said and how it countered what I had been taught all my life. In all the other churches I attended since then - SBC and nondenominational Evangelical - the subject of Roman Catholicism was not discussed. It is as you said the truth of God's word by the illumination of the Holy Spirit shines through.
Of course, for some Roman Catholics, this will come as a shock since they HAVE been brought up to believe anyone but Roman Catholics are of the devil and especially those "Protestants" - whom, I believe, they imagine all the world would be Roman Catholic had it not been for the Reformation. It's probably the other way around in that they have to battle against everyone who isn't Catholic in order to retain the facade of the "one, true church outside of which no man can be saved" - it's like we're living rent-free in their brains!
It is sophistry for this author - and any Catholics who agree with him - to imagine that Protestants "define" themselves as being the opposite of Catholics in everything. Where Catholics continue to follow Scripture, there is no difference. The Reformers' desire was to REFORM the church back to the tenets of the ancient Christian church - to bring it back to true orthodoxy (something even the Eastern church recognized Rome had departed from.
There will not be a "Reformation Catholic" designation for non-Catholic Christians. The word "catholic" - which originally meant universal - has been tainted in the same way that "choice" has been by the anti-life, pro-abortion faction. I know I will never adopt it. It is enough to know that receiving Jesus Christ and following Him in obedience to God out of gratitude for His amazing grace is sufficient. I desire nothing that Rome offers.
http://www.americancatholictruthsociety.com/docs/ecfpapacy.htm
I’ll take the words of the Church Fathers.
St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
The Little Labyrinth
“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).
“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).
“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).
Eusebius of Caesarea
“Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]” (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).
Pope Julius I
“[The] judgment [against Athanasius] ought to have been made, not as it was, but according to the ecclesiastical canon. . . . Are you ignorant that the custom has been to write first to us and then for a just decision to be passed from this place [Rome]? If, then, any such suspicion rested upon the bishop there [Athanasius of Alexandria], notice of it ought to have been written to the church here. But now, after having done as they pleased, they want to obtain our concurrence, although we never condemned him. Not thus are the constitutions of Paul, not thus the traditions of the Fathers. This is another form of procedure, and a novel practice. . . . What I write about this is for the common good. For what we have heard from the blessed apostle Peter, these things I signify to you” (Letter on Behalf of Athanasius [A.D. 341], contained in Athanasius, Apology Against the Arians 20–35).
Council of Sardica
“[I]f any bishop loses the judgment in some case [decided by his fellow bishops] and still believes that he has not a bad but a good case, in order that the case may be judged anew . . . let us honor the memory of the apostle Peter by having those who have given the judgment write to Julius, bishop of Rome, so that if it seem proper he may himself send arbiters and the judgment may be made again by the bishops of a neighboring province” (Canon 3 [A.D. 342]).
Optatus
“You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all” (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [A.D. 367]).
Epiphanius of Salamis
“At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul” (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).
Pope Damasus I
“Likewise it is decreed: . . . [W]e have considered that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall have bound on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you shall have loosed on earth shall be loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see [today], therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it” (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).
St. Jerome
“[Pope] Stephen . . . was the blessed Peter’s twenty-second successor in the See of Rome” (Against the Luciferians 23 [A.D. 383]).
“Clement, of whom the apostle Paul writing to the Philippians says ‘With Clement and others of my fellow-workers whose names are written in the book of life,’ the fourth bishop of Rome after Peter, if indeed the second was Linus and the third Anacletus, although most of the Latins think that Clement was second after the apostle” (Lives of Illustrious Men 15 [A.D. 396]).
“Since the East, shattered as it is by the long-standing feuds, subsisting between its peoples, is bit by bit tearing into shreds the seamless vest of the Lord . . . I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church [Rome] whose faith has been praised by Paul [Rom. 1:8]. I appeal for spiritual food to the church whence I have received the garb of Christ. . . . Evil children have squandered their patrimony; you alone keep your heritage intact” (Letters 15:1 [A.D. 396]).
...
“I follow no leader but Christ and join in communion with none but your blessedness [Pope Damasus I], that is, with the chair of Peter. I know that this is the rock on which the Church has been built. Whoever eats the Lamb outside this house is profane. Anyone who is not in the ark of Noah will perish when the flood prevails” (ibid., 15:2).
“The church here is split into three parts, each eager to seize me for its own. . . . Meanwhile I keep crying, ‘He that is joined to the chair of Peter is accepted by me!’ . . . Therefore, I implore your blessedness [Pope Damasus I] . . . tell me by letter with whom it is that I should communicate in Syria” (ibid., 16:2).
Ambrose of Milan
“[T]hey [the Novatian heretics] have not the succession of Peter, who hold not the chair of Peter, which they rend by wicked schism; and this, too, they do, wickedly denying that sins can be forgiven [by the sacrament of confession] even in the Church, whereas it was said to Peter: ‘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 shall loose on earth shall be loosed also in heaven’[Matt. 16:19]” (Penance 1:7:33 [A.D. 388]).
St. Augustine
“If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?” (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).
“If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . “ (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).
Council of Ephesus
“Philip the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors. The holy and most blessed pope Celestine, according to due order, is his successor and holds his place, and us he sent to supply his place in this holy synod’” (Acts of the Council, session 3 [A.D. 431]).
Pope Leo I
“As for the resolution of the bishops which is contrary to the Nicene decree, in union with your faithful piety, I declare it to be invalid and annul it by the authority of the holy apostle Peter” (Letters 110 [A.D. 445]).
“Whereupon the blessed Peter, as inspired by God, and about to benefit all nations by his confession, said, ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ Not undeservedly, therefore, was he pronounced blessed by the Lord, and derived from the original Rock that solidity which belonged both to his virtue and to his name [Peter]” (The Tome of Leo [A.D. 449]).
Peter Chrysologus
“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try cases on the faith without the consent of the bishop of Rome” (Letters 25:2 [A.D. 449]).
Council of Chalcedon
“After the reading of the foregoing epistle [The Tome of Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: ‘This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the apostles! So we all believe! Thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith! Those of us who are orthodox thus believe! This is the faith of the Fathers!’” (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 451]).
That's certainly how Roman Catholics interpret those verses. However, they forget that Jesus gave ALL the disciples the binding and loosing commission (see Matt. 18:18) and the message of the forgiveness of sins (see John 20:23).
There IS no Biblical record of Peter having any authority to pass down Apostolic authority to anyone else so all he could have done was the laying of hands upon those who he had trained to carry on the work of the ministry of reconciliation. All authority comes from God (Rom. 13:1). There is also the not insignificant truth that a primary Roman papacy didn't even exist until at least the fourth century and contentions of having a list of consecutive Popes going back to Peter is a myth (see HERE). It is the legend invented by Rome to assert universal authority over all Christendom - even the temporal powers of the state - that was NEVER granted to anyone. ALL believers are representatives of Christ and all have the indwelling Holy Spirit who leads us to all truth. We have all been given a part in spreading the gospel of the grace of God through Jesus Christ. That is something that no power on earth can overcome!
The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed: Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind; Neither as being lords over God's heritage, but being ensamples to the flock. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away. (I Peter 5:1-4)
Nope, but I believe that God wants us to worship Him. This is for both the extroverts like charismatics and pentecostal way and the quiet intellectual way.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.