Posted on 05/01/2014 3:25:30 AM PDT by GonzoII
The Papacy in Scripture – More Than Matthew 16
In an earlier blog post, I made the point that the role of St. Peter and his successors is made remarkably clear in Matthew 16:18-19 and its immediate context:
And I tell you, you are Peter (Gr.—petros—‘rock’), and on this rock (Gr.—petra—‘rock’) I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Jesus here promises infallible authority to Peter that would empower him to speak in the place of Christ, or as his vicar on earth. Catholics believe just what the text says. When St. Peter (and his successors) “binds” something on earth, it is “bound” in heaven. That’s definitive authority–infallible authority–with the power of heaven to back it up!
A response I get fairly regularly in response to this is to claim the Church is using “this one text” to try and establish a dogma.
My first thought in response is always to say, ”How many times does God have to tell you something before you will believe and obey it?” After all, Jesus only gave us the proper form for baptism one time in Matthew 28:19, and yet all Christians believe it to be the proper form nonetheless.
Nevertheless, I do think this is a valid question that deserves an answer: Is Matthew 16 the only text that demonstrates the truth of Peter’s primacy and of the papacy in Scripture?
The answer is a resounding no!
The List Goes On and On
Below is a list of biblical texts all related to the primacy of St. Peter and the Papacy. Word count limitations prevent me from quoting all of them; you’ll have to do some homework and look up some of these texts yourself. But when you do, you’ll notice there is not a single “rock” to be found among them.
Mind you, this is not an exhaustive list. There are more biblical texts we could take a look at. Consider this my top 18 list:
1. Matt. 14:23-27: St. Peter is uniquely and miraculously empowered by Jesus to walk on water, and when his faith begins to falter, our Lord does not allow him to go under. This is a prelude to Jesus promising to communicate his authority that can never fail to Peter in Matt. 16. The gift of the papacy is here assured not to depend upon the person of St. Peter or of his successors, but on the promise and power of Christ.
2. Matt. 17:24-27: After receiving the promise of authority in Matt. 16, St. Peter is once again given supernatural power, and this time to provide for both himself and Jesus when the first-century equivalent of the I.R.S. comes calling. Peter acts as Christ’s “vicar,” or, in the place of Jesus, in miraculous fashion, once again, guaranteed by Jesus not to fail. He “pays the tax” for both Jesus and himself. If you don’t think this is miraculous, it’s almost April 15 right now. God ahead down to the closest fishin’ hole, cast a line in, catch a fish, and let’s see if there’s enough money in the fish’s mouth to pay your taxes, let alone yours and someone else’s.
3. Luke 5:1-10: The multitudes that gather to hear Jesus at the shore of Lake Gennesaret press in on him so that he has to step off shore into one of two boats that are there docked. The boat he steps into just happens to be Peter’s boat. Hmmmm. Jesus then proclaims the gospel from the barque of Peter (5:1-3)! Sound familiar? Then, Jesus tells Peter to put out into the deep and let down his nets for a catch. Can you imagine the people present? They must have been thinking that Jesus was nuts! Multitudes have to just stand there and watch St. Peter go fishing? St. Peter then says, “We have toiled all night and caught nothing” (vs. 5), yet he lets down the nets at the command of Jesus. When they catch so many fish they need to bring out the other boat to haul in the load, Peter realizes that Jesus is calling him to more than just catching catfish! These fish are metaphors for Christians. Peter says, “Depart from me, for I am a sinful man” (vs.8)! But Jesus responds, “Do not be afraid; henceforth you will be catching men.”
Thus, St. Peter receives a unique and singular calling from Christ to be the fisher of men. And once again, Peter receives supernatural power that cannot fail to fulfill his unique calling.
4. Luke 22:24-32: In this text, Jesus teaches the apostles the true nature of authority, especially in verses 24-28. True authority in the New Covenant is commanded to be servant of all. He will speak with infallible authority just as Christ did, but he must also wash the feet of his brothers just as Christ did. In this context, Jesus said to the apostles:
[A]s my Father appointed a kingdom for me, so do I appoint for you that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you (Gr.—humas, plural—“you all”), that he might sift you (Gr.—plural again) like wheat, but I have prayed for you (Gr.—sou, singular—Peter alone) that your faith (Gr.—singular again) may not fail; and when you (Gr.—singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.
In the context of committing his kingdom authority to the apostles to govern the church (the “Israel of God”—see Gal. 6:16), Jesus especially prays for Peter so that he may be the source of strength and unity for the rest of the apostles. If the apostles want to be protected from the devil’s attempts to divide and destroy them and the Church, they must be in communion with Peter. And notice, Jesus says specifically to Peter, that, literally from the Greek text, “the faith of you [Peter] will not fail.” This is precisely what the Catholic Church has been teaching for 2,000 years!
5. John 10:16: Jesus prophesied:
And I have other sheep that are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will heed my voice. So there shall be one flock, and one shepherd (emphasis added).
Who is this prophetic shepherd? The answer seems simple. And on one level it is. Jesus declared himself to be “the good shepherd” (Gr.—poimein—“shepherd” or “pastor”) in John 10:14. Yet, if we dig deeper into the text we discover another meaning as well. In the context of prophesying about this “one flock” and “one shepherd,” Jesus says he must gather “other sheep” referring to the gentiles. Who does our Lord use as the shepherd to bring this prophecy to pass? The answer is found in our next two texts.
6. John 21:1-17: Here, we find another example of Jesus aiding the fishing of the apostles who “caught nothing” all night long (vs. 3). At the command of Jesus they let down their nets and catch an astonishing 153 “large fish” (vs. 11). When Jesus commands the net to be hauled ashore, St. Peter heaves the entire net of fish to shore by himself. No man can lift that size of a catch out of the water and on to the shore by himself. If you take these words literally to mean Peter actually did this, it seems Peter was given supernatural strength to do what no man could naturally accomplish. Fish are symbols representing the faithful (recall Luke 5:8-10). And the symbol of “the net” is used elsewhere in the New Testament for the Church (see Matt. 13:47). Not only is Peter’s ability to carry these “fish” (all the faithful) a miracle, but the fact that the “net” is not broken is also extraordinary. The message seems to be that the Church Jesus establishes containing all of God’s faithful with Peter packing the power will never be destroyed!
It is in this context that Jesus then asks St. Peter three times, “Do you love me… Do you love me… Do you love me?” When Peter responds in the affirmative the second time, Jesus responds by commanding Peter to “tend (Gr.–poimaine—’shepherd’) my sheep” (vs. 16). Jesus the shepherd here commissions Peter to be the prophetic shepherd of John 10:16 to shepherd the entire people of God!
How do we know Peter was called to shepherd the entire flock? I would only ask this: How many of the sheep belong to Jesus? Answer? All of them. So how many of his sheep did Jesus entrust to St. Peter to shepherd? Answer? All of them.
7. Matt. 10:2: In the context of the calling and listing of the twelve apostles, Peter is referred to as “the first” apostle. We know he was not the “first apostle” chronologically. John 1:37-41 tells us Andrew believed Jesus was the Messiah first and told his brother Peter about him. Andrew would be the “first” chronologically. Peter was “first” in primacy.
Though the Greek word, protos (first), can certainly mean “first” chronologically, it can also denote “chief,” “superior” or “the first in rank.” In Acts 28:7, for example, protos is used to describe “the chief man of the Island, Publius.” In Matthew 20:27, we discover, “Whoever would be first among you must be your slave.” Luke 15:22 adds: “Bring forth the best robe…” And I Tim. 1:15 provides: “And I am the foremost of sinners.” All of these texts use protos in the sense of “chief” or “superior.”
Moreover, Christ is referred to as prototokos, or “first-begotten” in Col. 1:15. Here St. Paul uses protos in order to teach us about Christ’s eternal generation, which has been accomplished outside of time. He is; therefore, the creator and the one who has “preeminence” over all things, according to the text. Colossians 1:15-18 reads:
[Christ] is the image of the invisible God, the first-born (Gr.—prototokos) of all creation; for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth…He is before all things…He is the head of the body, the church…that in everything he might be pre-eminent (Gr.—proteuon, a verb with the same root as protos and prototokos).
Thus, in a notably direct and overt manner, by referring to St. Peter as the “first” apostle, St. Matthew presents Peter (and his successors) just as we see him represented in the rest of the New Testament; he is revealed to be “chief” of the apostles, or to have a primacy of authority over all the apostles and, by extension, over the entire church.
8. Acts 1:15-26:
During those days Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers (there was a group of about one hundred and twenty persons in the one place). He said, “My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus … For it is written in the Book of Psalms: “Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it” (citing Psalm 69:25). And: “May another take his office” (citing Psalm 109:8). Therefore it is necessary that one of the men who accompanied us the whole time the Lord Jesus came and went among us … become with us a witness to his resurrection. So they proposed two, Joseph called Barsabbas, who was also known as Justus, and Matthias. Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which of these two you have chosen …” Then they gave lots … and the lots fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles.
It is St. Peter who is clearly in charge in choosing and ordaining a new apostle to replace Judas. He stands in the midst of the apostles and gives an authoritative interpretation of Psalm 69:25 and Psalm 109:8. And mind you, these are not exactly obvious interpretations of these texts. Psalm 69:25 uses the plural, yet Peter applies it singularly to Peter. The context of Psalm 109:8 also uses the plural (see verse 20). This is not exactly self-evident. Yet, St. Peter then declares the apostles must choose a successor of Judas based upon these two texts. And there is nary a question from the rest of the apostles like, “Hey, Peter, that’s a pretty shaky interpretation of those two texts. What hermeneutical principles are you using, anyway?”
In the case of St. Peter, the old saying is true, “It is my (Peter’s) way or the highway.”
9. Acts 2:14-41:
It is St. Peter who is in charge at Pentecost and preaches the first sermon whereby 3,000 are baptized. And you’ll notice a theme we are going to often see in the Book of Acts (and in the Gospels as well). Peter is listed as a category all by himself. Acts 2 says, “But Peter, standing with the eleven, lifted up his voice and addressed them.” There’s Peter alone, and then there is “the eleven.”
10. Acts 3:1-10:
Peter and John are “about to go into the temple,” when a man who was “lame from birth” called out to them begging alms. We note that it is Peter who speaks and it is Peter who performs the first miracle in the Acts of the Apostles. Another “first” for St. Peter. We will see more.
11. Acts 4:3-12:
When St. Peter and St. John are arrested and called before the Sanhedrin, it is St. Peter in verse 8, who speaks for both and preaches boldly of Christ and the name of Jesus.
12. Acts 5:1-15: It is St. Peter who clearly depicted as in charge of the Church in collecting funds for world evangelism. And it is St. Peter who pronounces God’s judgment on Ananias and Sapphira, speaking for God in the process. And it is then, in verse 15, that after seeing “more than ever” numbers of converts flood into the Church, that the sick were brought to him in hope that even his shadow might pass over them so that they may be healed.
13. Acts 5:29: After the apostles were arrested and then miraculously set free by the angel of the Lord, they are before the Sanhedrin for the second time. St. Luke records:
Peter and the apostles said in reply, “We must obey God rather then men.”
Once again, St. Peter is set apart from the rest of the apostles. If he was just one of the apostles with no special position St. Luke would not set him apart like he does. Why does he do this? Because St. Peter has the keys of the kingdom (cf. Matthew 16:15-19). He is the Shepherd over the whole flock of God’s people (cf. John 10:11-16, 21:15-17).
In fact, every time St. Peter is mentioned in sacred Scripture with the other apostles, he is either listed first (see Matthew 10:2, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13, etc.), or given a special place apart from the other apostles (see I Cor. 9:5, Mark 1:36, Mark 16:7 and Luke 9:32) except for one example in Galatians 2:9. This one example is often used by non-Catholics to demonstrate absolute equality among the apostles or even to prove St. James to have been the true leader of the early Church rather than St. Peter.
And when they perceived the grace that was given to me (St. Paul), James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship, that we should go to the gentiles and they to the circumcised.
A closer look at the context clears up this apparent difficulty. In Galatians 2, St. Paul is speaking in the context of the church at Jerusalem. We know from Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History …) that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem after the apostles dispersed throughout the world. It would not be surprising to list James first in the context of the diocese (or city, as it were then) over which he presides. Even today, if there were a Council held in a diocese other than Rome, the local bishop would normally be given a special place of honor in some distinct manner. This, in fact, has been the case many times in the history of the Church. James should be given a place of honor because he is the head of local Church there in Jerusalem.
This is the context of Galatians 2. However, notice the difference between this second visit St. Paul made to Jerusalem and his first visit fourteen years earlier (cf. Galatians 2:1).
Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas, and remained with him fifteen days. But I saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord’s brother (Gal. 1:18-19)… Then, after fourteen years I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas… and when they perceived the grace of God was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who were reputed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship (Gal. 1:18-2:9).
St. Paul originally went to Jerusalem not to see James, though he did see James. He went to confer with St. Peter. After receiving revelation from God, St. Peter is the first man St. Paul wants to see. This was not just a casual meeting. It lasted fifteen days. It was fourteen years later (cf. Gal. 2:1), after St. Peter had gone and established his see in Antioch (cf. Gal. 2:11, Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History), that St. Paul lists James first in the context of the Church of Jerusalem.
An interesting not: There are four lists of apostles given in Scripture. Matthew 10:2-4 (which we saw before), Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:13-16 and Acts 1:13. In every case St. Peter is first and Judas is last (except in Acts, Judas is not listed at all because he had committed suicide). In oriental culture, the listing of names is important. It connotes position and honor. Notice in all the lists the order is generally identical. There is a bit of juxtaposition in St. Mark’s list, but St. Peter’s place is always the same. This is reminiscient of the early Church. There was some juxtaposition in the early Church when it came to the second and third place of honor in the Church, but never a doubt who was at the helm: The Bishop of Rome.
14. Acts 8:14-23:
In this text we see St. Peter leading when he and St. John confirm the new converts in Samaria because of the evangelistic efforts of St. Phillip. And once again it is St. Peter who takes the helm in pronouncing judgment on Simon the sorcerer who wanted to buy the power to confirm or convey the Holy Spirit (verses 18-23).
15. Acts 9:32:
Here we have an interesting little passage in verse 32 most pass over too quickly.
As Peter was passing through every region, he went down to the holy ones living in Lydda (NAB).
Here we have St. Peter making his pastoral rounds. To what part of the Church? All of it! Why? St. Peter is the shepherd of the whole world. He then proceeds to do another first. He raises Tabitha from the dead in Joppa (cf. 9:40-43).
16. Acts 10:1-48:
In this chapter from the Acts of the Apostles, Jesus personally sees to the fulfillment of the prophecy of John 10:16, which we saw above. He appears to St. Peter and commands him to bring the gospel to the gentiles by way of Cornelius, the centurion. When Peter then “commanded [Cornelius and his household] to be baptized” in Acts 10:48, the prophecy of John 10:16 was fulfilled. There was now one fold and one shepherd for Jews and Gentiles. That ministry has continued to this day in the successors of St. Peter, the bishops of Rome.
It would be easy to pass over this text and miss its importance. It is most significant that it is St. Peter to whom God gives a vision to allow the gentiles to be baptized and enjoy full membership in the Church. This was a radical move! If you think we have a problem with racism in the 21st century, we have nothing on first century opinion of the gentiles!
If we read further, into Acts 11:18, after the other apostles and other disciples heard Peter declare what God had done, they say, in chapter 11:18:
When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, “Then to the gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life.”
They heard St. Peter speak and the question was settled. The question would continue to plague the Church with reference to how the gentiles and Jews were to harmonize in the Church. But the question of Gentiles being in the Church was settled by St. Peter and the question would not be raised again. Peter had spoken, the rest of the Church “held their peace.” Would to God we today would do the same!
17. Acts 12: 3-11:
In this text, St. Peter is arrested again. Notice that the entire Church then goes to ‘round the clock prayer for him until he is released miraculously. This is not recorded to have been the case when St. James or any others were arrested. When the head of a fledgling Church struggling for its existence is put in jail, you better believe everyone is praying!
18. Acts 15: 1-12:
The ministry of St. Peter as “the shepherd” of the Universal Church continues. When there was a heresy spreading in the church at Antioch (and elsewhere) so widespread and problematic that Paul and Barnabas could not quell the resulting confusion, the church there decided to “go up to Jerusalem to the apostles and elders about this question” (vss. 1-2). The question concerned salvation and the Old Covenant law in relation to the gospel. Some among “believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees rose up, and said, ‘It is necessary to circumcise…and…to keep the law of Moses’ (vs. 5) or else you ‘cannot be saved’” (vs. 1). In particular, they spoke of the gentiles who were converting to Christ, but the same would apply to all. The real question was: Are Christians saved by the grace of Christ in the New Covenant or must they obey the Old Covenant as well for salvation? The first Church Council (of Jerusalem) was convened and the theological question was put to rest by the pronouncement of St. Peter.
The apostles and elders were gathered together to consider this matter. And after there had been much debate, Peter rose and said to them, “Brethren, you know that in the early days God made choice…that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe…we believe that we shall be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.” And all the assembly kept silence… (Vs. 6-12, emphasis added)
Like we saw in Acts 11:18, when the Pope finally speaks on a matter, the rest are silent. And so it should be.
If you like this and you would like to learn more, click here.
This is RICH!
Coming from someone who has taken it upon themselves to JUDGE my words and my MOTIVEs!
Matthew 16:19:
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.”
Vatican 1:
Therefore,
faithfully adhering to the tradition received from the beginning of the christian faith,
to the glory of God our saviour,
for the exaltation of the catholic religion and
for the salvation of the christian people,
with the approval of the sacred council,
we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
that is, when,
in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
he possesses,
by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
Ok
And Protestants operate under the preconceived premise of "faith alone" and force there understanding of Scripture to agree with it. They are just bound to their traditions as Catholics and also subject to discipline if they depart. How long would a Protestant minister be tolerated teaching the Catholic understanding of Scripture before he would be shown the door? Would I be welcomed to be a regular preacher at your church?
Which affirms what I said, as this [the First Apology of St. Justin Martyr] is not even Scripture, but tradition…
But it is a witness of what the early Christians actually believed. We will not find this disputed for 1500 years until Martin Luther.
… and can vary on the meaning of Real Presence, and Justin see different interpretations, including that of Catholic author William A. Jurgenes, “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body” (Jurgens W, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume I, p. 57).
You completely misunderstand Jurgens' footnote. Here is the passage in which the footnote appears:
For not as common bread nor common drink do we receive these; but since Jesus Christ our Savior was made incarnate by the word of God and had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so too, as we have been taught, the food which has been made into the Eucharist by the Eucharistic prayer set down by Him, and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished (20), is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus.The footnote that you mention (20) refers to the clause:
… and by the change of which our blood and flesh is nourished…This is a subordinate clause in the passage. In the original Greek:
ἐξ ἧς αἷμα χαὶ σάρχες χατὰ μεταβολὴν τρέφονται ἡμῶνIn the Anti-Nicene Fathers it is rendered thus:
… and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished …This footnote is not referring to the change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Jesus. Indeed, the reality of this latter change is the point that Justin is trying to make, comparing it to Jesus taking on flesh and blood in the Incarnation. Notice the argument of Justin if the main clause is highlighted, allowing us to skip over the two subordinate clauses:
For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, IS the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh.Which again shows how quickly the prophecy of Paul began to be fulfilled of men “speaking perverse things” others would follow…
And thus you would have the entire body of Christians forget the truth for 1500 years until a minority of believers rediscovered the truth. And are we to believe that the truth was so completely forgotten at such an early date that there is no record of a protest against it.?
However, what matters is that the literal understanding contradicts Scripture which only speaks of spiritual nourishment as being by hearing/receiving the word of Christ, not even physically eating anything, much less human flesh and blood:
No, this is the literal understanding of Scripture. It is the Protestants who must spiritualize this and many other passages to force the Scriptures to match their preconceived idea of "faith alone".
The reason for their authority being such that what they wrote was received by the Church was because it of the established authority of Scripture which confirmed it, as per conformity in text and in power and in principle. Upon which the church began.
The authority of which Scripture? The gospel message is something that goes beyond the Old Testament, being a new revelation by God. In cannot be the New Testament since the authority of the apostles predates their writings. No, the Church, having been established by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles, was active and alive before the writing of the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament were founded upon the proclamation of the Church, not the other way around.
Rather, you have the cart before the horse, as the reason their was a church was because Scripture preceded it as the assured Word of God and supreme standard for testing and establishing truth claims.
No, it is you who have it backwards. The Church finds its beginnings at Pentecost, before the writings of the New Testament.
Kephas means rock in Aramaic.
Petros/Peter are the BEST Greek and Latin translations.
Even if one goes strictly with the Greek, Petros does not mean a single pebble, but a mound of pebbles which are solidified into one large rock. This makes sense when one considers that we are all living stones in the Kingdom of God. Peter was The Pebble, the rock that is all the other pebbles collectively, i.e. The Church.
However, it has been explained ad nauseum that there was no proper Greek translation for the name which Jesus gave to Simon in the Aramaic, Petros being the masculine form of petras which does in fact mean rock.
I live with the fact that Jesus said to Simon, I say to you that you are Kephas AND upon this rock I will build my church. He did not say, you are Kephas BUT upon this rock I will build my church.
It seems to be protestants who cannot live with it.
I was not suggesting that Petrine authority was based on the power of binding or loosing, only correcting a mistake by Elsie who was trying to make a point from a misreading of the text. This highlights the deficiency of private interpretation.
Given, as you have shown, that the power of binding and loosing was not unique to Peter, it is something that is proper to the Church. Where is the power today?
You anticipated me by your reference to Isaiah 22. Here the grant of keys represents the bestowing of the office of Master of the Palace. Likewise when our Lord promises to give the keys of the kingdom of heaven (and here it is only to Peter) he is likewise bestowing an office like that of the Master of the Palace. The Roman term for this office is vicar. Hence Peter, by our Lord's instillation, is his vicar, i.e. the Vicar of Christ.
So here, when Peter has a perfect chance to grant forgiveness on his own initiative, instead he does two things, neither of them a grant of forgiveness.
You forget that the power is to forgive sins (which is explicitly mentioned in John 20:23) or to retain them. Absolution must be accompanied by repentance, contrition and a firm resolution to sin no more. Addressing Simon, Peter states, "Your heart is not upright before God. Repent of this wickedness of yours." Simon is not yet ready of forgiveness. Hence, Peter not offering absolution proves nothing.
Unlike Peter whom had his name given to Him by God for the purpose which he had been chosen, to lead Christ’s Church.
For some reason, the word UNHINGED keeps coming to my mind.
You are mistaking a part for the whole. The Roman church is only the diocese of Rome. Rather, the authority of the Apostles headed by Peter is today vested in the entire Catholic Church headed by the Pope as their successors. Nor can you just point to all believers. The refusal of all believers to recognize the legitimate authority established by Jesus Christ has resulted in the division and multitude of churches today.
The Eastern Orthodox would disagree with you. They do not recognize the absolute authority of the pope. Matter of fact, they consider Rome the schismatics.
Both claim to be but have significant doctrinal differences, ones that Rome says damn a man if not adhered to.
So which one is the TRUE Catholic church?
The Orthodox are simply wrong. But even if they are right, the Protestants are still wrong. Other than the question of the papacy, Catholics and Orthodox present a common witness to the apostolic faith.
Why do you insist on ignoring what THIS is?
What has the church LOOSED lately?
Keep repeating what you’ve been taught; Manchurian Candidate.
And if the PROTESTants are right; then them DAMNED Mormons are wrong!
But if the Mormons just happen to, be right; then for SURE them crazy Scientologists are FRACTLY wrong!
(If not plain UNHINGED!!!)
He sounds very Lutheran 8-)
2Peter 1:16-21 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount. We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts: Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.
The above passage has been often wrenched out of its natural meaning to say what it does not say. Humans are epistemologically trapped. They must begin all perception with "private interpretation" of any data coming to them from outside themselves. It's how God made us. We have no choice. It is no more logical that God should prohibit "private interpretation" of this kind, than that He should prohibit us to use our own eyes to see the world He has created around us. That world is objectively real, even if our eyes are faulty. But we must still view it through our own eyes. So this is an impossible "interpretation."
But there is an easy and more natural meaning to Peter's words, one that violates neither the sense nor the grammar of the text. For review, here's the Greek:
2Peter 1:20 τουτο πρωτον γινωσκοντες οτι πασα προφητεια γραφης ιδιας επιλυσεως ου γινεται
Note the bolded verb above, "ginetai." This is not the verb of simply being, as "estin" is. This verb speaks of "coming into being." Peter is not prohibiting individuals from thinking for themselves in trying to understand what God has said. He is saying the prophet is not explaining or disclosing (επιλυσεως) any private ideas of his own, but is disclosing what originated with the Holy Spirit of God. Hence it is not private to the prophet. These words do not originate in the prophet's will, but God's, and that is why they are 100% reliable, "more sure" than even being eyewitnesses to the transfiguration of Christ. Unlike the typical "no private interpretation" diatribe, this approach actually integrates the sense of the passage, and makes all the parts work together toward the same goal.
Where is the power [of binding and loosing] today?/i>
A fair question, but I submit to you that the better question, at least initially, is where in the New Testament record of the early church was that power used? Consider the anomaly of John 20:21-23:
John 20:21-23 Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
This occurred after the resurrection but before Pentecost. We know the Holy Spirit came in power on the apostles and the church at large on Pentecost. So what is this intermediate receiving of the Holy Spirit in connection with the Apostles being sent? We know that the thing they are being sent to do is to proclaim the Gospel, and it is the Gospel which establishes the terms of God’s forgiveness. But again, that was not preached in power until later at Pentecost. Yet to declare the Gospel at all with any useful effect cannot be done without some measure of aid from God’s Spirit. So the receiving of the Spirit seems to continue the impetus of the Gospel commission they are receiving here.
But where is the binding and loosing, the forgiving or retaining? Is there no example of it, or is it sitting right under our noses in the NT record if only we looked in the right place and right way to see it? As I pointed out before with Simon the sorcerer, not only does Peter not grant absolution to Simon who is apparently not yet ready for such forgiveness, but Peter specifically directs him to go to God for forgiveness, apparently assuming he might have some future inclination to seek forgiveness. Peter does NOT say, when you’re ready for absolution, my son, get back to me or one of the other apostles and we’ll work out this forgiveness thing. It doesn’t happen. He tells Simon to go to God for forgiveness.
Peter DOES however cast Simon out on the street as it were, excluding him from the fellowship for revealing his true state of lostness. In this he is exerting church discipline. This is not presuming a power to forgive as God does, but it does assume authority to set temporal boundaries for the well-being of the church. Remember also what happened to Annanias and Saphira, not that they were ultimately lost to eternal damnation. The text says no such thing.
But they were judged for their lie to the Holy Spirit, a frightful but essentially temporal judgment, and done for what reason? The well-being of the Body of Christ, the believers. And why should they be kept so strictly in line? Because the well-being of the church was essential to the propagation of the Gospel message. And what does the Gospel message do? It sets the terms of forgiveness. Accept those terms, and your sins are forgiven. Reject those terms, and your sins are retained.
So what we see developing here is really a multifaceted meaning to the power to bind or loose, to forgive or retain. We see it applied to defining the church in terms of temporal membership, as with Simon the sorcerer, or in terms of church discipline of wayward believers, such Paul’s involvement in restoring the man at Corinth who had been involved in extraordinary sexual sin:
2Cor 2:10 To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;
…with “person of Christ” better rendered as “presence of Christ.”
We also see it in terms of setting doctrinal boundaries according to apostolic teaching, as in the statement of the Jerusalem council (of which James appears to have been the principal architect, not Peter). It is even possible to see it in terms of the unfolding of the various apostolic ministries, such as Peter’s specialized ministry to the Jews and Paul’s specialized ministry to the Gentiles, both of which “loosed” their respective groups to the forgiveness found in the Gospel.
What we do not have even one example of is the exercise of sacerdotal absolution. No individual is ever granted forgiveness by any Apostle. In contrast, in one of the few parables of Jesus dealing directly with the dynamics of personal forgiveness, we have this:
Luk 18:10-14 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess. And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as his eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner. I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.
Now how can that Publican go down to his house justified, if all he did was ask God directly to be merciful to him? No priest needed. If Jesus had wanted to convey the importance of priestly intervention in the process of forgiveness, this was the moment to do it, and it didn’t happen.
But now we see the curtain in the temple is torn in two, and God the Covenanter has by His sacrifice taken away that which separated Him from His people, and opened up the Holy of Holys, so that we may now say with the writer of Hebrews:
Heb 4:14-16 Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession. For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help in time of need.
Peace,
SR
And Protestants operate under the preconceived premise of "faith alone" and force there understanding of Scripture to agree with it.
Which is Scriptural if meaning that it is precisely faith alone that appropriates justification before God in conversion, not works of merit, yet not an inert faith, but the kind of faith that effects works, and which faith-in-action justifies/vindicates one as being a truly saved believer.
Otherwise James is contradicting both Moses and Paul, since both state "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." (Romans 4:3; Gn. 15:6) Which was even before circumcision, and nothing is said by them about Abraham first being counted righteousness due to offering up Issac years later, (Gn. 22) which a casual reading of James can seem to infer.
Many RC theologians understand that the Epistles of both Apostles deal with different subjects, and without direct relation to the other. Yet they do not go far enough, as "works of the law" encompasses all systems of justification by one's own works earning it.
But as a prophet is known by God as a prophet before his prophecies see fulfillment, so God see the faith in the heart than will effect works, and counts such as righteousness then, while blessing their obedience of faith which "fulfils" the affirmation that they were righteous, and affirms their status.
Thus faith justifies the Un Godly, and Peter states that Cornelius and co., who was lost, had his heart purified by faith.
But sola fide is typically misunderstood or misrepresented by RCs as meaning works are superfluous, and or that this leaves a man merely whitewashed, neither of which is true. Preaching by Reformers clearly affirmed the necessity of an obedient faith if such claimed to be a believers. ."Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!" [http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/luther/luther-faith.txt]
And in conversion one is regenerated to walk in newness of life.
They are just bound to their traditions as Catholics and also subject to discipline if they depart. How long would a Protestant minister be tolerated teaching the Catholic understanding of Scripture before he would be shown the door? Would I be welcomed to be a regular preacher at your church?
Your comparison is based upon a misunderstanding of the issue, which is not that required submission is wrong, but its basis.
Under Rome implicit assent of faith is required for teaching from the sacred magisterium, while even non-infallible teaching is to be believed with Divine and Catholic faith and met with religious submission of will and intellect.
In contrast the Biblical model is stated well by Westminster, " It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same; which decrees and determinations, if consonant to the Word of God, are to be received with reverence and submission; not only for their agreement with the Word, but also for the power whereby they are made, as being an ordinance of God appointed thereunto in His Word." (Westminster ,CHAPTERs 1, 31)
The key distinction is that qualified submission is consistent with how the church began, which not as per Rome, with assent of mind and will to those who were the instruments and stewards of Divine revelation, but while general submission to them was enjoined by the Lord, the church began in dissent from them, based upon Scriptural substantiation by which Christ established His truth claims.
Both a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium and the submission it requires, and leads to the same for the Ordinary magisterium, it not Scriptural. To claim and requite both is a presumption to the place of Deity. Only God is worthy of such.
But it is a witness of what the early Christians actually believed. We will not find this disputed for 1500 years until Martin Luther.
If so (though it is understood that what have available to see only provides a small selection of writings of the Church "Fathers"), and it overall basically seems so, it remains a testimony to how a non-salvific error can be held along with Truth. The Catholic concept and thus infatuation with the Eucharist based on the use of words in the gospels which elsewhere often see figurative meaning, is simply not manifest in the rest of the NT.
I myself believed it for many years as a RC after i had actually become born again. As such errors become deeper and multiplied, reformation would be required due to deformation.
You completely misunderstand Jurgens' footnote.
I do not see that , despite your efforts to seemingly correct his understanding of the Greek. He is not referring to a translation that says "transmutation," but simply says that the "change of which our blood and flesh is nourished (20), is both the flesh and the blood of that incarnate Jesus," is that “The change referred to here is the change which takes place when the food we eat is assimilated and becomes part of our own body.”
Regardless, Scripture is determinative of Truth, not some post apostolic men who erred in other things, and whom Rome even judges more than theey judge her. Catholic Real Presence theology is definitely wrong and delusional.
And thus you would have the entire body of Christians forget the truth for 1500 years until a minority of believers rediscovered the truth. And are we to believe that the truth was so completely forgotten at such an early date that there is no record of a protest against it.?
Rather, we have the protest in Scripture which Rome is at variance at. Again, you would have a church with NT pastors being titled 'priests" (usually under mandated celibacy) since their primary function is dispensing bread and wine they turned into human flesh and blood in order for souls to obtain spiritual and eternal life, which ritual was the source and summit of their faith, around which all else revolved. Thus it is RCs who believe the invisible church is the one true church, as this church is simply not seen in Scripture!
In addition, we see only a small percentage of what CFs are estimated to have written, yet it is evident that men choose erroneous understandings and traditions which took upon a life of their own. The Catholic RP was just one among other demonstrably false teachings (though not precluding salvation), and a arrogant and increasingly corrupt and immoral Roman church which finally required a split. Which context most RCs are ignorant of.
No, this is the literal understanding of Scripture.
Mere assertion, while if the absolute imperative requirement of Jn. 6:53,54 is literal, then no Prot can be saved who denies the RP, contrary to modern Rome (if not ancient).
The authority of which Scripture? The gospel message is something that goes beyond the Old Testament, being a new revelation by God. In cannot be the New Testament since the authority of the apostles predates their writings.
Irrelevant, as explained, so why are you even trying this again? What was written is shown to be the supreme standard from the beginning of its writing, to which further conflative and complementary writings were established by and added to. .
No, the Church, having been established by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles, was active and alive before the writing of the New Testament. The writings of the New Testament were founded upon the proclamation of the Church, not the other way around.
Rather, reasserting a refuted polemic will not make something true for Rome or for you. It remains that the authority of an itinerant Preacher and His motley group of disciples was not established by those who sat in the seat of Moses, or by mail-order ordination, but as said, it was established upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, and thus the church. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)
No, it is you who have it backwards. The Church finds its beginnings at Pentecost, before the writings of the New Testament.
Is this what devotion to Rome does to a otherwise good mind? Just ignore most of the Bible as being the foundation for Pentecost (which is where that also is ordained, and the pouring out of the Spirit and for the church, of writings Peter thus references in Acts 2, so that instead you can to try to support a church which imagines an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for valid assurance of Truth and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is the assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God. Which fallacious premise renders her claims to be the one true church to be fallacious as unScriptural.
The more this is argued against, then the more the error of Rome has been exposed. Arguments for her are arguments against her.
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.