Posted on 07/23/2009 9:03:49 AM PDT by kevinrbranson
The papacy is among the most misunderstood and therefore wrongly hated institutions in all the world, much like the Catholic Church.
I typically cringe when a Protestant pastor or leader decides to step up and call out or denounce the Pope for no good reason, simply on Protestant principal, objecting to the office as they do more so than the man himself, or any sin on his part. Certainly the man who holds the office is not beyond sin, or legitimate criticism, but the criticisms of modern day Popes tend not to be made on the basis of his personal failures. Rather, the Pope, individually or more likely, the office, is condemned because it is not believed to be Biblical, and therefore contrary to “true” Christianity. That is a real shame, because to write him off and the authority of the office, to merely dismiss him on Protestant principal, or even to despise him out of Protestant zeal, is the ultimate example of ecclesiastical delusion and misdirected passion.
I am certain that Jesus is not pleased when a man condemns that Church which Christ has mandated, or the Petrine office and Apostolic ranks with which He has identified and legitimized her. It reminds me of a Jim Croce song about dangerous exploits…you know the one.
It is the equivalent of throwing stones at the caretaker of the vineyard, mistaking him for a trespasser, believing that you are doing a favor for the Master of the vineyard. In fact you are fighting against the Master, albeit the result of a sincere misunderstanding and a genuine love for the Master. Nevertheless, it is wrong, and it is therefore a thoroughly bad idea.
This from the Catholic Herald:
Two thirds of Christians in Britain do not think the Pope is a true Christian leader, according to a new poll. The poll, conducted by ComRes, found that only 38 per cent of Christians surveyed agreed that “Catholic popes are true ambassadors of the Christian faith”. The figure dropped to 16 per cent among Baptists.Several Protestant ministers – some of whom are involved in ecumenical work – said they were not surprised by the low level of support for the Pope. They said that even Protestants who work with Catholics at a grassroots level are still likely to find the idea of papal authority “particularly difficult”…
The Rev Jeremy Brooks, the director of ministry at the Protestant Truth Society, said: “All true Protestants believe the papacy to be unbiblical, unnecessary and unhelpful. Churches governed by scripture alone rather than the traditions of men or the fashions of the moment are what broken Britain so desperately needs.”
Authority can be “particularly difficult”, can’t it. A tough pill to swallow sometimes for all of us. But, like most needed medicine, it is better taken now rather than later.
And to Rev Brooks of the Protestant “Truth” Society: given your disdain for the Catholic Church, that very Church established by our Savior for the salvation of the world…fight against her and her earthly shepherd if you feel you must, for I believe you are a sincere man who loves the Lord. But brother, someday you and all of us in Christ’s flock will see the sad schism for what it is, and it will be a bittersweet day. That is a certain thing, for Christ is not a liar, and He does not operate a shell game, or sell us a bill of goods. He promised that His historic Church, recognized and authenticated by identification with Peter and the Apostles, would endure; that the Holy Spirit would lead her in all truth; and that He would never leave her. Your protestant pursuit of truth requires you to deny, at least implicitly, each of these promises of Christ. It really does.
“Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives me, receives the One who sent me.”
It’s Jesus calling: “Can you hear Me now?”
"HE WHO HEARS YOU,HEARS ME" - Luke 10:16
Is it legitimate to use these words of Jesus to support the teaching commission of the Church? Vatican II said yes strongly, in “Lumen gentium”P20: “This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ, and Him who sent Christ”. And in LG P 25 the Council even taught that the Bishops in unison with the successor of Peter and with each other can even teach infallibly. Pius XII in “Humani generis” (DS 3855) said the same thing about Lk 10:16: “Nor should we think that the things taught in Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of which it is also correct to say: ‘He who hears you,hears me.’” Pius XII went on to explain that this does not apply to everything in Encyclicals: it applies only when the Popes in their “Acta” expressly make a judgement on something that was debated up to then among theologians. Then it is removed from debate, and falls under the promise of Christ.
An objector asserts: “The Scripture clearly states that Jesus said these words to the 72 Disciples, among whom were women, and there is no evidence that any of the 72 were from among the 12 Apostles – no evidence Peter was among them.” One will look in vain to see where the Scripture “clearly states” that there were women among that group. And while it does not mention the 12 or Peter specially, it is unthinkable that they would not be among the 72 since they were the chosen core of all the followers of Jesus. So our objector thinks it quite clear Jesus gave authority to women, but there is no evidence He gave it also to the Apostles!
In reply we note that according to Vatican II: “Since Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted by the Same Spirit by whom it was written, to rightly draw out the sense of the sacred texts, one must look not less diligently at the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the whole Church, and the analogy of faith.” So, if we look at the passage in question narrowly, ignoring what Vatican II calls for, we would say that Jesus indeed did speak to the 72. But there is much more.
We know that Jesus Himself wanted only a gradual revelation of Himself and of His Church and mission. He did not at once say: “Before Abraham was, I am.” Rather, He let the truths be seen gradually, a bit at a time. The fullness of this revelation was to come with the descent of the Holy Spirit, as He Himself said in John 16:13: “When He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will lead you into all truth.” So here in this Lucan text Jesus begins, but does not complete His commission. He does, on a trial mission, give a teaching authority to the 72 so that he who hears them, hears Jesus. He completed that commission later to Peter and the Twelve, especially in the words recorded in Matthew 16:19:to Peter alone: “Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven. Two fine Protestant scholars, W. F. Albright (in his day often called the Dean of American Scripture scholars) and C. S. Mann, in “Anchor Bible, Matthew,” p. 198, write: “Peter’s authority to ‘bind’ or ‘release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in Heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.” For those words, binding and loosing,were well known in the teaching of the rabbis of the time. Their usual meaning was to impose or remove an obligation by an authoritative decision or teaching. These words of Mt 16:19 were repeated to all what seems to be the twelve in Matthew 18:18. That they were not meant for all disciples but just for the Apostles is confirmed by Mt 28:16-29, explicitly to the Twelve. Earlier, at the Last Supper, in John 13:20 Jesus said to the Twelve: “Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives me, receives the One who sent me.”
More of the context of the whole of Scripture is this: at once after the ascension, the Apostles began their mission of teaching In Acts 1:15-26 a replacement for one of the Twelve is chosen, Matthias. Acts 2:42 reports that the people “devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles” and in Acts 5:13: “No one of the rest dared to join himself to them [the Apostles] but the people magnified them.” So all did understand from the start that it was the Apostles, and they alone who had the commission from Christ to teach. St. Paul constantly teaches with authority. Pope St. Clement I, in an Epistle to Corinth c. 95 AD, intervened with authority. He said: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of Bishop. As a result, having received full foreknowledge, they appointed those we have mentioned, and meanwhile added a provision that if these would fall asleep [die] other approved men should receive their ministry.”
St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, who had listened to St. Polycarp telling of the preaching of St. John the Apostle, wrote that since it was long to go through the succession of Bishops in all the churches, he would speak of Rome, “founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which holds the tradition and faith announced by the Apostles, coming down by the succession of Bishops even to us…..It is necessary that every church…agree with this church because of its more important principality…in which the tradition coming from the Apostles has always been kept….”
At the early Council of Ephesus, in 431 A.D. even though it was an Eastern error in question, the Pope sent delegates, who asserted without being contradicted by anyone there: “There is no doubt, it has been known to all centuries, that the holy and blessed Apostle Peter, the prince and head and pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ…. He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successors gives judgment.” Twenty years later the Council of Chalcedon on hearing the letter of Pope Leo exclaimed: “This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. We all believe thus…. Peter has spoken through Leo.”
The General Council of Constantinople in 870 taught (DS 661): “Since we believe that the word of the Lord, which Christ said to the holy Apostles and his disciples, “He who receives you, receives me” and “he who spurns you, spurns me”was said to all those too who after them became Supreme Pontiffs and shepherds in the Catholic Church…we define that no one at all of the potentates of the world should dishonor or move them from their sees, but should judge them worthy of all reverence and honor….”
We conclude,that Vatican II, and Pius XII and the General Council of Constantinople were well justified in taking Luke 10:16 as the foundation of the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors. It was part of His gradual revelation of self and of His Church, it was a start of the trajectory that was to be made clearer as time went on,as we have seen..
As for women, Scripture consistently forbids them to teach with authority. 1 Cor 14:34 says “the women must be silent in the Church”. First Timothy 2:12 insists: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence.” So, to suppose that of course women received the teaching authority in Lk 10:16 and to add that there is no sign it applied to Peter and the Apostles – this is merely completely biased special pleading.
” am certain that Jesus is not pleased when a man condemns that Church which Christ has mandated”
Jesus mandated a Roman church? He mandated a Pope?
How are things in Branson, Kevin R? Does Bobby Vinton still appear there?
What about the verses that weren’t in the originals, but were added later?
Once you've bought into the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture, you essentially become your own Pope and the successor of Peter therefore becomes irrelevant at best and at worst, an obstacle on the road to salvation who's doing Satan's work by trying to mislead you. The Church likewise then becomes a sinister conspiracy rather than our guide which is designed to light the path to salvation.
Go easy with the self-righteous indignation. The trolls love it when Catholics get bent out of shape.
Neither your post here nor your blog (which your link points to) provides any evdience to back up your statement that "Most believers say that the Pope is 'not a true Christian leader'".
I happen to be a Protestant.
I think the Pope is a Christian leader. (He is, after all, the Head of the Roman Catholic Church -- and is, I think, the leader of many, many people).
And I think the Pope is a Christian.
I (and, I would guess, most other Protestants) do not consider the Pope to be THE Christian leader.
I don’t want to lead this thread off topic, but since you mentioned errant translations I’d like to point out one verse that has significantly affected the modern church’s idea of whether or not one’s soul is present with God immediately after death.
Luke 23:43 I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.
The placement of punctuation in this verse has led many to believe that Christ meant “absent from the body, present with God.” Punctuation is man’s doing. Consider the verse punctuated this way.
I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in Paradise.
Later verses in the Bible say the dead are asleep in Christ and that upon his return those asleep in Christ will rise first. Christ also said that he goes to prepare a place for us. If Christ went prepare, would he take those two thieves with him?
Man’s interpretation of the scriptures has caused much difference of opinion.
There wasn’t any capitalization either, and there was NO ‘J’ until around the 16th century. I’ll wait now for your reply to my #43.
Yes, men inspired by God wrote the Hebrew and Greek texts. Those texts are inerrant. It is man’s translation into other languages that is errant. See my comment above about Luke 23:43.
I asked: Do you believe that the Canon of Scripture fell out of heaven?
kingpins10 wrote: No one believes Scripture fell from heaven. It was written by Godly men who were led by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, preserved by God’s protection through the ages. If the Bible just ‘appeared’, who would believe it ?
I asked, relevant to both men's comments: Who decided what books were inspired, inerrant, and infallible and deemed them, therefore, the Word of God and worthy to be included in the Canon of Scripture?
kingpins10 answered: There are many Godly men responsible for the Scriptural Canon. Peter and Paul were 2 of the originators. I’m interested in who you think decided Scriptural Canon.
Okay. There is no thinking about who decided Scriptural Canon. It is a matter of historical record. Councils comprised of the Bishops of the Catholic Church established the Canon of Scripture. It is not a secret. Even Protestant theologians acknowledge this fact, although they are unwilling or unable to grasp the implications of the fact that Protestantism has to rely on the authority of the Catholic Church councils (and the Papacy) as regards what books comprise the Canon of Scripture.
Of course, at the time of the Reformation, Luther et al were compelled to throw out seven of the Old Testament Books. And if Luther had his way, the NT book of James would have been excluded as well, as Luther cared not for what James had to say about faith being dead apart from good works, and stated that "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove". He was overruled by others, however, so he begrudgingly had to put James back in "his Bible".
Here is an excerpt from Catholic.com:
"Look, the fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.""The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others."
"Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!"
One other question. From whence came the declared, authoritative and final doctrine on the Trinity?
Not bent out of shape at all. Not offended by the disdain that Protestantism has for the Catholic Church. Heck, I used to be one of 'em. And I hope I'm not self-righteous, even if I came across that way. Sorry about that. I didn't make this stuff up, so what is there to be self-righteous about. I didn't even believe the Catholic Church to be true for the first 47 years of my life, so again, nothing for me to be self-righteous about. I drag my sorry backside into the confessional on a regular basis...so definitely nothing for me to be self-righteous about. :)
But, the truth is what it is.
And, I just like to get all the Brothers talking, and thinking...well, maybe hoping for real thinking is a stretch. Most minds are made up. And that is why we are a fractured "body" of believers.
Oh well. I'll shut up now.
Blessings and Peace. KB
I thought you wanted to know who decided Scriptural Canon before the Catholic church. My apologies.
bookmarking while I wait
Did you actually read the blog post? The headline was pulled directly from the article that appeared at Catholic Herald and was linked to directly in the body of the blog post. They said it, well, actually the survey they reported on said it...not me.
Blessings and Peace. KB
I find it hard to believe that you were once a “Protestant” and are now catholic.
I have met many catholics in my life and they were all born and raised in that church and are raised believing that you can sin on Friday night and “just go to confessional to be forgiven.”
That is called trampling on the precious blood of Christ, which is a.k.a.: willful sin.
No Protestant I have ever talked to could ever accept that the pope is infallible. The pope is a man who sins. To say he doesn’t is blasphemy, plain and simple.
I actually found your OP to be very misleading and was not surprised when many thought it would be zotted.
1) As someone noted above, you give no proof of why the title makes that statement.
2)Not only that but the title is very misleading and instead of the title being a summary of the article, the article is a rebuttal of sorts to the title.
3)Although this is your first “day” at FR, you seem to know enough of the ropes to know how to put it in Mainline Protestant topics and protestant keyword. Eyebrows should be raised a tad bit here I think. It is very annoying and very misleading to look at the titles on the sidebar under Protestant headings and find one labeled this way, only to open up a thread and find it to be RC propaganda in an obvious effort to win converts.
4) And then it turns out that this is just a vanity post, not a real article, but just one of your blogs.
5) In this post, you more or less admit that you are trying to convert or at least stir up the pot by saying “And, I just like to get all the Brothers talking, and thinking...well, maybe hoping for real thinking is a stretch.” To me that translates as saying those who do not believe you, or who would refute you as not being able to really think.
Annoying and misleading. No wonder some have called for it to be zotted. It has many earmarks of a troll, although the RM does not deem it so, which is fine. T’were I you, though, I would rethink things a tad on your approach. Deception just doesn’t go over well in religious discussion. :)
From the Preface of my Zondervan NIV Bible:
The Greek text used in translating the NT was an eclectic one. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of manuscript witnesses as does the NT. Where existing manuscripts differ, the translators made their choise of readings according to accepted principles of NT textual critism. Footnotes call attention to places where there was uncertainty about what the original text was. The best current texts of the Greek NT were used.
(Whew! Typing from my phone.)
At Luke 23:34 My NIV has a footnote that says: Some early manuscripts do not have this verse.
When I encounter these things, I refer to my Interlinear Bible (Hebrew, Greek, English) for a literal word by word translation immediately below each Greek word. I am usually able to work it out.
Not sure what "personal interpretation" is but no Protestant believes in a private interpretation of Scripture.
Scripture interprets Scripture, as our understanding of it is led by the Holy Spirit.
Sadly the RCC usurps the work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of every believer and says instead that the ecclesiocracy is the sword of the spirit whereas we know that office to be held by Scripture.
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." -- 2 Peter 1:20-21"Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
There is a HUGE difference between 'differences in translation' and outright fabrication and adding additional verses, many years later. Who is responsible for these fabricated/additional verses being added?
The following comprises a very small sampling of words, phrases, and verses that were not in the original Greek texts of the New Testament:
Mat 18:11 (NASB)
[a](A)For the Son of Man has come to save that which was lost.]
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) Example of the authors trying to force the fulfillment of prophecy.
35 After crucifying Him they divided His clothes by casting lots. (A) [a]
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Mar 15:28 (NASB) (another example of trying to force the fulfillment of prophecy)
28[[a]And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "And He was numbered with transgressors."]
Footnotes:
Mar 16:9-20 Amplified Bible (AMP)
9[a]Now Jesus, having risen [[b]from death] early on the first day of the week, appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom He had driven out seven demons.
10 She went and reported it to those who had been with Him, as they grieved and wept.
11 And when they heard that He was alive and that she had seen Him, they did not believe it.
12 After this, He appeared in a different form to two of them as they were walking [along the way] into the country.
13 And they returned [to Jerusalem] and told the others, but they did not believe them either.
14 Afterward He appeared to the Eleven [apostles themselves] as they reclined at table; and He reproved and reproached them for their unbelief (their lack of faith) and their hardness of heart, because they had refused to believe those who had seen Him and looked at Him attentively after He had risen [[c]from death].
15 And He said to them, Go into all the world and preach and publish openly the good news (the Gospel) to every creature [of the whole [d]human race].
16 He who believes [who adheres to and trusts in and relies on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] and is baptized will be saved [[e]from the penalty of eternal death]; but he who does not believe [who does not adhere to and trust in and rely on the Gospel and Him Whom it sets forth] will be condemned.
17 And these attesting signs will accompany those who believe: in My name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new languages;
18 They will pick up serpents; and [even] if they drink anything deadly, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will get well.
19 So then the Lord Jesus, after He had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and He sat down at the right hand of God.(A)
20 And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord kept working with them and confirming the message by the attesting signs and miracles that closely accompanied [it]. Amen (so be it).
Footnotes:
Luk 9:55-56 (NASB)
55 But He turned and rebuked them, [and said, "You do not know what kind of spirit you are of;
56 for the Son of Man did not come to destroy men's lives, but to save them."] And they went on to another village.
Footnotes:
Luk 17:36 (NASB)
36["[a](A)Two men will be in the field; one will be taken and the other will be left."]
Footnotes:
Luk 23:17 (NASB)
17[[a]Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner.]
Footnotes:
John 5:4 (NASB)
3 In these lay a multitude of those who were sick, blind, lame, and withered, [[a]waiting for the moving of the waters;
4 for an angel of the Lord went down at certain seasons into the pool and stirred up the water; whoever then first, after the stirring up of the water, stepped in was made well from whatever disease with which he was afflicted.]
Footnotes:
53[a]And they went [back], each to his own house.
John 8 1BUT JESUS went to the Mount of Olives.
2 Early in the morning (at dawn), He came back into the temple [[b]court], and the people came to Him in crowds. He sat down and was teaching them,
3 When the scribes and Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery. They made her stand in the middle of the court and put the case before Him.
4 Teacher, they said, This woman has been caught in the very act of adultery.
5 Now Moses in the Law commanded us that such [women--offenders] shall be stoned to death. But what do You say [to do with her--what is Your sentence]?(A)
6 This they said to try (test) Him, hoping they might find a charge on which to accuse Him. But Jesus stooped down and wrote on the ground with His finger.
7 However, when they persisted with their question, He raised Himself up and said, Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.
8 Then He bent down and went on writing on the ground with His finger.
9 They listened to Him, and then they began going out, conscience-stricken, one by one, from the oldest down to the last one of them, till Jesus was left alone, with the woman standing there before Him in the center of the court.
10 When Jesus raised Himself up, He said to her, Woman, where are your accusers? Has no man condemned you?
11 She answered, No one, Lord! And Jesus said, I do not condemn you either. Go on your way and from now on sin no more.
Footnotes:John 7:53 John 7:53 to 8:11 is absent from most of the older manuscripts.
(A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition, by Bruce Metzger, 1993, page 187-189 - [United Bible Societies]) writes that there is overwhelming and conclusive evidence that the text from John 7:53 to John 8:11 was not part of the original text of John. It was absent from important early and diverse New Testament manuscripts.
Act 8:37 (NASB)
37[[a]And Philip said, "If you believe with all your heart, you may." And he answered and said, "I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God."]
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Act 24:6-8 (NASB)
6 "And he even tried to (A)desecrate the temple; and then we arrested him. [[a]We wanted to judge him according to our own Law.
7 "But Lysias the commander came along, and with much violence took him out of our hands,
8 ordering his accusers to come before you.] By examining him yourself concerning all these matters you will be able to ascertain the things of which we accuse him."
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Footnotes:
Blessings and Peace. KB
Your appraisal of this thread and the possible reasons for its posting are excellent.
As Protestants, let's exit, leaving the thread to die by its own deception.
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.