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.
How ironic.
Like when the Catholic church adds things to Scripture and its own personal interpretation of Scripture and then pronounces anathemas in its canons for anyone disagreeing with it?
Bless the Lord for what helps. It does seem RCs must be getting an indulgence for posting reposting refuted RC apologetics. Maybe to use up our time.
The same kind of disagreements that you castigated all "Protestants" for, you acknowledge exist in your church but somehow that still proves total unity that enables you to proclaim the superiority of the Roman Catholic church? I already acknowledged that there ARE major tenets of the Christian faith that are nonnegotiable - those that are clearly laid out IN Scripture which is the work of holy men of God carried along by the Holy Spirit to write what they did. They WERE the first leaders of the body of Christ. I hardly think they mistakenly omitted anything that was necessary for the salvation of souls.
The RCC did change and create new doctrines different from those held at the start which were given in Scripture. It was the FIRST guidebook and rule of faith and this was acknowledged repeatedly by most of the men called Early Church Fathers. Just reading their writings disputing the heresies of their day shows the continuous and consistent use of God's word to do so. To claim that all Catholics "constantly" appeal to Scripture and no one questions its authority ignores the existence of RCC practices which hold the authority of Scripture as EQUAL to tradition and the decisions of the Popes and magesterium. Some doctrines find NO basis in Scripture yet belief in them is mandated anyway. Maybe at one time Scripture was seen as the PRIME authority, but that was not the case during the Reformation and it isn't today.
Additionally, despite the claims of sola Scriptura, Protestants in fact do not actually act this way. Instead they bring some basic theological assumptions to the interpretation of Scripture which they inherited from the Reformers. Thus they are just as wedded to their own tradition as are Catholics.
There isn't anything wrong, per se, in having traditions - but they MUST be ones that have a Scriptural basis if they are to be enforced upon the whole church or proclaimed as essential for salvation. That really is the proper definition of sola Scriptura and at one time even the Roman Catholic church believed it and defended it. There are, like I said, basic doctrines that God has clearly told us in His word and we MUST believe them if we expect to be followers of Christ and be saved. For example, If some church decides nobody can be saved who doesn't give all their money and possessions to it and live as a commune under a central guru, then we can know they have no Scriptural basis for that and can label them as a cult and warn seekers away. If a Protestant church changes its statement of faith from belief in Jesus Christ as God in the flesh to Jesus was an angel God exalted to Savior, we can know the same way that they are a false religion. Sure, anyone can make up any religion they want - and there ARE millions of them out there, but it doesn't mean they are teaching the truth and are not being led by a false prophet.
Protestants, just like Catholics and Orthodox ALL have some central, agreed upon tenets that have always, by everyone and everywhere been held. These are the traditions - based upon Scriptural warrant - that differentiate Christianity from any other religion out there (even some who claim they are Christian). Individuals within each faith tradition must individually accept and believe what God has set forth as the faith. The Jewish people knew what they were because they had the word of God as their guide. Christians followed that same example and God did not fail to provide the same to us after Christ came to earth. What makes someone a Christian today is no different than it was at the start.
What Scripture says is not the same as what you says it says, this is only your private opinion on the matter. I, and many Catholics, find the competing Protestant interpretations of Scripture wanting. As well as having the authority of God's church behind them, the Catholic interpretation of Scripture just makes more sense.
Scripture says what it says. It is plain to understand by design. You prove Scripture BY Scripture. There really is no big mystery on Biblical interpretation. Words in context mean what they say. God expects us to obey, not fight over who is right or wrong about what He tells us. You cling to the authority of "God's church" and, believe it or not, I do too. I just disagree with you on who you say IS God's church. I don't believe it is a central organization based out of Rome, headed by one man who claims to be divinely gifted with infallibility that was passed down to him by the guy before him and so on.
Apostolic authority is one of MESSAGE, not position. And the message is proved by God's sacred and inspired word - the Bible. One of the ways anyone knew someone was passing on the teachings (that's what tradition is) was by how what they said was what has always been believed and what has always been believed is found IN Scripture. It IS our rule of faith - STILL.
You’ll have to EXPLAIN what you are driving at here.
Hey SLC!!!
We've got a prospect for ya!
Did you fail to read reply #73; or just ignore the facts found in it?
He is addressing “The Rock”that was named by him. PETER.
And I play word games?
Ha ha HA!
And miss out on all this umbrage being taken?
Not on your life!
Oh; HE does!
HE's shown me what Scripture REALLY means, and has given me the ability to post it on FR.
Catholics throw HISSY fits when they see the facts!
-Ralph Waldo Emerson
I predict that a YES/NO answer will not be forthcoming.
Or are they always unanimous?
I hope you are not confusing the Magi with the Quorum of Twelve...
Jesus answered, “The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has sent.”
1 John 3:21-23
Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we keep his commands and do what pleases him. And this is his command: to believe in the name of his Son, Jesus Christ, and to love one another as he commanded us.
Would that be the list of infallible ones? Or is that decrees that the Church has ordained that MUST be believed?
And just where does on get that list?
Does that include all the stuff about Mary being born sinless, perpetually virgin, and bodily assumed?
Does one must believe that the pope is infallible when speaking ex cathedra?
Does that mean that one must believe that the priest can and does forgive their sins and that without that they are not forgiven? That God Himself cannot override the priest and forgive sins Himself?
Does one HAVE to believe that salvation, life eternal, comes through eating the eucharist and that if one doesn't partake of the eucharist, one does not go to heaven?
Please provide a list of doctrines that a Catholic MUST believe to remain a Catholic in good standing.
Ya think????
More or less. The only corrections that I would make is that the claims of the Catholic Church are not based on historical usage but on divine institution. Furthermore, this authority is not exercise solely by the see of Rome but by the entire Catholic Church.
I think the disputes between Catholics and Protestants as well as those between Protestants themselves bear out the limits of human reasoning as a sure guide of the truth.
Thus it remains that according to this premise assurance of Truth cannot be obtained upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but requires an infallible magisterium.
Yes. Again I think the divisions in the church created after the introduction of sola Scriptura and the concept of private interpretation bear this out.
A valid comparison would be between sola ecclesia churches and those who most strongly hold to the most distinctive Prot doctrine, that of Scripture only being the infallible rule of faith as is the assured Word of God and transcendent standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims.
I should have stipulated that this is what I mean when I use the term Protestant, those who hold to one of the classic Protestant schools of theology. These are the only ones who have the intellectual honesty with which to enter into a debate. Those so-called liberal "Protestants", despite the legacy names from the past that they might have, can hardly be called Protestant. Indeed, some are even questionably Christian. They have moved from sola Scriptura to quis est Scriptura?.
That being said, I do think that the skepticism of these liberal "Protestants" can be traced to the introduction of the concept of private interpretation of Scripture. The idea of "nobody is going to tell me what Scripture means" has lead to "nobody is going to tell me what the truth is." But no, I do not count these when I critique Protestant thought.
However, RC position is not that the their teachings require actual Scriptural support, but only that they do not contradict it, nor is the veracity of RC teaching based upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation, but upon the premise of the assured veracity of Rome.
Yes, there are some teachings that go beyond Scripture. This is clearly acknowledged but the vast majority of what Catholics believe is derived from Scripture. It is not enough that Catholic teaching not contradict Scripture. Throughout the centuries the Catholic Church has seriously studied the Scriptures to learn the truth. Scripture is the font from which flows the vast majority of Catholic teaching. The use of Scripture by Catholics to explain and defend her teaching bears this out and this is what I insist that Protestants acknowledge. To harp on those instances in which Catholics turn to Sacred Tradition and then imply that Catholics do not accept the authority of Scripture at all is dishonest.
So only Rome can make an infallible statement, versus possessing the gift of assured (conditional) infallibility?
If it is conditional then it is not infallible. And who possess this gift? What assurance do you have that, as a Catholic, I do not have this gift rather than you?
Nor should the gift of infallibility be considered to be localize just to Rome, something that is foreign to you. It is exercised by the entire Catholic Church, all the bishops of the world in union with the pope, as established by Jesus Christ. The bishop of the local see of where ever you live is also a part of this Magisterium.
It is amazing that Catholics will rail against Protestants as if they were presuming the gift of personal infallibility, versus basing the veracity of their assertions on the weight of infallible Scripture, while RCs expresses their own understanding of Scripture and of their church if they were infallible interpretations.
The difference is that Catholics look at the Church as being established by Jesus Christ and charged by him to be the teaching authority guarded by the Holy Spirit. All that a Protestant can assert is his own private judgment.
This is your interpretation, not a fact. Please do not confuse your opinions about Scripture with Scripture itself.
Yes, Scripture is the Word of God and has authority but in not one of your quotations is there mentioned “Scripture alone”.
No Elsie - you just can’t pretend that if protestants could somehow go back in time and replace the Popes with protestant leaders that there would be this miraculous utopia of a church with sinless, perfect humans and no scandals. Protestants have no more moral authority in pretending they could better run the Catholic Church, than the Pope can by somehow claiming he is not a sinner. Jesus picked sinful men like Peter, the 1st of 264 subsequent Popes, sinners, to lead his Church. Modern day Protestetants who spend more energy “Protesting” to justify why they are not Catholic than they spend on their relationship with Jesus, are not going to do any better in holding the office of Christ’s Church on earth.
You act like a knucklehead? Hmmm .
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.