Mr. Bugay is ignorant of the biblical arguments for the papacy. Cardinal Cajetan made the below argument against the Protestant revolutionaries five centuries ago.
+++
The papacy is mentioned by the early Church Fathers, the succession of popes can be traced back to Peter, and the Bible indicates that Peter held the office of the vice-regent of the eternal, redeemed House of David, i.e., Peter held the office of the representative of the King of the eternal, redeemed House of David, Jesus.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is the King of the eternal House of David:
"He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. The Lord God will give him the throne of his father David." (Luke 1:32)In the ancient Davidic kingdom, the authority of the palace majordomo, or vice-regent, was represented by an over-sized key that the vice-regent would wear around his neck. The vice-regent held plenary authority in the king's absence.
"I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the people of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open." (Isaiah 22:22)As King of the eternal, redeemed Davidic Kingdom, Jesus holds the "key of David," which he may bestow on His representative or vice-regent.
These are the words of him who is holy and true, who holds the key of David. What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open. (Rev. 3:7)Was Peter's office transferred? History tells us that it was, and so does the Bible, as Isaiah 22 shows the succession in office of vice-regents of the Davidic kingdom, and we see the succession of bishops in Acts, as Matthias replaces Judas in his "bishoprick." (KJV)I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Matthew 16:19)
Not according to history and even your own church. Not until at least the 4th century was there a single pope.
"The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century." [Schatz, Klaus (1996). Papal Primacy. Liturgical Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780814655221.]
"The fourth canon of the First Council of Nicaea of 325 attributed to the bishop of the capital (metropolis) of each Roman province (the "metropolitan bishop") a position of authority among the bishops of the province, without reference to the founding figure of that bishop's see." [Canons of the First Council of Nicaea]
Domasus 366-384 - First to call himself Apostolic See
Leo the Great - 440-461 - first Pontifex Maximus
Prior to that the Pontifex Maximus was the secular ruler over the pagan religion who often presented himself as a god. An interesting read is how the early church fathers referred to that title.
The Catholic Church itself agrees there were many referred to as "pope".
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude, is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome" [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm]
That unbroken line of popes is a fallacy. The rest of your posts is based on Old Testament and not applicable to the New Testament ekklesia of Christ.
I'm sure he's heard it all before. I know I have. The argument you make may sound good, but upon closer examination (and wider encompassing of fuller considerations of Scripture & history both) falls far short of that argument's apparently intended ends.
Speaking of biblical arguments, perhaps Romanists are blind to the plentiful array of biblical argument against there being one singular, earthly and human, "bishop of bishops" type of thinking to have been imposed upon the Church?
As far as I can tell, "they" sure do seem to block out (of their own minds and considerations) all of that which is opposed to what later developed, as for the office 'papacy', for Rome alone.
When these things (and history, both) are brought to "their" attention, as can be seen evident on this thread --- first --- many and varied forms of hostility (and outright hatreds) towards those who point at the elements which refute Romish claims (as for Supremacy of it's own bishop, and themselves also over all others whom would be considered Christian) come bubbling to the surface.
Christ's Kingdom is not of this world, according to His own words.
Trying to extend earthy, Davidic Kingdom, wherein in some alleged successor to 'Peter', is as a stand-in, a placeholder for Jesus Himself, has been shown by history, in many aspects and instance, to be something of a horror, a sickness in the body of the Church.
Christ did not establish that sort of kingdom -- for Peter, to then be passed singularly to some later line of successors, which would be only those of the bishopric at Rome, leaving all the rest owing some form of unilateral submission to that one office.
The early Church had no such 'papacy' as later developed. They knew of no such thing, but instead there was one Church, wherein all bishops were seen as "successor to Peter" (when that sort of talk first began to surface) as they were inheritors of all of rest which Christ had bestowed upon the disciples.
Yet again, whenever the covers are pulled back, then those of Rome howl something fierce, attacking all those whom would disagree, much as you yourself (more mildly) began by calling men like Bugay "ignorant".
Same to you? I could call you and most every other apologist for 'Rome' the same. But it's not merely ignorance, as much as it is something else, with the truth still denied by those of Rome who present "read-in-between-the-lines" style of Scriptural eisogesis in effort to establish that there was a particular concept (singular papacy, for Rome alone), from the onset of the early, most primitive church.
The concept itself was a stranger among the early Church. I guess all those ECF's were just a bunch of idiots for having not noticed (for so long!) that to Rome was to go the glory? More on that, later...
The Apostles (note the plural?) Great Commission was not to rule as titled king in the earthly manner of David, but instead the authority given was to preach the Gospel (not pervert or edit it, for their own ends, as has many a Roman Church Pontiff since).
24 Now there was also a dispute among them, as to which of them should be considered the greatest. 25 And He said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them, and those who exercise authority over them are called ‘benefactors.’ 26 But not so among you; on the contrary, he who is greatest among you, let him be as the younger, and he who governs as he who serves. 27 For who is greater, he who sits at the table, or he who serves? Is it not he who sits at the table? Yet I am among you as the One who serves.If it had instead been something of history, and a singular office that was purposefully established amid the earliest era of the Church --- then the Apostles did an extremely poor job of conveying the validity of Rome's own later arising claims for themselves (and their bishop) to rule like a king.28 “But you are those who have continued with Me in My trials. 29 And I bestow upon you a kingdom, just as My Father bestowed one upon Me, 30 that you may eat and drink at My table in My kingdom, and sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.”
Compare what is found in Scripture;
with 'Pope' Gregory VII in the 11th century writing that "all princes must kiss his [own] feet".
As one daring Jew put things to be;
But you know what? Much like the apology for having burned Jan Hus (and Jerome of Prague) alive, at the stake;
The gig is up. Busted.
Popes of today's modern era are embarrassed by such things. (Ratzinger was, as far as I could read in between the lines...)
The Reformation helped bring that more closely to their attention --- although among Romish practice the priests still prostrate themselves (at times and places) and the people of the Church are seen always as lesser ranked. To the extent which the members of the RC Church are today -- not seen as "lesser", again, give some thanks for the Protestant Reformation. Without that, there would have been no United States of America as we know it (knew it, once?) either, and God only knows how fiendishly rank Romish Catholicism would have further regressed into being...
Time to start over? Rome has been trying to shed it's own errors of the past, but can't quite seem to fully come clean --- and then let go.
That's what happens when far too much faith is put in "Church", rather than in the power of God, which is His own alone.
The Lord our God is one Lord
From Mark 12 verse 29
He must swear upon Himself, for He can swear by none higher.
Popes can't do that, but rather, as the rest of us should let our yeahs be yeahs and our nays be nays
And now that Valentine's Day is passed...some Bonnie Riatt,
Only when one reads into the earliest writers, that which was not there, mistaking what proper authority the Church was given, to belong only to Rome --- for "papacy" as that came to be later known was most assuredly NOT "mentioned by the early church fathers".
Each and every mention of a bishop at Rome that can be found among ECF's, simply does not equate with the way Rome later developed a plethora of theology, doctrine & dogma concerning it. If this was not so, then the claims of Rome would have been overtly established, rather than all the needing to read into things that which is simply not plainly there.
Horsefeathers. Jesus did not make Peter out to be King of Israel (or would become as one upon Christ's own departure from earthly realms) yet that would need to have occurred in order to make Catejan's argument hold water rather than leak out and dissipate.
Jesus Himself was mockingly called King of the Jews. That those whom mocked Him so, were not mocking (as they thought themselves to be) but instead had written Truth (albeit unknowingly) does not equate with God Almighty having intended for there to be a singular, earthly king of the Jews, for God was against that very idea in the first place previous to Saul being chosen by the people to be king.
Peter would need be that king (David was Saul's own successor do not forget if your representative model was validly representing the heart of the Lord, instead of being made of clay, and the limited, darkened imagination of men who think God all but died when He returned to where He was before, leaving themselves in charge? oh but in the Romish way, only one guy, Peter alone, in charge (all others required to be subservient to him).
Phfft. Pull my finger, then beam me up Scotty, there are scarcely any true and faithful friends of God on this earth...
Did you hear the one about the Pope's first miracle? He touched a cripple and made him blind!
Don't like that one? Well then, show us any pope who walked in the same power and true authority as did Peter, Paul, and many others, as for the working of miracles, and then maybe I'd apologize for the rudeness of the joke. I used to make a point.
So what now? Will I be lectured (and hectored) by some FRoman concerning a long list of less-than-well-verified claims for miracles? There is just as much of that far from the confines of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical community (both actual miracles, and the phoney, pretend kind) as there can be found within it.
The Spirit of the Lord, does not belong to Rome, or is upon a leash held in papist paw. The Lord never intended for things to be that way. Why would He limit Himself to a less-than-fully trustworthy ecclesiastical chokepoint, as it were? Well, He didn't and never intended to do so, regardless of the varied claims of Rome, when if put all together in one lump, more or less equate to that. So sorry to disappoint anyone in this, but there is truth, and then there is Romish fable which takes aspects of truth, then bends those to their own Supremacy aims. The Lord rebukes you them, for that (which doesn't leave anyone else to be able to get away with the same or similar error).
The same God who was against the children of Israel having a king for themselves as did all other nations around them, was not intent upon furthering that error, regardless of all the faithless clamoring among the people that they have an earthly king to rule over them.
That same God, in the person of His Son, did not give only to Peter alone this office which you speak of (for it was Christ's own office, and remains so for all eternity) and that that be "inheritable" by way of earthly succession to that same alleged-to-be office, even if but in representative form...
Peter was considered among early centuries theologians as "primary" in that he was in a sense "first". But there can only be one "first". Not a whole line of successions of later "firsts".
The singular inheritance portion (which is were things really break down, for the Romanist) was not the early Tradition, regardless of all the select, here and there cherry picking of quotes, and practice of SOLO Scriptura.
Writings attributed to Ireneaus indicate plurality of authority rather than anything like singular authority for Peter being in some manner "king" over all the rest of the Apostles.
Those writings indicate Ireneaus was referring to succession of bishops in Rome, as example amid a plurality of successions to offices of episcopacy in other locales also, not ranking those as lesser than Rome, but as yet more examples, himself writing not against those whom opposed 'Rome' and it's alleged authority, but against those whom preached heresies contrary to the Gospel, himself opening his dissertations with mention of Apostolic plurality, explaining then first off --- how the Church from very early on (some time after the demise of the Apostles) relied most centrally upon the Scriptures.
bolding and underlining added]Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit.They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth.
1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures,* to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.*2 For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
One would search in vain to find Ireneaus, or any other, for the first hundreds of years assign singular Apostolic succession to being under the line of Peter, alone, including (and this is important) that other 'lines of apostolic succession' owed singular deference to some sense of authority residing in Rome (alone, and/or foremost).
On the contrary, the polity of the Church was from inception, conciliatory, in that way echoing or shadowing the way in which Jews to this day can establish among themselves a Temple, needing a quorum of 12 men (in some Jewish circles, only 10, minimum) to do so.
And what does the Scripture (in Pauline epistle) tell us of the polity of the Church, but to chose among ourselves (wherever we may be) elders to preside over the proceedings? That differs greatly from having some organization, though beginning innocently enough, then later glom on and grow into becoming far less than answerable to the people. In this at least, the Southern Baptists get it right for they accept no one who was "sent" by some ecclesiastical body from elsewhere, to then rule over them. Instead, as minister are trained (and hopefully raised up) within centers of learning, they then may be called to preach. These same ministers can go out and plant (begine, and nurture) fresh, new church assemblies also, if they have the calling, and the ambition.
As for "Holy Orders" the Pentecostals (some of them, anyway) get that in the laying on ofhands and praying for others, including for the equipping and ordination for the ministry. And what ministry is it -- but to preach the Gospel, which is the great commission, nothing more, and nothing less...though this not restricted to merely talking about it, of course. One can visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and those locked away in prison, hopefully bringing, providing relief. One can feed the hungry, and possibly help shelter the homeless can feed the poor (help keep them warm, instead of just saying "be warm, and filled). All of those things are after biblical model. If what I quoted above was actually from Ireneaus, instead of being later fabrication attributed to him, then he would most likely be approving and proud of all those whom do these things, not limited to merely those of the Roman Church.
In centuries a couple of hundred and more years removed from Apostolic ages, there was talk of Rome bearing a double apostolicity, along with there having been a consciously expressed desire and need for unity with the Church at Rome, but not under view there having been indisputable authority residing there to whom all must bow obeisance to, as if the bishop of Rome was God's own, singular earthly representative.
Your small thesis built upon inheritance of "keys"to Peter alone, and that being extension of Davidic kingdom, fails, and fails miserably, for if instead it were to be true, then there would have been far more reliance upon Rome, alone. But guess what? There was not, with Rome (and it's bishop there) having been corrected upon occasion, by other bishops. I know the history well enough. It's far too late to redefine it, even if relying upon Catejan of the 16th century to make the case. What good is his word as for the official record?It's surely not like he had some sort of unbiased view. History and Scripture both, refute Catejan in this, anyway (and I've but outlined the tip of the iceberg, as for how his thesis can be refuted).
For all the reading-in-between-the-lines which Romanists indulge themselves in (thinking they alone are *smart* as we so ofter hear it told) then why cannot they comprehend the general implications of the same writer (Ireneaus) whom they often selectively quote when themselves asserting 'Rome', over and above all others? Ireneaus was closest to Rome as it were, as so naturally began his examples, focusing upon an apostolic succession at Rome first, for he himself was closest to that particularly noteworthy bishopric. Even then, that did not stop himself from corrected a bishop of Rome, a 'pope' as it were, upon two different occasions. So much for indisputable authority residing there, even then, for by then, as Ireneaus was speaking towards, one would need rely upon Scripture instead of claim of authority due to office alone, or some Gnosis, or other departure from the Gospel--- as that is described within Scripture.
Ireneaus mentions BOTH Peter and Paul in the oft 'cherry picked' at times Against Heresies, book III. If Roman Catholics would read it in context while also refraining from anachronistically transposing what 'Rome' alone, in later centuries eventually (bit-by-bit, in inflationary manner) grew to claim as it's own sole & singular prerogative --- THEN "they" might be able to see what the rest of us see.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * Early evidence of application of the principle of sola scriptura (scripture foremost and above all whom would contest it).
*2 Ruh-roh, "development" was getting itself in trouble, from way far back in the history of the church. Why trust it now --- when it goes against Scripture, invents history, cherry-picks quotes, while taking Scripture passages themselves too far out-of-context of how those were applied (and not applied) in earliest tradition? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You lose. Again.
Better luck next week.
Change the apologetic, to better reflect truth, if you would desire any credibility around here.