Posted on 06/19/2015 12:01:57 PM PDT by RnMomof7
For those who don't have much familiarity with the dispute between Protestants and Catholics over the doctrine of the papacy, I want to post two introductory articles on the subject today and tomorrow. The first article, this one, will be about the Biblical evidence, and tomorrow's article will be about the early post-Biblical evidence.
Roman Catholicism claims the papacy as its foundation. According to the Catholic Church, the doctrine of the papacy was understood and universally accepted as early as the time of Peter:
"At open variance with this clear doctrine of Holy Scripture as it has been ever understood by the Catholic Church are the perverse opinions of those who, while they distort the form of government established by Christ the Lord in his Church, deny that Peter in his single person, preferably to all the other Apostles, whether taken separately or together, was endowed by Christ with a true and proper primacy of jurisdiction; or of those who assert that the same primacy was not bestowed immediately and directly upon blessed Peter himself, but upon the Church, and through the Church on Peter as her minister....For none can doubt, and it is known to all ages, that the holy and blessed Peter, the Prince and Chief of the Apostles, the pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of mankind, and lives presides and judges, to this day and always, in his successors the Bishops of the Holy See of Rome" (First Vatican Council, session 4, chapters 1-2)
Different Catholics interpret these claims of the First Vatican Council in different ways. Some Catholics will argue that the concept of the papacy that was understood and accepted in the earliest generations involved universal jurisdiction, so that the differences between how modern Catholics and the most ancient Catholics viewed Peter and the bishops of Rome would be minor. Other Catholics claim, instead, that the earliest Christians wouldn't have associated a concept like universal jurisdiction with Peter and the earliest Roman bishops, and they maintain that the modern view of the papacy developed more gradually. Some Catholics even go as far as to claim that there's no need to show that a concept like universal jurisdiction was intended by Jesus and the apostles. They may argue for the papacy on the basis of philosophical speculation or personal preference, or they may claim that no argument is needed for the doctrine.
Catholics who take that last sort of approach are abandoning the battlefield without admitting defeat. Any belief could be maintained on such a basis. If we're going to accept the papacy just because it seems to produce more denominational unity than other systems of church government, because our parents were Catholic, or for some other such inconclusive reason, then we have no publicly verifiable case to make for the doctrine. My intention in these posts is to address some of the popular arguments of those who attempt to make a more objective case for the papacy.
Those who argue that a seed form of the papacy existed early on, one that wasn't initially associated with universal jurisdiction, would need to demonstrate that such a seed form of the doctrine did exist. And they would need to demonstrate that the concept of universal jurisdiction would eventually develop from that seed. It wouldn't be enough to show that the development of universal jurisdiction is possible. We don't believe that something is true just because it's possible. If we're supposed to accept a papacy with universal jurisdiction on some other basis, such as the alleged authority of the Catholic hierarchy that teaches the concept, then an objective case will have to be made for the supposed authority of that hierarchy.
If there had been a papacy in the first century that was recognized as a distinct office, we would expect it to be mentioned in much the same way that offices such as bishop and deacon are mentioned. We wouldn't expect Roman Catholics to have to go to passages like Matthew 16 and John 21 to find alleged references to a papacy if such an office of universal jurisdiction existed and was recognized during the New Testament era. Instead, we would expect explicit and frequent references to the office, such as in the pastoral epistles and other passages on church government.
That's what we see with the offices of bishop and deacon. Not only are the offices mentioned (Acts 20:17, Philippians 1:1), but we also see repeated references to their appointment (Acts 14:23, Ephesians 4:11, Titus 1:5), their qualifications (1 Timothy 3:1-13, Titus 1:5-9), their discipline (1 Timothy 5:19-20), their responsibilities (Ephesians 4:12-13, Titus 1:10-11, James 5:14, 1 Peter 5:1-3), their reward (1 Timothy 5:17-18, 1 Peter 5:4), their rank (1 Corinthians 12:28), the submission due them (1 Timothy 2:11-12), etc. If there was an office that was to have jurisdictional primacy and infallibility throughout church history, an office that could be called the foundation of the church, wouldn't we expect it to be mentioned explicitly and often? But it isn't mentioned at all, even when the early sources are discussing Peter or the Roman church. In the New Testament, which covers about the first 60 years of church history (the prophecies in Revelation and elsewhere cover much more), there isn't a single Roman bishop mentioned or named, nor are there any admonitions to submit to the papacy or any references to appointing Popes, determining whether he's exercising his infallibility, appealing to him to settle disputes, etc. When speaking about the post-apostolic future, the apostles are concerned with bishops and teachers in general (Acts 20:28-31, 2 Timothy 2:2) and submission to scripture (2 Timothy 3:15-17, 2 Peter 3:1-2, Revelation 22:18-19), but don't say a word about any papacy.
Craig Keener, citing Jaroslav Pelikan, comments that "most scholars, both Roman Catholic and Protestant, concur that Peter died in Rome but doubt that Mt 16:18 intended the authority later claimed by the papacy (Pelikan 1980: 60)" (A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1999], n. 74 on p. 425). The Roman Catholic scholar Klaus Schatz comments:
"There appears at the present time to be increasing consensus among Catholic and non-Catholic exegetes regarding the Petrine office in the New Testament….The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative. That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the author of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.'…If we ask in addition whether the primitive Church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer." (Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], pp. 1-2)
What's said of Peter in Matthew 16 and John 21 is said of other people in other passages. Other people are rocks upon whom the church is built (Ephesians 2:20), other people have the keys of the kingdom that let them bind and loose and open and shut (Matthew 18:18, 23:13), and other people are shepherds of the church (Acts 20:28, 1 Peter 5:2). Just as Peter is given a second name, so are other people (Mark 3:17). Peter is called "Peter" prior to the events of Matthew 16 (John 1:42), and we can't know whether he was given the name as a result of Matthew 16 or, instead, Jesus' choice of imagery in Matthew 16 was shaped by a name Peter was already given for another reason.
Peter is singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21, but his being singled out doesn't suggest jurisdictional primacy. We could speculate that Peter is singled out in these passages because he's supposed to fulfill the roles in these passages in a greater way than other people, but such a speculation can't be proven. Other people are singled out in other passages, but we don't conclude that those people were Popes. Even if Peter was singled out because he was to fulfill these roles (rock and shepherd) in a greater way than anybody else, he wouldn't need to be a Pope in order to fulfill these roles in a greater way than other people. And he wouldn't need to have successors in that role.
So, if Peter isn't singled out in Matthew 16 and John 21 because he was being made a Pope, then why was he singled out?
In Matthew 16, he's probably singled out because he singles himself out. He's the one who answered Jesus' question. Similarly, John and James are singled out in Mark 10:35-40 because they were the ones who initiated the discussion with Jesus, not because they were being given some sort of primacy.
In John 21, Peter probably is singled out because he was the one in need of restoration. Peter was the one who denied Jesus three times and thus needed to reaffirm his love for Jesus three times. Since the other apostles didn't deny Jesus as Peter did, it would make no sense for Jesus to approach them the way He approached Peter. Similarly, Jesus treats Thomas (John 20:26-29), John (John 21:20-23), and Paul (Acts 9:1-15) differently than He treats the other apostles. But nobody would assume that Thomas, John, or Paul therefore has jurisdictional primacy or that such a primacy was passed on to a succession of bishops.
Catholics sometimes argue for a papacy by interpreting Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22:20-22. But whatever relevance Isaiah 22 would have to Matthew 16, it would have relevance for Matthew 23, Luke 11, and other passages that use such imagery as well. And any Catholic appeal to Isaiah 22 would have to be a partial appeal, not a complete parallel, since a complete parallel wouldn't favor the claims of Roman Catholicism. God is the one who gives the key in Isaiah 22, so an exact parallel would put Jesus in the place of God, not in the place of the king. So, if Jesus is God and Peter is the prime minister, then who is the king? Some church official with more authority than Peter? What about Isaiah 22:25? Should we assume that Popes can "break off and fall", and that the keys of Matthew 16 can eventually pass to God Himself (Revelation 3:7) rather than to a human successor? If Catholics only want to make a general appeal to Isaiah 22, without making an exact parallel, then how can they claim that papal authority is implied by the parallel? Why can't the Isaiah 22 background convey a general theme of authority without that authority being of a papal nature?
Paul refers to "apostles" (plural) as the highest rank in the church (1 Corinthians 12:28, Ephesians 2:20), and he names Peter second among three reputed pillars of the church (Galatians 2:9). The most natural reading of the Biblical evidence is to see Peter as a highly reputed pillar of the church who had equal rank, equal jurisdiction, with the other apostles. He could be said to have had some types of primacy in some contexts, and the same could be said of other apostles and early church leaders, but there's no reason to think that papal authority was one of those types of primacy or that such authority was passed on exclusively to a succession of Roman bishops.
There is no papacy in the New Testament. It's not there explicitly or implicitly. This "clear doctrine of Holy Scripture" that the First Vatican Council refers to isn't even Biblical, much less clearly Biblical. Roman Catholics assume that a papacy is implied in some New Testament passages, but that assumption can't be proven and is unlikely.
None. He established His Church. Some in Catholicism are also in His Church, as are some in other ‘religions’. There are even some Mormons in His Church. But Jesus is not ‘in’/a member any religion ... (well, maybe Judaism). He was born into Judaism.
I believe you were the one that said there were 30.000 protestant denominations ... just showing how desperate Rome is that they have to make up junk like that
One. It's called Christianity.
Hmmm. Indulgences come to mind.
None?
One?
You guys need to get your stories straight.
And who are you, the forum police or something? ROFL!!
Peter used those Keys to open the gospel to the Jews on Pentecost and then to the gentiles (Acts 10)
The Church was in Jerusalem not Rome, we can see what part Peter played in the Church there, it is very evident that his word was taken as gospel by the leaders in the Church, including James.
Actually Peter had been a part of the problem of being a Judaizer and had to be confronted by Paul for causing division in the church (read Gal 2:11)
The Jerusalem council was after that confrontation.. and by the way James was in charge and made the final decision ... not Peter
The scriptures does not connect Peter with Rome unless Babylon is referring to Rome which is just something else to argue about.
Well one thing I know is Rome is "babylon " now
And show us where Jesus said they were transferable ???
Of course, as Peter never is shown exercising any unique power, while that the gospel are the keys or key to the kingdom is manifest as it is by faith in it that one is translated into that kingdom.
The Church was in Jerusalem not Rome, we can see what part Peter played in the Church there, it is very evident that his word was taken as gospel by the leaders in the Church, including James.
It is actually more evident that it was James whose word was taken as gospel by the leaders in the Church, confirmatory of the exhortation and testimony of Peter, and of Paul and Barnabas.
Peter did not supply the final conclusive judgment, and certainly did not speak like a ex cathedra decree, but provided a brief testimony and basic exhortative word of counsel. After which Paul and Barnabas added their testimony, as they also were preaching the Gentile-inclusive gospel of the grace of God.
After which James provided the Scriptural basis for the inclusion of the Gentiles, and basic Scriptural requirements, at which the matter was settled.
James is also listed first before Peter in Gal. 2 among 3 who appeared to be pillars. Peter as the first of a line of supreme infallible heads whom the church looked to is simply absent from Scripture. He is scarcely mentioned in the church epistles, and is married when mentioned in one, and as said,. the second of three in another.
Paul even fails to mention him among the 30 odd acquaintances in Rm. 16, and not once is submission to him in particular enjoined of the churches, or commended, including in the Lord's word to the 7 representative churches in Rv. 2,3.
Who are we to argue with God? Would you feel more comfortable in a nice stained glass Church with graven images filled with people? The Apostles did not have such luxuries.
Can everyone have their own religious theology or interpretation?
Is. 1:18 "Come let us reason together" Says the Lord. Did you miss the part where He said He would send His Comforter (Holy Spirit)? Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus or is it more of a communal ritual thing? Yes, you can go with the crowd along the broad and easy path but the Apostles had a more lonely narrow one to travel.
I always get a chuckle when a catholic uses the ‘sola scriptura’ accusation. I read books. Sometimes I would love to have the author for an assist now and then when I read the occasional hard read. There is no such thing as ‘sola scriptura’ because once you’re born from above you have the author to help with the meaning you need.
They have indeed erred on proclamations having to do with faith and morals, but as Rome has effectively denied she can err in faith and morals then RCs simply deny she has.
For Rome has presumed to infallibly declare she is and will be perpetually infallible whenever she speaks in accordance with her infallibly defined (scope and subject-based) formula, which renders her declaration that she is infallible, to be infallible, as well as all else she accordingly declares.
But RCs differ on what constitutes proclamations having to do with faith and morals.
Some hold, as this (Catholic Answers) Cath poster,
Pick your favorite Pope, and check the encyclicals. They are infallible because the Church teaches infallibly, and has nothing to do with whether or not it says so on the top, the bottom or the middle that it is infallible. - http://50.22.108.14/showpost.php?p=260991&postcount=8
But other RCs dissents from certain V2 teaching, and aspects of papal encyclicals, as they judge such as being invalid based upon their reading of historical RC teaching.
Other RCs correctly respond that such are basically Protestant, and contrary to historical teaching that basically calls for submission to the pope in all he publicly teaches the church, versus deciding for yourself what is valid teaching by examination of the basis for it.
Some others who strongly uphold broad submission to the pope to do so by rejecting modern popes as being popes.
In general RCs present the papacy and magisterium and submission to it as the solution to false beliefs and division due to souls interpreting Scripture as the supreme authority.
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock...the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors. - VEHEMENTER NOS, an Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906.
“All that we must do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.”
“So if God [via Rome] declares that the Blessed Virgin was conceived Immaculate, or that there is a Purgatory, or that the Holy Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, shall we say, "I am not sure about that. I must examine it for myself; I must see whether it is true, whether it is Scriptural?"
“..our act of confidence and of blind obedience is highly honoring to Almighty God,..” —“Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )]
"The intolerance of the Church toward error, the natural position of one who is the custodian of truth, her only reasonable attitude makes her forbid her children to read or to listen to heretical controversy, or to endeavor to discover religious truths by examining both sides of the question. This places the Catholic in a position whereby he must stand aloof from all manner of doctrinal teaching other than that delivered by his Church through her accredited ministers." (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapters XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
While RCs look to their non-infallible leaders, the problem with sola ecclesia, in which the church via its papacy and magisterium is supreme, and souls are to render implicit submission to them, is that insofar as when leadership goes South then so do their followers.
There is a difference in the kind of submission infallible, teachings, irreformable divinely revealed truths (which arguably constitute the smaller portion of what RCs believe and practice), require (which, according to various Catholic sources, is that of "sacred assent," "internal assent," that being "assent of faith" "without wavering," "submission of faith," "assent of mind and heart," “obedience of faith,” "theological faith," “divine and Catholic faith.”
One who doubts these articles lacks faith that Rome possesses ensured veracity, and falls into heresy), and "authentic" but non-definitive teachings (ordinary teaching requires "ordinary assent," that being "religious submission of will and intellect," submission of mind and will," which "forbids public contradiction of the teaching")." An obstinate refusal to give "assent of faith" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of faith, while obstinate refusal to give "religious assent" when it is due is a sin against the virtue of charity. - (Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of Theologian, 32; http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19900524_theologian-vocation_en.html).
Some Catholics actually define 3 or 4 levels of magisterial teaching, the first being papal ex cathedra decrees, and then universal infallible conciliar pronouncements in union with the pope and following from his presumed authority, and the third being papal encyclicals, and the fourth being non-definitive teachings. Some lump 1+2 together to only have 3, while others lump 3+4 together, with the fourth becoming more general non-doctrinal papal teaching, and as allowing more room to dissent. But public dissent is never sanctioned from what i can see.
However, not only may there be different levels of teaching found in the same document, but what level each teaching falls under (and how many infallible teachings there are, and what they all are), and what level of assent is required, as well as aspects of their meaning, are all subject to variant and varying degrees of interpretations.
Consider what can be required to determine the magisterial; level of just papal teaching:
The key is the intention of the Pope. He may be repeating existing definitive teaching from Ordinary Magisterium level - then it is infallible, as on level 2. He may be giving a decision on a previously debated point - as on level 3, then it falls under the promise of Christ in Lk 10. 16, and so is also infallible. Or it may be a still lesser intention - then we have a case like that envisioned in Canon 752 of the New Code of Canon Law: "Not indeed an assent of faith, but yet a religious submission of mind and will must be given to the teaching which either the Supreme Pontiff, or the College of Bishops [of course, with the Pope] pronounce on faith or on morals when they exercise the authentic Magisterium even if they do not intend to proclaim it by a definitive act." ...What does this require? Definitely, it forbids public contradiction of the teaching. But it also requires something in the mind, as the wording indicates. - http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/4levels.txt
Then you have the disagreement btwn traditional RCs and V2 Caths. As one post wryly commented,
The last time the church imposed its judgment in an authoritative manner on "areas of legitimate disagreement," the conservative Catholics became the Sedevacantists and the Society of St. Pius X, the moderate Catholics became the conservatives, the liberal Catholics became the moderates, and the folks who were excommunicated, silenced, refused Catholic burial, etc. became the liberals. The event that brought this shift was Vatican II; conservatives then couldn't handle having to actually obey the church on matters they were uncomfortable with, so they left. — Nathan, http://www.ratzingerfanclub.com/blog/2005/05/fr-michael-orsi-on-different-levels-of.html
Yet as JP2 non-infallibly stated:
You have no right any more to bring up the distinction between the doctrinal and the pastoral that you use to support your acceptance of certain texts of Vatican Council II and your rejection of others. It is true that the matters decided in any Council do not all call for an assent of the same quality; only what the Council affirms in its 'definitions' as a truth of faith or as bound up with faith requires the assent of faith. Nevertheless, the rest also form a part of the SOLEMN MAGISTERIUM of the Church, to be trustingly accepted and sincerely put into practice by every Catholic." (Paul VI, Epistle Cum te to Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, 11 Oct, 1976, published in Notitiae, No. 12, 1976.)
The disagreement on magisterial levels and the meaning of teachings is contrary to the RC model for discernment of Truth and unity, under which the magisterium is to be looked to and submitted, and a faithful RC is not to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching by examination of evidences. For to do so would be to doubt the claims of Rome to be the sure teacher by which a RC obtains assurance of Truth.
Thus RCs who examine the evidence for certain V2 and modern teachings and judge them as allowing for and requiring dissent are labelled by some of their brethren as basically being Protestant, and deal with the problem of disagreement over what teachings are infallible, or even "authentic" by holding that faithful Catholics are simply to obey with religious assent of intellect and will any public papal teaching or Catholic doctrine by the authentic magisterium, whether infallible or not. Of course, just what is "authentic" - an ambiguous term often used - sees disagreement.
According to a SSPV source, arguing against "resist but recognize the pontiff," Pius X stated,
Obedience must not limit itself to matters which touch the faith: its sphere is much more vast: it extends to all matters which the episcopal power embraces .
when we love the Pope, there are no discussions regarding what he orders or demands, or up to what point obedience must go , and in what things he is to be obeyed ; when we love the Pope, we do not say that he has not spoken clearly enough, almost as if he were forced to repeat to the ear of each one the will clearly expressed so many times not only in person, but with letters and other public documents ; we do not place his orders in doubt, adding the facile pretext of those unwilling to obey – that it is not the Pope who commands, but those who surround him; we do not limit the field in which he might and must exercise his authority... http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x (Pope Saint Pius X, Allocution Vi ringrazio to priests on the 50th anniversary of the Apostolic Union, November 18, 1912, as found at: (“Love the Pope! ” – no ifs, and no buts: For Bishops, priests, and faithful, Saint Pius X explains what loving the Pope really entails.)- http://christorchaos.com/?q=content/choosing-ignore-pope-leo-xiii-and-pope-saint-pius-x < /p>
As concerns encyclicals, that these requires religious dissent in general is seen as supported by,
Humani Generis: Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians. - http://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis.html
Since the year 1878, when Pope Leo XIII began to rule, as Christ’s vicar on earth, over the Church militant, over one hundred fifty encyclical letters have been issued by the Sovereign Pontiffs...The distinguished theologians who deny the papal encyclicals the status of infallible documents teach, none the less, that the faithful are bound in conscience to accord these letters not only the tribute of respectful silence, but also a definite and sincere internal religious assent.....This authority (of the papal encyclicals) is undoubtedly great. It is, in a sense, sovereign. It is the teaching of the supreme pastor and teacher of the Church. Hence the faithful have a strict obligation to receive this teaching with an infinite respect. A man must not be content simply not to contradict it openly and in a more or less scandalous fashion. An internal mental assent is demanded. It should be received as the teaching sovereignly authorized within the Church. http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/encyclicals/docauthority.htm:
Thus it would seem - esp. if the doctrine of Pius X is deemed worthy of assent of mind and will - that RCs are to thus follow the anti-fracking, seeming socialist, anti-capitalist, doctrinal marginalizing, evangelical-affirming non-proselytization pope, as well as all V2 teaches, or varying degrees, or be of the traditionalists who dissent from so much modern teaching based upon their interpretation of historical teaching.
I personally have some concern over our present Pope and his upcoming encyclical on climate change....as a human, he is certainly entitled to express his opinion on it, but it is of no more value than yours or mine. Catholics will not be bound by it but should respect it for what it is....an opinion from a well educated world leader.
Then you must explain how you can absolve yourself from "Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority." Francis frequently invokes prior Catholic teaching, Scripture and pope in this encyclical which he cites as well as other popes, thus it cannot be held that this is not a matter of Catholic beliefs, as they relate to the social sphere.
It actually took over 1400 years after the last book was penned for Rome to provide an infallible, indisputable complete canon, after the death of Luther.
My answer is ‘no’. Peter was ‘dethroned’ when Paul started writing all of his Letters to the world, whereas Peter wanted to keep the acts of ‘mikvas’ and ‘brits’(sp) to ensure the followers attained Jewishness, through the wasteful shedding of blood.
That is reading more out of Gal. 2 than is warranted. Peter upheld Gentile inclusion apart from placing them under the Law in Acts 15:7-9, but in a moment of weakness it seems he socially sided with the elite Jewish believers.
Indeed. If Peter was called the Rock upon whom the church was continually built and was thus looked as that, rather than “this rock” in Mt. 16:18 referring to the truth of Peters confession and by extension Christ, then we most certainly would see this affirmed in the rest of the NT. However, in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8) Rome's current catechism attempts to have Peter himself as the rock as well, but also affirms: “On the rock of this faith confessed by St Peter, Christ build his Church,” (pt. 1, sec. 2, cp. 2, para. 424) which understanding some of the ancients concur with.
Of course, as Peter never is shown exercising any unique power, while that the gospel are the keys or key to the kingdom is manifest as it is by faith in it that one is translated into that kingdom.
It is actually more evident that it was James whose word was taken as gospel by the leaders in the Church>>>>>>>>>
I suppose that is another thing we would never stop arguing about as Peter took what Jesus said about the lack of authority among the apostles serious.
But it seems very likely to me that even though the Catholic church holds Peter as the first Pope their doctrine is built around Paul`s teachings rather than Peters.
Oh does that mean that there are not 30,000 protestants?
I was under the impression that each could make there own interpretation of the teaching of Jesus?
Haven't read the article. Don't care to waste my time with it.
But your comment is very erudite.
My comment is that the Church survived the Borgia. It will, by God's grace, survive the Bergoglio.
Well, you have the traditionalist RCs as yourself, who judge aspects of V2 teaching as not being valid RC teaching, based upon your judgment of historical teaching.
Then you have those who call you a Protestant for basically so doing as they do in order to ascertain the veracity of truth claims, if using Scripture.
And who affirm baptized Prots in general as brethren, if separated, while others affirm the work and bloody means of the Inquisitions.
Of course, if we go by Scripture we see that the only one true church is the body of Christ, as it alone always only 100% consists of true believers, while the visible church thru which they express faith are an amalgam of wheat and tares.
Where do you get the infallible perpetuated Petrine papacy, Mary of Catholicism, NT pastors distinctively named priests, consuming human flesh to obtain spiritual life, praying to created beings in Heaven, etc. out of Paul's writings?
All and more are actually absent from Scripture.
You mean you think things are that bad?
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.