Catholicism aligning with Islam should be setting off all their alarm systems....but as in the past most will simply shut them off......they have not learned from their past...AGAIN!
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.
😂 I just thought I would liven things up a little. Glad you liked it. 😇🇺🇸🇵🇭
Your personal protest opinion.
I didn’t say it wasn’t faith. I said he did God’s will.
Do you not agree that faith is a positive action (work, effort) that one has to do in order to accept God’s teaching, love and will?
Are you so tied to the protest doctrine that you do not understand the meaning of words (especially God’s words)?
Why so much animosity towards the Catholic faith and teaching in God? Are you so indoctrinated by the protest doctrine?
God’s peace be with you.
Ahhh, so is this why some Catholics brag about how many times they go to Mass per week? Some go every day. Must have Jesus in their digestive system at all times? Never occurred to me before.
It is best to remember that all of the excesses and extravagances are unimportant and a distraction and that a direct relationship with God is most important.
Praying often and directly to God, acknowledging our sins to Him and finally recognizing Christ's gift. That is all that is needed (IMHO).
Also, I say this with reservation because I am humbled before God and understand the respect that is due to Him. I am not an expert nor do I profess to be. I am only a flawed sinner like the rest trying to sort it all out.
>>You do not believe, so it is up to God to judge you and your faith.<<
Could you perhaps be a little bit more pompous?
Ouch.
For those with eyes to see and ears to hear.
Those without will rationalize, deflect, and excuse.
A little consistency would be nice, but I'm certainly not expecting it because it would demolish more of their doctrine.
Excellent points sir. It has been so long since I was a catholic, I can hardly remember. I seem to remember they told us if we went to mass for nine straight first Fridays, or five straight first Saturdays, we could get someone out of purgatory. It gave me a sense of power, like the Mormons baptism for the dead. I only went through the motions, because I didn't think that I was even good enough to qualify for purgatory. I thought I would go to Hell, and it bothered me. I didn't feel like being a good sport, and getting someone into Heaven, when I was pretty sure I would be in Hell fire. Not a good deal I thought. If I was in hell, I think answering someone's prayer, would be the absolute last thing on my mind. Does that help? 😇
The Israelites were given two feasts when they were to focus on bread. The Feast of Weeks (Pentecost) and the Passover. The Passover came first and was performed using unleavened bread, signifying the speed at which they had to leave Egypt, not even waiting for the yeast to raise the dough. The Feast of Weeks, Pentecost, is celebrated with LEAVENED bread, two loaves of leavened bread. The bread of Pentecost has a waiting period while the leaven brings the bread to proper form for baking.
I know you know these things, but the readers being pingponged back and forth may like to have a prefiguring of what God is doing, instead of the confusion of catholicism.
The Holy Spirit is the Leaven of God. The two loaves represent the Jews and the Gentiles.
That leaven came at Pentecost. Blood was not a part of the arrival of God's Life in the believers at Pentecost. Some might ask why? Why no blood involved at Pentecost since the Bible clearly says that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin, no atonement? The Passover lamb's blood was spread upon the doorpost and lentils. No blood at Pentecost? They were eating the Passover remembrance, where bloos is spread on the doorpost and lintel, but never put in a cup for drinking. But Jesus passed a cup of wine, fruit of the vine, and then later poured out a cup of wine and told them the cup THE CUP of wine was for the new covenant where His blood would be shed, poured out, for them. So, no wine or blood at Pentecost?
The answer cannot be found in catholicism. They teach the sacrilege not the sacred. The blood of Atonement was ALWAYS spread upon the Mercy Set, not poured into cups for drinking.
That Blood of Christ which was shed at Calvary was spread upon the Mercy Seat, covering the laws of sin and death, so the believers at Peter's Church service needed no other blood for their Salvation and cleansing because Christ had already accomplished it. They received God's Life in them by believing in Him Whom God sent for their Salvation.
God's Leaven came into their doughy hearts because Christ had covered the law of sin and death that had been reigning in Judaism ever since the giving of the Law of Moses. God's LIFE is in the blood spread upon the Mercy Seat to cover the law of sin and death. To even pretend to drink His Blood is to perform a sacrilege instead of participating in the sacred remembrance.
The sacraments do NOT confer grace.
God's grace is lavished on us through faith in Christ, not through going through the motions of a ritual.
Ephesians 1:3-10 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
Romans 5:1-2 Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God.
John 1:14-17 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John bore witness about him, and cried out, “This was he of whom I said, ‘He who comes after me ranks before me, because he was before me.’”) For from his fullness we have all received, grace upon grace. For the law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ.
A short essay, if you wish.
I agree it’s like the Mormon baptism for the dead. Crazy stuff, Mark! Glad you ESCAPED! ;)
NO!
It takes a heart response, not ritual, sacrament, baptism, communion, acts of mercy, whatever physical activity that Catholics claim is necessary to gain or keep salvation.
If we work, our salvation is wages due, not a free gift. Forgiveness is not forgiveness if it is merited or earned.
God credited Abraham with righteousness BEFORE he ever did a thing except believe. When God established the covenant, Abraham was asleep for it. The work was God's
Genesis 15:1-21 After these things the word of the Lord came to Abram in a vision: “Fear not, Abram, I am your shield; your reward shall be very great.” But Abram said, “O Lord God, what will you give me, for I continue childless, and the heir of my house is Eliezer of Damascus?” And Abram said, “Behold, you have given me no offspring, and a member of my household will be my heir.” And behold, the word of the Lord came to him: “This man shall not be your heir; your very own son shall be your heir.” And he brought him outside and said, “Look toward heaven, and number the stars, if you are able to number them.” Then he said to him, “So shall your offspring be.” And he believed the Lord, and he counted it to him as righteousness.
And he said to him, “I am the Lord who brought you out from Ur of the Chaldeans to give you this land to possess.” But he said, “O Lord God, how am I to know that I shall possess it?” He said to him, “Bring me a heifer three years old, a female goat three years old, a ram three years old, a turtledove, and a young pigeon.” And he brought him all these, cut them in half, and laid each half over against the other. But he did not cut the birds in half. And when birds of prey came down on the carcasses, Abram drove them away.
As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the Lord said to Abram, “Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for you, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete.”
When the sun had gone down and it was dark, behold, a smoking fire pot and a flaming torch passed between these pieces. On that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying, “To your offspring I give this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates, the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Rephaim, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Girgashites and the Jebusites.”
Meant to ping you also, sir.
You didn’t answer my question. Do you still get hungry and thirsty? You do claim John 6 is to be taken literally right?
>>You do not believe, so it is up to God to judge you and your faith.<<
Could you perhaps be a little bit more pompous?
Yes. Every day I hunger and thirst for the Body and Blood of Christ.
You have stated that you do not believe, so I am stating the obvious. Pompous coming from a professional protestor?
God would not require Christians to take part in something as widespread as this that has an "accident" involved.
That's just word parsing to make it seem necessary to take communion only in the Catholic fashion although the way non-Catholics do it is closer to scriptural.
Catholicism aligning with Islam should be setting off all their alarm systems....but as in the past most will simply shut them off......they have not learned from their past...AGAIN!
Sorry, forgot to ping you. I don’t have a ping list so my old memory does slip.
Pingaling
Insolent bombast, as in reality it is you who manifest ignorance of this debate, as is it much the same as one i spent many posts on (as here ), refuting the absurd premise that Peter preached a different gospel until after he was enlightened in Acts 10. Thus i should not spend much time on this again.
I never said it was "as per Rome", and I resent that you imply that I am defending Rome.
I was referring to the aspect that Peter's authority flowed from him, but your premise that specific “keys” were given only to Peter is also an error. Peter was not even alone in preaching in Acts even before Acts 15, as Paul received the gospel of grace by special revelation, not from Peter, and was preaching it before Acts 15. (Gal. 1)
Wrong, and you only illustrated your erroneous conclusion that Petrine binding/loosing uniquely and simply pertained to his preaching the abrogation of the Law, and your confusion btwn preaching the Law as a means of salvation vs. being kosher in seeking to please God according to the light one has. Paul taught in Rm. 14 that one can even believe eating meat it wrong and yet be a believer..
Both Peter and Paul preached the death, resurrection and Lordship of Christ and consequently forgiveness of sins by faith and the promised outpouring of the Spirit to Jews and " and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call"(Acts 2:39) as "it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Acts 2:21) without any further sacrifices. Which was a realization of the latter day promise of Joel 2, and which gospel "key" looses souls from their dammed state and places them into the kingdom, and which is not salvation under the Law
Those who reject the gospel remain bound in their sins. Early Jewish believers yet kept the ceremonial law (which rendered Gentiles ceremonially unclean) in expressing their obedience to God (like as we keep the moral law) according to the light they had, though certain false brethren, whom Paul wished were cut off (or castrated) sought to be justified by law keeping, versus by faith in Christ, which required repenting from, which Peter did not do, but realized the abrogation of the ceremonial law as a result of the vision of Acts 10.
The Church had no choice other than to start out as a sect of Judaism until Ac.15, keeping the Old Covenant Law as any Jews did (despite that this directly contradicts the gospel).
Then all the apostles were preaching a false gospel, even as late as Acts 21, and needed to repent. However, they were not keeping the law as a means of salvation, which is not what Peter preached and which is what is condemned, as is as not walking in the further light that showed Jews and Gentile as equal candidates for salvation and recipients of it.
What Peter did preach in Acts 2 is essentially the same as Acts 10, and Paul in Rm. 10. Paul taught that one who believes, calls upon, confesses the Lord Jesus will be saved (though the faith behind it is what appropriates justification), as did Peter, with baptism being a more manifest confession of Christ than doing so with one's lips. The Jews did not realize the implications of this, that the latter-day promise of Joel 2 and what all "not according to the covenant" the institution of the New Covenant entailed, yet they were saved by grace.
Though it was initially presumed that faith in Christ entailed not only obedience to the moral law (which is fulfilled as one walks in the Spirit in looking to Christ: (Acts 8:4) yet it was not salvation as under the Law that Peter preached, while binding/loosing took place in Acts 2 as well as 10.
God did this by giving Peter the "keys" to bind and loose the Law - both one-time events.
Wrong, for as said, Paul received the gospel of grace by special revelation, not from Peter, and was preaching it before Acts 15. (Gal. 1) Thus in Acts 15 he and Barnabas gave testimony about the saving of the Gentiles thru them.
Read thru the thread i referenced as it is much the same issue. I am trying to install a couple operating systems so i am not going into this further now.
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.