Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[LittleLambofJesus]

In this case I mean both. My point being that "The Catholic Church" (the Church I belong to...the worldwide Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome consisting of 24 individual Churches) does not consider its founding date to be the day that the individual Roman Church was first formed. Rather, we claim "The Catholic Church" was founded by Jesus on the Apostles and was "born" in a manner of speaking at Pentecost. Therefore each of the individual Churches that sprang from that point in time are organically connected, but they each have their own distinct start dates as individual Churches. Thus, a FEW Eastern Churches were "started" as an individual Church before the Roman Church was started (although not very many of them were), but MOST Eastern Churches were started AFTER the Roman Church.

But BOTH the Roman Church (and those Eastern Churches in Communion with her), and the Orthodox Churches (read: Eastern and Oriental) trace their shared heritage to the Apostles and Pentecost. And THIS Church we (Catholics) call The Catholic Church even though at that time the very early Christians did not. As you know, the word catholic - as a word and not a proper name - was first coined in Antioch circa 100 AD. It described one of the Marks of the Church.

At first, of course, there were no churches that was differed from the teachings of the Apostles. But things changed, and this affected how the Church began to refer to itself.

Jimmy Akin explains:

The whole article can be read here if you are interested.
Soooo...all that being said...which particular EO Church do you consider yourself to be a part of?
God's Peace,
NewMan

Greetings. Christianity/The Church isn't about Protestism, Catholicism or Orthodoxy nor about my membership in the EO Church.

This thread is specifically on Roman Catholicism. God bless

Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

 

[Albion]

In this case I mean both. My point being that "The Catholic Church" (the Church I belong to...the worldwide Church in Communion with the Bishop of Rome consisting of 24 individual Churches) does not consider its founding date to be the day that the individual Roman Church was first formed.

That is the (Roman Catholic) Church's position, all right. But then again, it is the position taken by almost EVERY OTHER Christian church with regard to its own origins, meaning that the tracing of one's church back to Christ is hardly anything for Christians of different communions to debate.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ again withdraws from this thread as a notification I got today upset me a little bit.......some things just never change on CF.....90 pages on this thread and nothing has been resolved sigh

Have a blessed Memorial day holiday and God bless....

 

[JimfromOhio]

Catholic theology is a combination of two things: the Bible and Tradition. To them, which one will be more superior than the other? The Jews of Jesus’ day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it. Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself. Today, it is only the RCC is putting Tradition ahead of the Scriptures. Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much “the Word of God” as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other.

 

[Trento]

=JimfromOhio;51775780]Catholic theology is a combination of two things: the Bible and Tradition. To them, which one will be more superior than the other? The Jews of Jesus’ day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it. Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself. Today, it is only the RCC is putting Tradition ahead of the Scriptures. Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much “the Word of God” as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other.

In the Babylonian Talmud, the formal commentary on the Jewish Laws compiled between 200-500 AD, there's a powerful reference to Jesus:

• It has been taught: On the Eve of the Passover, they hanged Yeshu. And an announcer went out in front of him, for forty days saying: 'he is going to be stoned because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray.' Anyone who knows anything in his favor, let him come and plead in his behalf.' But, not having found anything in his favor, they hanged him on the Eve of the Passover.1

This is considered to be a very credible reference to Jesus ("Yeshu") from the Jewish tradition. Here, the rabbinical writers verify that Jesus was an historic figure, that he was crucified on the eve of the Passover and that he did miracles, referred to as "sorcery." The events surrounding the life of Jesus were not denied, but definitely verified in the Jewish tradition.

Protestant scholar Ellen Flessman-van Leer, in her Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Van Gorcum, 1953, 139, 188), writes:

[SIZE=-1]For Irenaeus, . . . tradition and scripture are both quite unproblematic. They stand independently side by side, both absolutely authoritative, both unconditionally true, trustworthy, and convincing.​

[SIZE=-1]Irenaeus and Tertullian point to the church tradition as the authoritative locus of the unadulterated teaching of the apostles, they cannot longer appeal to the immediate memory, as could the earliest writers. Instead they lay stress on the affirmation that this teaching has been transmitted faithfully from generation to generation. One could say that in their thinking, apostolic succession occupies the same place that is held by the living memory in the Apostolic Fathers.[/SIZE]


( Protestant Patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 5th ed., 1978, 47-48


[SIZE=-1]It should be unnecessary to accumulate further evidence. Throughout the Patristic period Scripture and tradition ranked as complementary authorities, media different in form but[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]coincident in content. To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper & Row, 5th ed., 1978, 47-48[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]. . . in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [1 Timothy 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e., the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture and correctly interpreted in the Church's unerring tradition.[/SIZE] [SIZE=-1](J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper, rev. ed., 1978, 50-51; emphasis added)[/SIZE]
​

​

[/SIZE]

 

[Rick Otto]

LLOJ again withdraws from this thread as a notification I got today upset me a little bit.......some things just never change on CF.....90 pages on this thread and nothing has been resolved sigh

Have a blessed Memorial day holiday and God bless....

Would it help if you were to stop expecting resolution? Can you imagine any good coming out of healthy discussion even without "resolution" whatever on Candy Mountain that means?

 

[JimfromOhio]

Would help if you were to stop expecting resolution? Can you imagine any good coming out of healthy discussion even without "resolution" whatever on Candy Mountain that means?

There won't be resolution in this area. We will always be divided. Maybe, in the future, this topic ought to be avoided.

 

[Rick Otto]

." The events surrounding the life of Jesus were not denied, but definitely verified in the Jewish tradition.

Um,... calling the miracles of God "sorcery" is a denial, Trento. Not that they happened, but that they are of God.

. . . in the end the Christian must, like Timothy [1 Timothy 6:20] 'guard the deposit', i.e., the revelation enshrined in its completeness in Holy Scripture

That much, I do.

and correctly interpreted in the Church's unerring tradition.

If one existed, I would.

 

[Trento]

Would it help if you were to stop expecting resolution? Can you imagine any good coming out of healthy discussion even without "resolution" whatever on Candy Mountain that means?

Dodge City Truth comission. Front,

left to right: Charles E. Basset, Wyatt S. Earp, Frank McLain, and Neil Brown. Back, left to right: W. H. Harris, Luke Short, ​

W. B. Bat Masterson and W. F. Petillon. ​

 

[Rick Otto]

Ok, maybe I was being a bit harsh. (lol)

 

[NewMan99]

As for me, I don't expect "resolution" this side of the great divide. However, I do hope that something beneficial can be gained in the meantime through discussions such as this. Sometimes I learn something...sometimes I help others learn something...somtimes I gain new friendships...but always we should hold our eyes up on high and praise God for bringing us to this place at this time. What we choose to make of it is up to us.

 

[Standing Up]

There won't be resolution in this area. We will always be divided. Maybe, in the future, this topic ought to be avoided.

I beg to differ. There will be resolution and there will be division.

 

[NewMan99]

Catholic theology is a combination of two things: the Bible and Tradition. To them, which one will be more superior than the other? The Jews of Jesus’ day also placed tradition on an equal footing with Scripture. Rather, in effect, they made tradition superior to Scripture, because Scripture was interpreted by tradition and therefore made subject to it. Christianity has often followed the same tragic road as paganism and Judaism in its tendency to elevate tradition to a position of authority equal to or greater than Scripture. The Catholic Church in particular has its own body of tradition that functions exactly like the Jewish Talmud: it is the standard by which Scripture is to be interpreted. In effect, tradition supplants the voice of Scripture itself. Today, it is only the RCC is putting Tradition ahead of the Scriptures. Tradition, according to Roman Catholicism, is therefore as much “the Word of God” as Scripture. According to the Catechism, Tradition and Scripture “are bound closely together and communicate one with the other.

The difficulty in this, Jim, is that even you, too, have a "traditional" way of interpreting the Bible. We all interpret the Holy Writ through our respective traditional lenses. Additionally, Jesus did not condemn all tradition. He only condemned the practice of those who elevated traditions of men into the realm of Traditions of God.

 

[Standing Up]

LLOJ again withdraws from this thread as a notification I got today upset me a little bit.......some things just never change on CF.....90 pages on this thread and nothing has been resolved sigh

Have a blessed Memorial day holiday and God bless....

What is a "notification", if I might ask?

 

[Standing Up]

Um,... calling the miracles of God "sorcery" is a denial, Trento. Not that they happened, but that they are of God.

Excellent pick up on that point. Thank you.

What do they mean 'eve of Passover'? Crucified on "eve of Passover', when is that?

 

[JoabAnias]

We haven't & we won't - rest assured. When Ezekiel thought he was the only faithful guy in Isreal, the "one true" believer,... God showed him a remnant of 7,000 He had kept to Himself.

I don't know anyone alive who knows for sure what happened to those who walked away from Jesus in John 6. They might be saved, they may not, I don't know or have any way to find out. I expect they had more choices to make after that.

Joh 6:66 From this time many of His disciples went away into the things behind, and no longer walked with Him.

This is what all false teaching denominations do.

Jesus knew from the beginning who would not believe Him:

Joh 6:65 And He said, Because of this, I have told you that no one is able to come to Me except it is given to him from My Father.

We don't claim otherwise. We claim your monopolization of it is not "unbiblical" as the bible prophesies it, it is "unscriptural" because it defies scriptural truth.

What you claim is that false teachings, as only one teaching can be true, can somehow constitute a foundation for a valid Church which is contrary to the Bibles teaching and a foundation of sand that continues to crumble and divide exponentially.

Which is it; either the Bible is true or it isn't. It can't be both.

We can't make up new or false teachings contrary to the Bible and what has been apostolically handed down to create a Church based on them and culpably expect thats good enough.

Jesus says otherwise. No one has a right to change the teaching of the Bible for any reason.

Thats exactly what all the denominations from the Church who teach falsely attempt to do. Its impossible. God changes not and promises to never let the Church go into error.

Sure, Jesus said He would bring many others along with the wheat. He never said who or if they would be the ones who deny Him or His Church or otherwise try to choke out the wheat. In fact, I think He said the opposite; that He would know them not who deny or turn away from Him.

Joh 10:16 And other sheep I have that are not of this fold: them also I must bring. And they shall hear my voice: And there shall be one fold and one shepherd. (We know who they are though you would not agree).

Mat 7:23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; "depart from Me, those working lawlessness!" Psa. 6:8

Denying what has been infallibly handed down in Sacred Holy Scripture is essentially stating that the Bible lies when it says:

Mt 16:18 And so I say to you, you are "Rock", and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.

You are in a circular position that is condemned by my Sacred Holy Scriptures themselves.

2 Thess. 3:14 "If any one refuses to obey what we say in this letter, note that man, and have nothing to do with him, that he may be ashamed".

Rom. 16:17 "Take note of those who create dissensions and difficulties, in opposition to the doctrine which you have been taught; avoid them".

No one in a state of mortal sin or heresy or anathema are blessed to receive Christs body and blood as He commands us to do.

Changing the teaching of the Scripture is hardly hearing the Lords voice.

Luk 6:46 And why call you me, Lord, Lord; and do not the things which I say?

Luk 12:37 Blessed are those servants whom the Lord, when he cometh, shall find watching.

Woe to the one who mistakenly thinks he can be found watching without Bible, Church and Tradition.

 

[Standing Up]

BUT Jesus set up a doctrine when He established the Papacy.
The bearer of the keys which open and shut His doctrines on earth for man.
AND since the Church was built on the foundation of Peter -snip

Is this (Church was built on the foundation of Peter) official RCC or one RCC person? Surely it can't be official RCC because it is so obviously false.

Eph. 2:20 having been built on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets (plurals), Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone,}

Rev. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

Since Scripture clearly says that the idea of a single Apostle foundation is false, where did the idea of a Papacy arise?

Papacy "The ecclesiastical system in which the pope governs the Catholic Church as its supreme head; also, the papal influence viewed as a political force in history." from NewAdvent

See "political force" acknowledged NewMan99, as in HQ of the Roman Empire?

So yes, I would again assert that the Papacy idea obviously and clearly did not begin from Scripture per the verses shown above, but began or developed from Clement of Rome as seen in his letter to the Corinthians circa 100.

There is nothing in Clement's letter about keys, rock, chair, or any of the other well known RCC explanations, but there is this explanation:

"And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, a faithful servant in all his house, noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister unto Him. And when the morning was come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

That is the presumption of the RCC (and as noted above, it helps to have that political force connection, being HQ of the Roman Empire.

The presumption is that all of the Churches are tribes, but the RCC alone is of the Levitical tribe.

 

[Standing Up]

JoabAnias--

How do you understand the "falling away", the apostasy prophesied to come in Thessalonians?

 

[NewMan99]

I am not Joab, but I would like to take a stab at this...

Is this (Church was built on the foundation of Peter) official RCC or one RCC person? Surely it can't be official RCC because it is so obviously false.

Eph. 2:20 having been built on the foundation (singular) of the apostles and prophets (plurals), Christ Jesus Himself being the corner {stone,}

Rev. 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundation stones, and on them {were} the twelve names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

You are putting things in an either/or context...as if the Church cannot be built BOTH on the Apostles as a whole as well as on Peter who was commissioned to a special ministry within the whole. We see it as a both/and. We would not say that the Church was built on Peter alone to the exclusion of the other Apostles.

Since Scripture clearly says that the idea of a single Apostle foundation is false, where did the idea of a Papacy arise?

From Christ Himself who commissioned Peter to a special ministry. But again, nobody is saying that the Church was not ALSO built on all the Apostles.

Papacy "The ecclesiastical system in which the pope governs the Catholic Church as its supreme head; also, the papal influence viewed as a political force in history." from NewAdvent

Yeah? And your point is what?

See "political force" acknowledged NewMan99, as in HQ of the Roman Empire?

Hmmm...I suspect what I actually said is somewhat different than how you are quoting me. The Church was never the HQ of the Imperial Roman State. The Emperor himself was the center of political power...and he was often at odds with the Papacy - even after Christianity was legalized. Now, did the Papacy have to assume a "political" style? Sure. And did the Church have to operate on a political level (if nothing else more than to keep heretical emperors at bay)? Sure...but that does not mean the Church was the HQ of the Roman Empire (especially since the actual HQ of the Roman Empire was no longer in Rome, but in Constantinople).

So yes, I would again assert that the Papacy idea obviously and clearly did not begin from Scripture per the verses shown above, but began or developed from Clement of Rome as seen in his letter to the Corinthians circa 100.

And yet does Clement claim anywhere in his letter that he was assuming a new sort of authority that was of his own design??? No. In fact, he asserts quite the opposite:

Chapter 42

The apostles have preached the Gospel to us from the Lord Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ has done so from God. Christ therefore was sent forth by God, and the apostles by Christ. Both these appointments, then, were made in an orderly way, according to the will of God. Having therefore received their orders, and being fully assured by the resurrection of our Lord Jesus Christ, and established in the word of God, with full assurance of the Holy Ghost, they went forth proclaiming that the kingdom of God was at hand. And thus preaching through countries and cities, they appointed the first-fruits of their labours, having first proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops and deacons of those who should afterwards believe. Nor was this any new thing, since indeed many ages before it was written concerning bishops and deacons. For thus says the Scripture a certain place, "I will appoint their bishops in righteousness, and their deacons in faith."

Now look carefully at the first sentence above. Clement says that "The Apostles have preached the Gospel to us..." ... and this doesn't seem very unique does it? No. We, too, can say the same thing. When we read the Bible we HEAR the preaching of the Apostles. Right? But in this case, Clement has a very big advantage over us...because when he says that the Apostles preached "TO US" - what he means is that he PERSONALLY learned DIRECTLY from the Apostles (as a co-worker of Peter and Paul) and that the Corinthians ALSO learned directly from an Apostle (Paul). So it adds a rather extra dimension into the context, doesn't it? And what does Clement go on to say? He said that God sending forth Jesus, who then sent forth the Apostles to preach to the nations was made "in an orderly way"...and when the Apostles went forth they eventually appointed others who would then continue the SAME ministry "afterwards." This scenario was "not a new thing". New things, in this context, is not even in the picture. The whole thrust of this argument by Clement is FIDELITY to the mission given to any given person in the chain. That is why he was complaining to those who deposed the rightful Bishops in the first place.

So, with that being said, on what basis are we to make the rather huge leap to say that Clement was making up new powers and a new level of authority that he knew from PERSONAL experience and PERSONAL witness that the Apostles did not claim for themselves or their successors? If Clement was "re-making" his Bishopric into a new office with new prerogitives...loosely similar to the office of the papacy as we know it...then what makes him any different than those "power-grabbers" in Corinth he was rightfully chastising??? It's a really good question and I urge you to mull it over.

For it makes far more sense to acknowledge Clement's profound sense of fidelity to the Apostolic mission he was comissisioned for...and then gather from that that when Clement presumes to instruct and chastise the Corinthians in a somewhat "papal" fashion, he is only doing so because that is the duty of the office that he already occupies. And he doesn't presume to make up a new and unique level of authority...rather...he only assumes the mantle of authority that Peter gave to his successors - and nothing more and nothing less. If anyone would know exactly what level of authority the Bishop of Rome would REALLY have...it would be someone who learned directly from Peter and Paul. In other words, it would be someone like Clement. He would know the distinction between presuming a new authority and assuming an authority that was already his by the very nature of the office itself.

So, in my opinion, you are right that Clement was developing and asserting authority that is "papal" in style...however...you are wrong to say that "the papacy idea" began with Clement. Clement was too plugged into the mission given to him by the Apostles start something NEW on his own.

There is nothing in Clement's letter about keys, rock, chair, or any of the other well known RCC explanations,

You are right - but then again - as I have said several times in this thread - Clement's Letter to the Corinthians was never intended to be a theological treatise on the Papacy. Therefore there is no reason to expect he would mention things like Keys, or rock, or chair, or whatever. What we would be looking for would be whether or not he exercised authority over the Corinthians...and he did. And since he did, then it is not unreasonable to conclude that Clement acted in papal fashion (which is something that you are even implying yourself).

but there is this explanation:

"And what wonder is it if those in Christ who were entrusted with such a duty by God, appointed those [ministers] before mentioned, when the blessed Moses also, a faithful servant in all his house, noted down in the sacred books all the injunctions which were given him, and when the other prophets also followed him, bearing witness with one consent to the ordinances which he had appointed? For, when rivalry arose concerning the priesthood, and the tribes were contending among themselves as to which of them should be adorned with that glorious title, he commanded the twelve princes of the tribes to bring him their rods, each one being inscribed with the name of the tribe. And he took them and bound them [together], and sealed them with the rings of the princes of the tribes, and laid them up in the tabernacle of witness on the table of God. And having shut the doors of the tabernacle, he sealed the keys, as he had done the rods, and said to them, Men and brethren, the tribe whose rod shall blossom has God chosen to fulfil the office of the priesthood, and to minister unto Him. And when the morning was come, he assembled all Israel, six hundred thousand men, and showed the seals to the princes of the tribes, and opened the tabernacle of witness, and brought forth the rods. And the rod of Aaron was found not only to have blossomed, but to bear fruit upon it. What think ye, beloved? Did not Moses know beforehand that this would happen? Undoubtedly he knew; but he acted thus, that there might be no sedition in Israel, and that the name of the true and only God might be glorified; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen."

Why did you quote this? What is it saying to you?

That is the presumption of the RCC (and as noted above, it helps to have that political force connection, being HQ of the Roman Empire.

Well, as I have pointed out to more people in this thread than just you...in the year 90 AD, Clement would have had ZERO political connection to the politicial machinery of the Roman Empire. Christianity wasn't exactly warmly embraced by the Roman Empire during that era.

But let's look at what you think is our supposed presumption:

The presumption is that all of the Churches are tribes, but the RCC alone is of the Levitical tribe.

Metaphorically or actually? Look, we don't claim to be Levites. We do claim that the New Covenant priesthood (conferred via the laying on of hands going back to the Apostles) succeeded the Levitical priesthood - but it is NOT the Levitical priesthood. The Levitical priesthood was destroyed along with the Temple in 70 AD.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Rick Otto]

As for me, I don't expect "resolution" this side of the great divide. However, I do hope that something beneficial can be gained in the meantime through discussions such as this. Sometimes I learn something...sometimes I help others learn something...somtimes I gain new friendships...but always we should hold our eyes up on high and praise God for bringing us to this place at this time. What we choose to make of it is up to us.

Can you get me wholesale on a couple gallons of holy water?