Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[TraderJack]

WAIT FOR ME!!! LOL
I'm in the middle of those two perspective points.
It isn't that they are "loosey goosey" in the sense I found the charismatics to be uncomfortably vague in their terminology, I grew up in the RC where sophisticated complexity of detail is an ever expanding art form. Latin is the enabling accomplice in that pursuit.
But the task of guilding the gospel lily is unceasing. If it isn't responding to doubts & seducing unbelievers, it simply revels in its own waxing effusive.

So my perspective is that the overwhelming complexity of articulation is there, but it is 98% camoflage.

Oddly enough, the aesthetic, Anthony of Egypt, in the 3rd century predicted that there would arise an organization under the Christian banner that would make unto itself a religion so complicated that it would utterly destroy the simplicity of the Gospel Truth, and likened it to the legalistic system of the Pharisees.

Could he have been predicting the rise of Roman Catholicism in the medieval period?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

It isn't me and Jesus - it's WE and Jesus

Bob, you quoting a popular Protestant proverb often used to distance ourselves from Catholicism -


IMHO, and from my experience, there's no denomination on the planet (with the possible exception of the LDS) that even comes close to the RCC's obsession with ITself, and that insists that the church essentially is ITself. "Jesus and ME!!!!!!" The whole foundation of the RCC is that assertion of self alone for self alone. And virtually all discussions with Catholics about nearly anything in Catholicism all boils down to that insistence of self for self (as did our little discussion here).


Thank you!


Pax


- Josiah




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

It depends on who "we" is.

Ya think?

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by LittleLambofJesus

Hi NM......Perhaps because most here disagree with Roman Catholicism and Papal supremacy?
That usually ends up being the case in these kinds of threads from what I have seen....God bless
​

It's a fair question - but the reality is that I am not really concerned with agreement - I rather expect that many here will not agree with Catholicism and Papal Supremacy.

I'm surprised to hear that you are not concerned with agreement, considering all we hear from Roman Catholics about "unity" and "being of one mind", and all it's claims of being "the one and only true church" and it's claims that unity means being in union with the pope of Rome.

Now, I agree with Christ and the Scriptures, that there can only be true unity when that unity is founded on and based on truth.

If the self proclaimed claims of Roman Catholicism concerning the papacy are true, and are as Rome claims, are "Divine truth", then there is of neccessity in obedience to God of Christians to be in agreement and unity in that "Divine Truth", if it is "Divine Truth".

On the other hand, if those claims are not true, then there is the obligation of Christians to be in obedience to the Divine Commands recorded and preserved in the Scriptures to not only reject those claims as false, but to not be joined in any false sense of unity to falsehoods, and to expose and oppose any organization making claims of "Divine Truth" that are not, for such claims would constitute an organization operating in the role of a false prophet, since false prophets declare their pronouncements are "Divine Truth" when they are not, thus claiming to be speaking for God presumptuously, which is condemned by Scripture with the most severe condemnation.

Wouldn't you agree that such claims of eternal consequences as are made by Roman Catholicism concerning the papacy, must either be agreed to or not, as a matter of truth and unity?

 

[TraderJack]

But let's now turn to the initial part of my stated premise.

I defined the Papacy as: "The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church."

This refers to THE MINISTRY of Simon Peter and all those who succeed him to that ministry.

A rather severe problem with that definition is that Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism only, came to define the Roman bishops as the exclusive reciprients of the "chair of Peter", whereas the early church defined the "chair of Peter" being received by every bishop and every Christian as they preached the Gospel.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

A rather severe problem with that definition is that Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism only, came to define the Roman bishops as the exclusive reciprients of the "chair of Peter", whereas the early church defined the "chair of Peter" being received by every bishop and every Christian as they preached the Gospel.

CF sure is laggy this morning............

http://www.christianforums.com/t7321693/
Chair of Peter question

 

[Standing Up]

Part 2 (this is a continuation of Post #296)
-snip-


Okay - we need to take a little detour because plenty of Protestants (in particular) might object at this point and claim that John 21 doesn't say anything about a special ministry involving universal jurisdiction. The claim by many is that Jesus was merely restoring Peter's Apostolic status after Peter's repentance due to his three-fold denial after Jesus' arrest. In other words, Jesus merely restored Peter to the same ministry of ALL the other Apostles to feed and tend the sheep. Nothing special or unique here relative to the ministries of the other Apostles. At least - that is what many Protestants will claim.

But this interpretation runs into some problems once we turn to a similar situation as told in Luke 22:31-32, which reads:

“Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your [singular] own faith may not fail; and once you [singular] have turned back, you [singular] must strengthen your brothers [plural].”

Peter is not merely one among many, rather he is singled out to strengthen the welfare of all. In other words, it is a special unique ministry being commissioned - that of the vicarious shepherd.

So in looking next at the following two verses, we can see an even stronger case being made. For in Luke 22:33-34 we see where Jesus PREDICTS Peter's three-fold denial. As stated above, the common Protestant objection is that the three-fold re-commission in John 21 is merely to restore Peter to his Apostleship after he denied Christ three times. But the problem with that view is that Peter's three-fold denial as predicted by Jesus is CONTRASTED not with Peter's apostleship, but rather with Peter's special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles - and this comes BEFORE Peter's denial. Therefore if the restoration in John 21 restores anything it MUST INCLUDE with it the commission that Peter was given in Luke 22 too! In other words, if Peter is "restored" then that means he is fully restored to ALL that he was commissioned for by Jesus - especially when the commission in Luke 22 SPECIFIES that all the Apostles would be ground like wheat (insert here the events of the Passion including Peter's denial) and that once he (Peter) "turns back" (insert here his three-fold repentance in John 21) THEN he (Peter) was commanded to strengthen the others. So there it is - in both Luke 22 AND John 21 Peter is commissioned and re-commissioned as the vicarious shepherd over the whole flock in the physical absence of the Good Shepherd.

-snip-

End of Part 2 - Part 3 to follow (eventually)

God's Peace,

NewMan

I notice that no one responded to your argument, which I thought was a good one. So good that, there aren't any replies yet.

Anyway, Christ told Peter to strengthen his brothers. Thus Peter has a unique ministry. The RCC lays claim to it. Right?

Strengthen his brothers.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

21) THEN he (Peter) was commanded to strengthen the others. So there it is - in both Luke 22 AND John 21 Peter is commissioned and re-commissioned as the vicarious shepherd over the whole flock in the physical absence of the Good Shepherd.

And also the "Chief Shepherd"

1Peter 5:4 And of being made manifest the Chief-Shepherd/arci-poimenoV <750>, ye shall be being requitted the unfading crown of the glory

Reve 19:15 And out of the mouth of Him is going forth a sword keen, that in her He should be *smiting the nations and He shall be Shepherding/poimanei <4165> (5692) them in rod iron.
And He is treading the winepress of the wine of the fury [*and] of the wrath of the God the Almighty

 

[Trento]

A rather severe problem with that definition is that Roman Catholicism and Roman Catholicism only, came to define the Roman bishops as the exclusive reciprients of the "chair of Peter", whereas the early church defined the "chair of Peter" being received by every bishop and every Christian as they preached the Gospel.

Cyprian of Carthage


"The Lord says to Peter: &#8216;I say to you,&#8217; he says, &#8216;that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.&#8217; . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).


Jerome
"Simon Peter, the son of John, from the village of Bethsaida in the province of Galilee, brother of Andrew the apostle, and himself chief of the apostles, after having been bishop of the church of Antioch and having preached to the Dispersion . . . pushed on to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero. At his hands he received the crown of martyrdom being nailed to the cross with his head towards the ground and his feet raised on high, asserting that he was unworthy to be crucified in the same manner as his Lord" (Lives of Illustrious Men 1 [A.D. 396]).

 

[sunlover1]

I notice that no one responded to your argument, which I thought was a good one. So good that, there aren't any replies yet.

Anyway, Christ told Peter to strengthen his brothers. Thus Peter has a unique ministry. The RCC lays claim to it. Right?

Strengthen his brothers.

I didnt reply to it because of the length of the post
But I believe that Peter's ministry was unique, yes.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well...after some sleep and reflection I have pretty much decided that this thread has reached a point of diminishing returns - as such my participation in it will likely diminish as well.

I'm sad about that...

I promised earlier that I will provide some evidence to support Catholic claims that the Christian Church was pan-congregational and submitted to the authority of the Bishop of Rome on numerous occasions starting in the Apostolic era and afterward (well before the legalization of Christianity in the 300s AD). I will keep that promise (but not in this post).

Thank you!

IF it is historically factual that the specific Catholic Church existed before 31 AD (so that it is at least THEORETICALLY possible that Jesus founded it) and IF it is historically factual that the Bishop of the diocese of Rome was regarded by all congregations as the SURPREME, infallible vicar of Christ AS the legal/administrative head of the interdenominational institution (you don't want to call this a denomination, I know) at least from 65 AD, then you will have strengthened your case.

But I've been having this discussion with Catholics for several years (although perhaps rarely with an apologist as gifted as you). Each of them have instead well documented MY point - not theirs. That there was no denomination in those early years, that there is no evidence of bishops at all in 30 AD (in fact, not until perhaps 50 AD), and no mention of any bishop in Rome at all until near the end of the first century, long after Peter's death. There's nothing in Acts or the other Epistles that indicate anything unusual about Rome or the bishop there, or Peter for that matter. In 30 AD, we might have a congregation - but it doesn't seem at all instituted yet, and there's certianly no intercongregational institutioal (whatever term you desire to substitute for the standard one, denomination).

Now, if you end up showing that IN TIME (LONG after Jesus' earthly ministry ended around 30 AD), we seem to see the office of Bishop develop as one of supervising pastors and congregations. Now, seems hard to ME to say that Jesus founded this since Jesus never so much as mentioned it, and such doesn't seem to be the case until LONG after His death/resurrection. All this EVOLVED - and typically, the "evidence" proves this as we note the dates given: the LATER, the FURTHER away from Jesus, the more this seems to be the case. Of course, all this is entirely moot to whether the RCC was founded by Jesus since nearly all denominations has bishops (although not necessarily entitled by that specific English word) - and they are supervisory just as in the RCC. It just is entirely moot to the effort to prove the RCC founded by Jesus or that the Pope was always seen as the infallible SUPREME bishop, the vicar of Christ. This concept EVOLVED, slowly, and LONG after Jesus ascended in Heaven. Now, you could take the LDS view that Jesus CAME BACK to establish such - but I know you don't (too bad, it does make some sense and solves the problem I think history creates for you), and you could take the position that God was guiding this process (also credible) but then you must give up the point that Jesus founded all such before 31 AD and that it was always the case.

Now, it is clear that there were CHRISTIANS at least from the time that Our Lady embraced the angel's message. No need to confirm that. And there were congregations from the time Jesus called the Twelve and we see some examples of such in the NT itself. And yes, it seems that at least SOME institutional aspects developed in these congregations at least by the mid 50's (a generation AFTER Jesus' ascension). And we do see that Christians cared for Christians (Paul's collection for the saints in Jerusalem comes to mind) and at least some level of Christians doing things beyond their specific, local congregation institution - but nothing that suggests a ______________ (I know you don't want to call it by what it is technically known as). So, providing historical evidence of Christians and congregations just confirms what everyone agrees existed. But friend, there are STILL Christians and their congregations, just as much in the UMC as in the RCC. It has zero relevance to supporting that Jesus founded the specific CC ____________ or that the Bishop of the diocese at Rome was the infallible, supreme head of this ________________ from before 31 AD (or even 65 AD, more than a generation AFTER Jesus' glorious resurrection and thus Jesus could not have founded or establsihed such - there's at least a 30 year historic gab there).

CJ, you are a good man and I mean no offense here...but we are clearly still talking past each other. You continue to misunderstand some of the most fundamental concepts I have tried to explain over and over and over. Please know I am not asking you to AGREE with me, but it is of critical importance to fruitful dialog that we be able to at least understand each other and what we are actually saying. But what has continued to happen is that I will say something like, "I believe in ABC..." and you will reply with, "Now that I know you believe in XYZ...". This, to me, illustrates you don't understand what I said. Until you can repeat back to me my actual beliefs (so I know you UNDERSTAND what I am saying - again - I am not asking for agreement - I am asking for basic comprehension), there simply is no reason to continue much longer. I am not affixing blame to anyone - maybe I am just not doing a good job of explaining my beliefs.

Perhaps. Too bad you are giving up, but I accept that. From MY perspective, the RCC has two different theologies of the churchi. One is the Protestant view, that Christians are people - always have been, still are and always will be. The church is the communion of CHRISTIANS and thus of people. As Protestants are fond of saying, "It's not Jesus and ME, it's Jesus and WE." Here we agree, I could quote from your Catechism to affirm the Protestant position. We both embrace the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers. It's just that the RCC says this - and promptly forgets it - overwhemling it with it's second view of which it seems to obsess (because it is absolutely essential for why IT is special but only IT, why IT is infallible but only IT, why IT is the sole authority but only IT, why IT is the sole interpreter but only IT). That the church is, above all, an institutional ________________. And, of course, without this - its entirely basis crumbles: because if Jesus didn't found IT and give to IT (not Christians, but IT) then all what the RCC itself alone claims for itself alone actually belongs to Christians and not IT alone and the whole house of cards just collasped. It's the same with the LDS, everything it claims falls if Jesus didn't found IT. But, IMHO, from MY experience, here's where the discussion gets very difficult. The ONLY real point is: Did Jesus found IT - this specific, particular, institutional ______________ that is the Catholic Church we all know and love, because if not, then the whole self-claim collapses (historically anyway). But, the minute we get to that question - the Catholic changes topics and wants to talk about the communion of saints (the issue we agree on). "There were Christians!" No one argues that there weren't, there still are, in the UMC just as much as in the RCC - so what? It has nothing to do with whether Jesus founded the RCC but not the UMC! So, Protestants TRY to get the discussion back on the dispute and the foundational and critical POINT that the Catholic said he'd make, but..... Then the Catholic will quote snippets that there were bishops since the 50's. Okay, still are. In the UMC, too. "Hey, in the third century, someone called the Pope Supreme!" Okay. But Protestant keep trying to get the discussion to the POINT: Did Jesus found not the church catholic but the specific, particular RCC that we all know and love? But the Catholic wants to instead prove that He founded the church catholic and that their denomination EVOLVED as PEOPLE determined (which kind of confirmes our point and undermines the Catholic's point). It is this constant swifting of topics between the two different theologies of the church in Catholics, the old shell game, that keeps this going on endlessly, IMHO.

We need to AFFIRM that we ALL agree that the church catholic, the communion of saints, the mystical union of believers has existed since at least the moment Our Lady beleived. And the gates of hell will not prevail against it. And it still exists and always will. We need to AFFIRM that after the glorious resurrection of Our Lord, Christians shared their faith and assembled together into congregations, and in time, many of these took on institutional aspects. Christians loved each other, as Jesus commanded. They went and made disciples - baptizing and teaching, as Jesus commanded. They did not lord it over others as the gentiles did (do) - just as Jesus commanded. IN TIME, the office of the bishop developed into a role of supervising pastors and congregations. All this we AGREE on, so, historically documenting it just establishes that we are ALL correct. But all this is entirely moot to our discusion. Virtually all denominations have congregations were Christians can be found. Virtually all denominations have congregations, pastors and bishops (by some title). Nothing there that does a THING to affirm the foundational claim of the RCC alone for itself alone. In fact, it affirms that ALL our institutions evolved very, very slowly - by our actions and choices.

Frankly, I don't have the time or the energy for this kind of thing, and you have made several long posts that I just am unable to respond to (not because there isn't a response - but rather because there is too much to respond to).

Sad. Virtually all I posted was in direct response to what YOU posted. Friend, you have been alone is driving the discussion. YOU began this by your commend about how the Pope's voice is binding over the "whole universal church."

So here is what I intend to do...

In my next post I would like to make a few comments from some of your recent posts (kind of like housecleaning) to clear up a few minor things. I will try to avoid getting too deeply into the whole "denomination" issue because no matter how many times I have tried to explain my position, you just don't grasp what I am saying - and I don't know how else to explain it.

Then - in subsequent posts - I will provide the aforementioned "evidence" I promised earlier (and hopefully that will address at least some of Mike's concerns)

I will try to respond to your farewell post, when time permits.

I look forward to the historic "evidence" you will provide for Jesus founding the specific Catholic Church that we all know and love, not simply the one holy catholic church that we ALL agree He founded, and that the bishop of the diocese of Rome has ALWAYS been regarded as the infallible and supreme bishop above all and leader of the specific, particular, intercongregational __________________ we all know as The Catholic Church. (BTW, I'm going to be especially interested in the DATES to the evidence you provide, and if such refers to all - so that it is catholic - or just to a given diocese or to the Roman Empire which would mean its not catholic). You are probably the best Catholic apologist here at CF so I'm VERY grateful for you supplying the evidence. I will read it all with great care and attention, I promise. Accept my thanks in advance.



Thank you!


Pax!


- Josiah





.

 

[NewMan99]

CJ,

Bob, you quoting a popular Protestant proverb often used to distance ourselves from Catholicism -

That isn't an exclusively Protestant proverb, CJ. Catholics say it all the time - and have said similar things long before Protestantism ever existed.

Why is Catholicism "Jesus and WE" - not ME - aside from the fact that the very word "catholic" denotes universality (which is hardly a concept centered on singularity)?

After all, we believe in:

1. The Communion of Saints - this is HUGE with us. You claim to believe in the Communion of Saints (for which I applaud you), but very few Protestants even understand the concept.

2. Submitting to the teaching authority of the Church - we do not believe the INDIVIDUAL person has authority to teach others apart from what the Church teaches, nor may we personally dissent. This is a COMMUNAL aspect of the faith because the entire family (over a billion people) is called to "row in the same direction"...thus it isn't what I, personally, believe insomuch as it is what we, collectively, believe and are taught.

3. Look at the wording of our favorite prayers: it is the OUR Father, not the MY Father. In the Creed it is "WE believe in one God, the Father almighty...WE believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ...for US men and for our salvation He came down from heaven...For OUR sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate...WE believe in the Holy Spirit...WE believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, WE acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins, WE look for the resurrection of the dead...". It is "Hail Mary...pray for US sinners, now and at the hour of OUR death..." - it is not "pray for ME a sinner, now and at the hour of MY death..."

4. When we partake of the Eucharist, we are communing not only with our fellow parishoners in Church at that moment, but also with all Catholics around the world - AND - all those in heaven. Thus all of time and space is set aside in a manner of speaking, and ALL of the Church - ALL of WE throughout time and eternity - WE as a family are in communion.

5. We affirm that the True Church also has a MYSTICAL and invisible dimension that includes in it all who are joined to Christ by the grace of baptism, even if they are not within the formal institutional boundaries of the Catholic Church. If Protestantism is "we and Church" based primarily on its embrace of the invisible Church, then the same applies to Catholics who ALSO embrace that SAME belief.

The list can go on and on and on with regard to how familial Catholicism is theologically, liturgically, and devotionally.

In Protestantism, however, the focus is greatly shifted to individualism (this is not to imply it is entirely individualistic - my point is that the primacy of the personal often carries more weight than submission to the communal).

For example:

1. If I, or a faction like me, doesn't agree PERSONALLY with the teaching of the given pastor of a body (or the teachings of a denomination in some cases)...then it is not even blinked at if I go church shopping, or begin to encourage a church split, etc... Church splits happen because the INDIVIDUAL reigns supreme in Protestantism. Everybody gets to be their own Pope.

2. Sola Scriptura pretty much depends upon individualism. Sure, each person is free to consult what various teachers, preachers, commentaries, creeds, and so on have to say on any given Bible passage - but in the end it pretty much boils down to each person deciding for himself (supposedly with the help of the Holy Spirit) what they think the Bible is saying. There is no central authority to guide the individual in this area.

3. Protestants will often focus almost obsessively over the whole "personal relationship with Jesus" aspect of the Christian faith. We Catholics agree that this is a necessary part of salvation, but only rarely do Protestants speak of the communal aspects of salvation. When Catholics talk about "Co-mediator" or "Co-redeemer" or "Co-anything" most Protestants go bonkers and immediately press forward their individualism and the need for a "personal relationship" as if our salvation cannot be influenced and aided through the family of God going WITH us all TO God together.

Again, I could go on and on and on about how Protestantism champions the primacy of the individual over and against the communal.

Just because we believe the Catholic Church is the True Church doesn't mean we reduce the faith down to personal expressions of the faith.

IMHO, and from my experience, there's no denomination on the planet (with the possible exception of the LDS) that even comes close to the RCC's obsession with ITself, and that insists that the church essentially is ITself. "Jesus and ME!!!!!!"

Two points:

1. This is EXACTLY what secularists, atheists, and non-Christians say to ALL Christians who dare to suggest that CHRISTIANITY is the ONLY True faith. A secularist would say, "You Christians are obsessed with Christianity and ITself. If there is a God - Christianity insists that IT is the only way to believe...as if God and Christianity are one and the same thing."

Since YOU, Josiah, are a Christian, do you feel it is appropriate to tell non-believers that the ONLY way to salvation is through Christ? I do. Why? Because it is TRUTH itself to tell people that Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life. I have ZERO problem with telling non-believers that Christianity is the only True religion.

And since I, as a Catholic, also believe that the Catholic Church is the "True Church" (I know you disagree), then there is nothing wrong or inconsistent with saying so. Why? Because it is TRUE that the Catholic Church is the ONLY True Church in the sense that it contains the fullness of what Jesus intended and founded to continue His Incarnational Ministry on earth while He is gone - it is visible and invisible - it is mystical and institutional - it is exactly what Jesus gave to the world. Again, I know you disagree, and I respect your right to that opinion because I know you hold that opinion in good faith. But to claim that the Catholic Church is the True Church is not quite the same thing as some pathological obsession you seem to imply - it is NO MORE "obsessive" than YOU (correctly) telling a non-believer that Christianity is the only True religion.

2. I fail to see how our claims to be the True Church is equated with "Jesus and ME" since, as I have explained numerous times, our theology is primarily familial and secondarily personal, whereas the word "me" denotes the individual and not the family. We have a billion "me"s in the Catholic Church - and we all play our roles that affect the Body and are interconnected with the saints in heaven and the believers on earth. A more accurate (but not entirely accurate) thing to accuse us of would be to say we believe in "Jesus and US Catholics and the mystical Church of believers (plural)" - not "Jesus and ME."

The whole foundation of the RCC is that assertion of self alone for self alone.

As is the foundation for Christianity itself, Josiah. But it isn't "FOR" self alone, but rather the Church is given as a universal ministry - to bring the Good News to the entire world. That is hardly "self". It is everyone that we reach out to. Again, you remind me of a secularist who rejects the idea that Christianity is the only true religion partly because the very idea that such a thing as one true faith is counter to his relativistic mindset. If Christianity is the only true faith, then Christians SHOULD SAY SO. If the Catholic Church is the True Church, then Catholics SHOULD SAY SO. Again, I know you disagree that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Fine. Furthermore, if you want to claim for yourself that your church is not the True Church, or that it is impossible for a True Church to exist...then fine...I will happily agree with you on the former, but respectfully disagree with you on the latter.

And virtually all discussions with Catholics about nearly anything in Catholicism all boils down to that insistence of self for self (as did our little discussion here).

As would any discussion with a non-believer over the claims of Christianity itself. Granted, just because a religion claims to be the True religion, doesn't make it so. And just because a church body claims to be the True Church doesn't make it so either. But the vercity of the claim should not be judged on whether such a claim was made. If every religion was objectively false just because it claimed to be true - then Christianity itself would be false. And I will submit that Catholicism should not be judged as false just because it "insists for itself" that it is True.

CJ, it seems to me that you are actually the one with an obsession. In this thread and many others you seemingly cannot get past the idea that ANY Church, whether it is the LDS or the Catholic Church or whatever, is audacious and outlandish enough to actually say out loud that THEY are True. You bring this up early and often. And repeatedly. You always come back to it. It is not my place to crawl inside your head to find out why this is so important to you (and I am not asking for an answer) - but I hope you will take a little time and step back a bit and reflect on why this one topic is such a big deal to you. Furthermore, I would ask you to ask yourself why it is okay for Christians to tell non-believers that Christianity is True, but it isn't okay for Christians to tell others that their particular church is True.

Now...I have done exactly what I hoped to avoid and got distracted once again. I will try to get back to my earlier "project" and post a bit more of the "evidence" I had been promising. I worked a little bit on it yesterday, but other things pulled me away. I should be able to post some stuff later today.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[TraderJack]

I notice that no one responded to your argument, which I thought was a good one. So good that, there aren't any replies yet.

Anyway, Christ told Peter to strengthen his brothers. Thus Peter has a unique ministry. The RCC lays claim to it. Right?

Strengthen his brothers.

The evidence of history proves that the later claim of Rome, of the bishops of Rome being the exclusive reciprients of the "keys" and "chair of Peter" is a claim that is self proclaimed and self authenticated by Roman Catholicism and simply does not stand in alignment with the facts.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

CJ,
*snip*.................As is the foundation for Christianity itself, Josiah. But it isn't "FOR" self alone, but rather the Church is given as a universal ministry - to bring the Good News to the entire world. That is hardly "self". It is everyone that we reach out to. Again, you remind me of a secularist who rejects the idea that Christianity is the only true religion partly because the very idea that such a thing as one true faith is counter to his relativistic mindset.

If Christianity is the only true faith, then Christians SHOULD SAY SO. If the Catholic Church is the True Church, then Catholics SHOULD SAY SO.

Again, I know you disagree that the Catholic Church is the True Church. Fine. Furthermore, if you want to claim for yourself that your church is not the True Church, or that it is impossible for a True Church to exist...then fine...I will happily agree with you on the former, but respectfully disagree with you on the latter.........................

God's Peace,

NewMan

The Orthodox also disagree, perhaps not in the same way other non-RCs do, but there is still major disagreement with the Orthodox and Roman Catholicism's Papal view on "Supremacy" as you well know.

Orthodox and Rome Reuniting? - Christian Forums
Orthodox and Rome Reuniting?

 

[NewMan99]

CJ,

Regarding your post #332...

Just so you know, it isn't personal - I just don't have the time to devote to this. A big part of the problem is that your style of posting and my style of posting is not a good combination for quick and easy discussions.

This is because we both "fisk". Fisking is when you quote everything the other persons says and then respond to each statement (see my last post for an example of me fisking). When two fiskers meet on the internet - their chats can get VERY long and complex. We are both fiskers.

If one of us or both of us would simply state our positions in simple paragraph form (like I am doing in this post) without quoting the other person, etc...the discussions might go a lot quicker with less effort required.

But we are both fiskers by habit and by nature, so the discussion is now eating up way too much of my time and I have to pull back.

I will, however, continue to post here at least until my "evidence" is presented. Not that you or the other Protestants will necessarily be convinced by it (although you might find a few things to be compelling), but at least I will try to put my evidence where my mouth is.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

The Orthodox also disagree, perhaps not in the same way other non-RCs do, but there is still major disagreement with the Orthodox and Roman Catholicism's Papal view on "Supremacy" as you well know.

Orthodox and Rome Reuniting? - Christian Forums
Orthodox and Rome Reuniting?

NewMan99 is going to historically prove the EO and OO are wrong on this. Be patient. It's coming. As one Catholic posted here some time ago, the EO are the original Protestants - rejecting the denomination Jesus founded.




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

NewMan99 is going to historically prove the EO and OO are wrong on this. Be patient. It's coming. As one Catholic posted here some time ago, the EO are the original Protestants - rejecting the denomination Jesus founded.

.

I believe they refer to us as a "second lung"

Catholic Church Geek - ARTICLES

Evangelical in Heart


Catholic in Mind


Orthodox in Spirit

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_Theory

John Paul II used the "two-lungs" metaphor, holding that, for its full health, the Roman Catholic Church needs union with the Churches of the Orient, in the same way that the human body is not fully healthy unless it is breathing with both lungs.​

 

[TraderJack]

I notice that no one responded to your argument, which I thought was a good one. So good that, there aren't any replies yet.

Good advice would be to refrain from any crowing and declaring victory when no victory has been won.

Anyway, Christ told Peter to strengthen his brothers.

Christ also commissioned all the Apostles to do the same.

Thus Peter has a unique ministry.

What was unique about the ministry of Peter was that he was appointed an evangelist to the Jews, and nothing more.

The RCC lays claim to it. Right?

The evidence reveals that claim is not in agreement with what was believed and taught by the early church.While many of the church fathers speak in very exalted terms of Peter referring to him as ‘coryphaeus’, leader of the apostles, first of the disciples, foundation of the Church and teacher of the world. But such praise of Peter does not support the Roman Catholic claims. First of all, many of the terms such as ‘coryphaeus’, teacher of the world and foundation of the Church were applied by the church fathers not only to Peter but to the other apostles as well, especially Paul and John. Secondly, Roman Catholic apologists make the common error of assuming that because a particular church father speaks of Peter in a certain way, his comments likewise refer to the bishop of Rome as Peter’s successor. But this is simply not the case. Their words about Peter are unique to Peter, or they apply to the other apostles as well. But they have no reference to the bishops of Rome at all, because the church fathers make no such application. This is a classic case of a much-later generation reading a preconceived theology into earlier writings. An examination of patristic literature on Matthew 16:18-19 will prove this point. We will find a unanimity of interpretation of Matthew 16:18-19, but it is one of near unanimous opposition to the Roman Catholic interpretation as articulated by Vatican I.Augustine is fairly representative of the opinion of the Fathers in these comments on Matthew 16:

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, ‘Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God,” I also say unto thee, ‘Thou art Peter.” For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which thou hast confessed, upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the Living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.For men who wished to be built upon men, said, “I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,” who is Peter. But others who did not wish to build upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, “But! am of Christ.” And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?” And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter.(Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. VI, Saint Augustin, Sermons on New Testament Lessons, Sermon 26.1-2 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), p. 340.)

These comments by Augustine are highly significant. Here we have the man claimed by Rome as their most renowned theologian of the patristic age, the pre-eminent member of the ‘infallible’ magisterium, and yet he gives an interpretation of the most important passage in all the Bible for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church and its authority, which is diametrically opposed to the Roman interpretation. How does one explain this? If there were truly, as Vatican I states, a unanimous consensus of interpretation of the Roman meaning of this passage, why do we find Augustine deliberately going against such a consensus? The answer, quite simply, is that there never was such a consensus.

 

[TraderJack]

Part 2 (this is a continuation of Post #296)

When I left off, I listed 2 questions that I must address. This post will delve into the first question, which was:



Notice that there are a number of elements at play:

1. Was Peter commissioned by Christ to a ministry that called for the preservation of universal unity and orthodoxy in the Church?

2. Did Peter hold jurisdictional authority?

3. Did Christ commission Peter to be the "Supreme pastor" (i.e., principle shepherd among the Apostles) over the flock?

So let's start by breaking down the first element. Initially I claim that there was a call by Christ for "universal unity" in the Church. No doubt we can all agree that Jesus prayed that we all be One, even as He and the Father are One. Jesus desired we be united in faith for all time.

We see this clearly taught in John 17:20-21, which reads:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”

Earlier in this thread I listed out other verses from the NT calling that we be united in faith. Here is that list again:




Now, it is fair to ask ourselves if this is the kind of unity we see today in modern Christianity? Have we maintained the unity of faith - the oneness of mind - we have been called to?

Hardly. We live in a time when THOUSANDS of different bodies (plural) and groups (plural) exist *outside* of communion with each other, not only institutionally, but ALSO doctrinally.

We all read from the same Bible, and yet we interpret it in contradictory and mutually exclusive ways...and not just in "non-essentials" - but rather in some VERY important and essential issues. Thus, we see before us extensive DISUNITY where the error of heterodoxy lies at its core and hence Christianity today is guilty of the very thing condemned in the Scriptures cited above.

This state of affairs begs the question: WHERE are we to find the unity we are called to? I will submit that it certainly isn't found in church splits, sectarianism, division, and denominationalism.

I am sure we can all agree that this was not a problem when Jesus and the Apostles were around. If people did not agree with Jesus, they were free to walk away (which they did in large numbers from time to time - see John 6:66-68), but when they did, it was plain that THEY were the ones to walk away and reject the Truths being taught through what we may call the True Church.

But what about later? What about after Pentecost when we longer had Jesus here on earth to guide us? Anybody could claim to be speaking for Christ or for orthodoxy. That is what we see in Acts 15:1-2 when Judaizers presumed to impose their views on others as if Judaizing was an orthodox Christian belief and valid practice.

Since Jesus left us a PHYSICAL mechanism in place to teach the faith (in other words, we didn't just learn Christianity via osmosis - God didn't just "zap" Christian knowledge into us - unless your name is Saul and you are on the road to Damascus - LOL), that is to say, since He left us physical men (the Apostles) to physically teach the nations, doesn't it make sense to wonder if Jesus also appointed a "vicarious" shepherd - a substitute teacher in a manner of speaking while the True Teacher is away - who could settle doctrinal disputes within the flock? This would be someone who would be authorized to preserve the flock in unity and orthodoxy in Christ's place until He returned?

Now, just because it would make sense for this - or because it is possible - does not ipso facto mean that that is what Jesus did. But I will submit that according to Scripture (and not just Tradition) this is EXACTLY what Jesus did do!

Let's start with John 21:15-19. Here we see the resurrected Jesus, in front of all the Apostles, commanding PETER three times to feed/tend his lambs/sheep. Earlier in the Gospel of John (Chapter 10, verses 11-16) Jesus said that He - Jesus - is the "Good Shepherd" and claims that there is "one flock and one Shepherd." So if Jesus is the Good Shepherd, the one Shepherd, why can he not feed and tend His own sheep? Why is He commanding Peter to do what He claimed for Himself exclusive rights to do?

Of course since Jesus is God it is plain that Jesus CAN feed and tend His own sheep. So why did He commission Peter for this task? We Catholics (and more than a few Orthodox as well - and even some Protestants too since some of them believe in the Primacy of Peter, but don't believe this Primacy was passed on to others) believe that Jesus was appointing Peter to act as a VICARIOUS shepherd. Notice in John 21:15-19 that they are STILL Jesus' sheep from Jesus' flock. Jesus said "Feed MY sheep" "Tend MY lambs" and so on. Therefore the flock is not Peter's but belongs to Jesus - the Good Shepherd. Thus, Peter is Jesus' "stand-in" so to speak...acting on His behalf since He is not present PHYSICALLY to do it. Therefore Peter is the VISIBLE vicarious shepherd of Jesus' flock.

Now in the original Greek, the word for "feed" is "boskein" which has been known to denote "spiritual nourishment" (as per the writings of the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria among other first century Jewish writers), and the word for "tend" is the Greek word "poimanao" denotes "rule" (see Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15 where it is applied to Jesus Himself).

Therefore, Peter is told to "rule" over the sheep to give them "spiritual nourishment" - and that is one reason (among others) that we say that Peter was commissioned to be the vicarious shepherd of the Church in Jesus' physical absence. This makes Peter the "Supreme pastor" as per my original premise.

Okay - we need to take a little detour because plenty of Protestants (in particular) might object at this point and claim that John 21 doesn't say anything about a special ministry involving universal jurisdiction. The claim by many is that Jesus was merely restoring Peter's Apostolic status after Peter's repentance due to his three-fold denial after Jesus' arrest. In other words, Jesus merely restored Peter to the same ministry of ALL the other Apostles to feed and tend the sheep. Nothing special or unique here relative to the ministries of the other Apostles. At least - that is what many Protestants will claim.

But this interpretation runs into some problems once we turn to a similar situation as told in Luke 22:31-32, which reads:

“Simon, Simon, behold satan has demanded to sift all of you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed that your [singular] own faith may not fail; and once you [singular] have turned back, you [singular] must strengthen your brothers [plural].”

Peter is not merely one among many, rather he is singled out to strengthen the welfare of all. In other words, it is a special unique ministry being commissioned - that of the vicarious shepherd.

So in looking next at the following two verses, we can see an even stronger case being made. For in Luke 22:33-34 we see where Jesus PREDICTS Peter's three-fold denial. As stated above, the common Protestant objection is that the three-fold re-commission in John 21 is merely to restore Peter to his Apostleship after he denied Christ three times. But the problem with that view is that Peter's three-fold denial as predicted by Jesus is CONTRASTED not with Peter's apostleship, but rather with Peter's special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles - and this comes BEFORE Peter's denial. Therefore if the restoration in John 21 restores anything it MUST INCLUDE with it the commission that Peter was given in Luke 22 too! In other words, if Peter is "restored" then that means he is fully restored to ALL that he was commissioned for by Jesus - especially when the commission in Luke 22 SPECIFIES that all the Apostles would be ground like wheat (insert here the events of the Passion including Peter's denial) and that once he (Peter) "turns back" (insert here his three-fold repentance in John 21) THEN he (Peter) was commanded to strengthen the others. So there it is - in both Luke 22 AND John 21 Peter is commissioned and re-commissioned as the vicarious shepherd over the whole flock in the physical absence of the Good Shepherd.

I have to head off to Church right now. I don't know if I will be able to return later tonight or not. But there are a few more installments to go - and I have not forgotten to include in it the historical evidence from the early Church that I promised both CJ and Mike.

End of Part 2 - Part 3 to follow (eventually)

God's Peace,

NewMan

Firstly, there is nothing cited above that indicates anything said of Peter applies to the bishops of Rome as any exclusive successors of Peter.

The above makes the false assumption and usual mistake of Roman Catholic apologists to apply a later claim made in opposition to the consensus of the church fathers by later Roman bishops of being the sole reciprients of the "keys" and "chair of Peter", then in fact the Church has never supported that claim.

[SIZE=+1]According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome. The common mistake made by Roman Catholic apologists is the assumption that because some of the fathers make certain comments about Peter—for example, that he is chief of the apostles or head of the apostolic choir—that they also have in mind the bishop of Rome in an exclusive sense. But they do not state this in their writings. This is a preconceived theology that is read into their writings. Did they view the bishops of Rome as being successors of Peter? Yes. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]Did they view the bishops of Rome as being the exclusive successors of Peter? NO![/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1][/SIZE]
[SIZE=+1]In the view of Augustine and the early fathers all the bishops of the Church in the East and West were the successors of Peter. They all possess the chair of Peter. So when they speak in exalted terms about Peter they do not apply those terms to the bishops of Rome. Therefore, when a father refers to Peter as the rock, the ‘coryphaeus,’ the first of the disciples, or something similar, this does not mean that he is expressing agreement with the current Roman Catholic interpretation. This view is clearly validated from the following statements of Augustine:[/SIZE]

Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged preeminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to ALL [SIZE=-1](Sermon 295).

Previously, of course, he was called Simon; this name of Peter was bestowed on him by the Lord, and that with the symbolic intention of his representing the Church. Because Christ, you see, is the petra or rock; Peter, or Rocky, is the Christian people [SIZE=-1](Sermon 76).

[/SIZE]

Here, in fact, we have Augustine, a doctor of the Church, clearly and unambiguously defining, in a manner contrary to the claims of Rome, that Peter was a symbolic representative of the entirety of the "Christian people" and that what was given to Peter, was in fact, given to ALL.

Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? ‘You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ There’s the rock for you, there’s the foundation, there’s where the Church has been built, which the gates of the underworld cannot conquer. ([SIZE=-1]Sermon

[SIZE=-1]229).

[/SIZE]

Augustine is in agreement with the misnomer "Protestant" view and opposed to the Roman Catholic view.
[/SIZE][/SIZE]

 

[Rick Otto]

In Protestantism, however, the focus is greatly shifted to individualism (this is not to imply it is entirely individualistic - my point is that the primacy of the personal often carries more weight than submission to the communal).

As is reflected in the two greatest commandments (You) Love God with all your soul & strength, & (You) love your neighbor as yourself.
Submission to your brothers in communion flows from submission to & communion with God. Monotheism is monolithic. Ecclesiology is not.

2. Sola Scriptura pretty much depends upon individualism. Sure, each person is free to consult what various teachers, preachers, commentaries, creeds, and so on have to say on any given Bible passage - but in the end it pretty much boils down to each person deciding for himself (supposedly with the help of the Holy Spirit) what they think the Bible is saying. There is no central authority to guide the individual in this area.

1. The Holy Spirit IS the central guiding authority.
2. You have decided for yourself, supposedly with the help of The Holy Spirit, what you think the Bible is saying. You think it is saying to trust the church to tell you what to believe because you can't trust yourself.
But in the end, it is yourself that decides that.

Do you see the self-negating catch 22 you put yourself in when choosing to trust the Church above your trust in God? Is your relationship with God shakier than the churchs'? Look at all the troubles addressed in the epistles and the seven churches in Revelation as well as the bloody histories over time.
If you get to know Him personaly, your perspective improves.