Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 12, 2017

1213 said:
For this I want to say:

For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
Mat. 23:4-12

If “Christians” are really disciples of Jesus, they should live as Jesus taught. For disciples of Jesus, Jesus is the high priest and teacher, disciples are brothers.

Now in the things which we are saying, the main point is this. We have such a high priest, who sat down on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens, a minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, not man.
Hebrews 8:1-2

And still we have St. Paul calling himself the spiritual father of the Corinthians.

Forgive me...

Anguspure · Sep 12, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
Four questions, four answers; then is there something common to all four?

1) Did God institute the office of High Priests? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Exodus 28:1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 43 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants."

2) Did God institute the sacrament of Baptism? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

3) Did God institute the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

4) Did God institute the office of the Papacy? Not clear from scripture, debated so much.
I don't wish to get into that red herring of Peter was the first Pope. I just want people to acknowledge that the scriptural support for the Papacy as a lasting office is not even close to the scripture support for other important offices and sacraments. Further, scripture records the practice of the High Priests, baptisms and the Lord's Supper succeeding in time. There is no scripture recording Peter giving his "key" to another. Further when Jesus gave a key to Peter, he also gave them to the other apostles and said there would be 12 thrones in heaven; I think there have been more than 12 Popes. As for the argument that the Church has a shepherd, we know that the one Shepherd is the Son of God.

Why would God leave it up to one contentious text to institute something as important as giving one in the office both infallibility and supreme authority over the Church? If God could write out the 10 commandments, Jesus could have been a lot clearer in instituting the Papacy if that was what he wanted to exist.

The same could also be said of the strict doctrine of Trinity however.
Trinity is never addressed directly as such in the scripture, rather the concept comes to us by way of inference (which BTW I do agree with).
But the Papacy and other doctrines of the RC church that do not find strict biblical support are the reason why the Papists do not hold to Sola Scriptura as the sole authority for establishing Church doctrine, and hold that Church tradition may also be appealed to in order to establish authorised traching.

disciple1 · Sep 12, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
Four questions, four answers; then is there something common to all four?

1) Did God institute the office of High Priests? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Exodus 28:1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 43 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants."

2) Did God institute the sacrament of Baptism? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

3) Did God institute the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

4) Did God institute the office of the Papacy? Not clear from scripture, debated so much.
I don't wish to get into that red herring of Peter was the first Pope. I just want people to acknowledge that the scriptural support for the Papacy as a lasting office is not even close to the scripture support for other important offices and sacraments. Further, scripture records the practice of the High Priests, baptisms and the Lord's Supper succeeding in time. There is no scripture recording Peter giving his "key" to another. Further when Jesus gave a key to Peter, he also gave them to the other apostles and said there would be 12 thrones in heaven; I think there have been more than 12 Popes. As for the argument that the Church has a shepherd, we know that the one Shepherd is the Son of God.

Why would God leave it up to one contentious text to institute something as important as giving one in the office both infallibility and supreme authority over the Church? If God could write out the 10 commandments, Jesus could have been a lot clearer in instituting the Papacy if that was what he wanted to exist.

AnticipateHisComing said:
Did God institute the office of High Priests

Hebrews chapter 4 verse 14
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess.
Since you asked about priests.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 12, 2017

OrthodoxyUSA said:
Just a few notes to add from the Orthodox Christian POV:

Sts. Peter and Paul considered themselves equals.

St. James was unanimously elected in Jerusalem, not assigned.

All Bishops are liturgically equals. Anything else is for administrative purposes.

The office of Metropolitan (a government system) among Bishop's started in the 260's for "housekeeping" (economia) reasons.

The Pentarchy (another government system styled after the Roman government) started in the 300's primarily due to size and Christianity becoming legal. "Their relationship with each other, despite various periods of rivalry and dispute, was generally in terms of fraternal equality and conciliatory." Each See was considered liturgically complete and recognized as autocephalous.

Jerusalem - James 33ad

Antioch - Peter and Paul 38ad

Alexandria - Mark 38ad

Rome - Peter 42ad

Constantinople - Andrew 62ad

Pentarchy - OrthodoxWiki
"After the seventh-century Arab conquests and the Byzantine loss of the Rome-Ravenna corridor, only Constantinople's patriarchate remained securely within the capital of the Roman Empire—the Pope at Rome was independent (see Gregory the Great), Jerusalem and Alexandria were under Muslim rule, and Antioch was on the front lines of hundreds of years of recurring border warfare between the Byzantine Empire and the Arab Caliphate. Also during the Middle Ages, the center of gravity of Christendom had shifted northward, and the majority of Christians in Muslim-ruled Egypt and Syria were Non-Chalcedonians who refused to recognize the authority of either Rome or Constantinople. Together, these historical-political changes meant that the original ideal of five great co-operating centers of administration of the whole Christian Church grew ever more remote from practical reality."

The word "Pope" was not exclusive to Rome. Any Bishop may have been called that if the language of the people was Latin.

Forgive me...

Thanks for the informative post.
But, does the EO Church hold to apostolic succession?

Monk Brendan · Sep 12, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
I don't wish to get into that red herring of Peter was the first Pope. I just want people to acknowledge that the scriptural support for the Papacy as a lasting office is not even close to the scripture support for other important offices and sacraments. Further, scripture records the practice of the High Priests, baptisms and the Lord's Supper succeeding in time. There is no scripture recording Peter giving his "key" to another. Further when Jesus gave a key to Peter, he also gave them to the other apostles and said there would be 12 thrones in heaven; I think there have been more than 12 Popes. As for the argument that the Church has a shepherd, we know that the one Shepherd is the Son of God.

Why would God leave it up to one contentious text to institute something as important as giving one in the office both infallibility and supreme authority over the Church? If God could write out the 10 commandments, Jesus could have been a lot clearer in instituting the Papacy if that was what he wanted to exist.

Well, guess what. You're going to get that "red herring" anyway, and more. When Jesus said to Peter, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Is Peter still alive? NO! So, if the gates of hell will not prevail against it, then that rock must be carried on by another, right? And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

What we have through these three passages is that Peter is the Rock, that He was given authority BY JESUS to do all that the Pope now does. And we can see that he was given authority to pass on his this ability to others.

As far as the title Pope, it comes from the Latin "Papa" meaning father. As Peter WAS the Bishop of Rome, then a Latin term of endearment is appropriate.

BTW, the bishop of Rome is not the only one to use the title Pope. Both the Coptic Orthodox and Greek Orthodox patriarchs of Alexandria also use the title.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 12, 2017

OrthodoxyUSA said:
And still we have St. Paul calling himself the spiritual father of the Corinthians.

I have no problem with shepherds of churches. I have a big problem with one person claiming to have some special authority from Jesus to be the one shepherd of the whole Church. Even Peter understood this.

1 Peter 5:1 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings who also will share in the glory to be revealed: Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.

Peter said even elders were shepherds, not claiming to be special with his position, saying that Jesus is the Chief Shepherd.

John 10:16 I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.

Jesus' words reference the one Church that contains the full body of believers. This is the invisible Church. Peter's text refers to the visible church that has multiple leaders.

Monk Brendan · Sep 12, 2017

Oscarr said:
Now this is a contentious point when discussing this with Roman Catholic believers. The office of the Papacy evolved over the first few centuries of the church as regional bishops were appointed after the First Century, and these merged together to become the Bishops of Rome and Constantinople. Then there was a major argument between the two and they excommunicated each other. The Bishop of Rome became the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church and the Bishop of Constantinople became the head of the Greek Orthodox Church. These churches remained the only Christian churches for the next 1000 years, before the Protestant Reformation.

This is just such a BAD representation of the first 1000 years of Christianity. First of all, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople were not merged into one bishopric.

Next, you have forgotten all of the Counsels that met, discussed, and finally ruled on (sometimes) very abstruse point of Church Law. For instance, the Nicene Creed (all backed by Scripture), which all who are on these fora have to believe, (here is a link) sets out, in no uncertain terms, what Christians must believe and profess. This Council, called by Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. was a meeting of all of the bishops in the world. Most of the Counsel was spent with the Christology of Arius. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized the Father's divinity over the Son, and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian* Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325.

*The Nicene Creed describes Jesus (God the Son) as being ὁμοούσιος, "one in being" or "of single essence", with God the Father. It is one of the cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 12, 2017

Anguspure said:
The same could also be said of the strict doctrine of Trinity however.
Trinity is never addressed directly as such in the scripture, rather the concept comes to us by way of inference (which BTW I do agree with).
But the Papacy and other doctrines of the RC church that do not find strict biblical support are the reason why the Papists do not hold to Sola Scriptura as the sole authority for establishing Church doctrine, and hold that Church tradition may also be appealed to in order to establish authorised traching.

There are many contentious doctrines extracted from scripture. Your example of the Trinity is not. Belief in it is required to post here and it is much more universal to Christians than the Papacy. Further, the Biblical support for it is much stronger than for the Papacy.

Regardless, my OP compares practices instituted in scripture. Doctrine is not a practice of the Church. Scripture teaches that we should test teachings/doctrine against scripture, so we have a method of how we should proceed with it. The sacraments are practices of the Church commanded by Jesus.

The Papacy is an issue of authority. All authority comes from God. It needs to be clearly established to be a valid authority. The scripture is contentious and not clear. The authority is questioned. I feel this much more important than doctrinal disputes.

Brian Mcnamee · Sep 12, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
Four questions, four answers; then is there something common to all four?

1) Did God institute the office of High Priests? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Exodus 28:1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 43 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants."

2) Did God institute the sacrament of Baptism? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit

3) Did God institute the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Luke 22:19 And he took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body given for you; do this in remembrance of me.”
20 In the same way, after the supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.

1 Corinthians 11:24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, “This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.” 25 In the same way, after supper he took the cup, saying, “This cup is the new covenant in my blood; do this, whenever you drink it, in remembrance of me.” 26 For whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes.

4) Did God institute the office of the Papacy? Not clear from scripture, debated so much.
I don't wish to get into that red herring of Peter was the first Pope. I just want people to acknowledge that the scriptural support for the Papacy as a lasting office is not even close to the scripture support for other important offices and sacraments. Further, scripture records the practice of the High Priests, baptisms and the Lord's Supper succeeding in time. There is no scripture recording Peter giving his "key" to another. Further when Jesus gave a key to Peter, he also gave them to the other apostles and said there would be 12 thrones in heaven; I think there have been more than 12 Popes. As for the argument that the Church has a shepherd, we know that the one Shepherd is the Son of God.

Why would God leave it up to one contentious text to institute something as important as giving one in the office both infallibility and supreme authority over the Church? If God could write out the 10 commandments, Jesus could have been a lot clearer in instituting the Papacy if that was what he wanted to exist.

Hi the office of High priest is now in Jesus as he is both king and high priest of the order of Melchizedek and there was only one high priest not many. On communion the LORD instituted it by saying do this in memory of me. Your quote is not clear on transubstantiation so if you read the whole passage the apostles had trouble with the words eat my body and drink my blood . 1 When Jesus knew in Himself that His disciples complained about this, He said to them, “Does this offend you? 62 What then if you should see the Son of Man ascend where He was before? 63 It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing. The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life. 64 But there are some of you who do not believe.
This context makes a strong case that there is no transubstantiation.
Baptism you have got right on with no mention of infants being baptized.
So we get to the Pope. Peter answered you are the Christ the son of the living God. This is the rock that the church is built upon not Peter. Peter himself taught Jesus as the chief corner stone both in acts and his epistles.

Monk Brendan · Sep 12, 2017

1213 said:
For they bind heavy burdens that are grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not lift a finger to help them. But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad, enlarge the fringes of their garments, and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, the salutations in the marketplaces, and to be called 'Rabbi, Rabbi' by men. But don't you be called 'Rabbi,' for one is your teacher, the Christ, and all of you are brothers. Call no man on the earth your father, for one is your Father, he who is in heaven. Neither be called masters, for one is your master, the Christ. But he who is greatest among you will be your servant. Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

Oh please! I have know several Protestant preachers that have required some degree of obeisance from their congregations. And in my 40 years as a Catholic cooperating with Christ, I have seen my share of preachers who paid more attention to lining their pockets than saving souls.

Jim and Tammy Bakker, and the multi-million dollar housing scam
Jimmy Swaggart who prayed so hard for homosexuals, and preached how EVIL homosexuality is, but was then caught in bed with a prostitute.
Jerry Falwell who did so much work on building up his fortune that he was able to buy all of Jim and Tammy's stuff and start another housing scam.
Ron Hembree who was so pious on TV and in the pulpit, yet both he and his first wife would have sex with anything that moved.

All of these men wore Rolex watches, usually in 18K gold, they all had fine homes, fine cars, everything they could ask for, and yet it wasn't enough, for each of them used some sort of scam to have people praying for them, sending them money, bowing to them as they drove down the lane to the front of a church, and ALL of them had the hubris to call themselves "humble country preachers."
I could go on, but that is a small sampling.

Bible2+ · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said in post #1:

1) Did God institute the office of High Priests? Yes, so clear from scripture.
Exodus 28:1 “Have Aaron your brother brought to you from among the Israelites, along with his sons Nadab and Abihu, Eleazar and Ithamar, so they may serve me as priests. 2 Make sacred garments for your brother Aaron to give him dignity and honor. 43 “This is to be a lasting ordinance for Aaron and his descendants."

Note that the priesthood has been changed under the New Covenant:

Hebrews 7:11 ¶If therefore perfection were by the Levitical priesthood, (for under it the people received the law,) what further need was there that another priest should rise after the order of Melchisedec, and not be called after the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, there is made of necessity a change also of the law.
13 For he of whom these things are spoken pertaineth to another tribe, of which no man gave attendance at the altar.
14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
15 And it is yet far more evident: for that after the similitude of Melchisedec there ariseth another priest,
16 Who is made, not after the law of a carnal commandment, but after the power of an endless life.
17 For he testifieth, Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchisedec.
18 For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof.
19 For the law made nothing perfect, but the bringing in of a better hope did; by the which we draw nigh unto God.

AnticipateHisComing said in post #1:

2) Did God institute the sacrament of Baptism? Yes, so clear from scripture.

That's right. And baptism is even necessary to obtain ultimate salvation. For:

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved . . .

AnticipateHisComing said in post #1:

3) Did God institute the sacrament of the Lord's Supper? Yes, so clear from scripture.

That's right. And the Lord's Supper is even necessary to obtain ultimate salvation. For:

John 6:53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
My point, no central bureaucratic organization or authority in one person or a council was responsible for keeping the various seven churches in line.

Lulav said:
Do you know what an 'angel' is in respect to a congregation?

Please explain it to me and show how your understanding of angel in any way makes an argument against what I wrote.

Lulav said:
Do you understand that the meaning of these congregations was not about an organization or about keeping anyone in line?

Do you understand who held the seven stars in his hand?

And, the seven letters to seven churches did contain praise, rebukes, calls to repent, punishment and reward. As this message applied to churches 2000 years ago, it applies to churches also today. The significant item I wish you to acknowledge is that Jesus is the one shepherd over the whole Church even while in heaven. There may be various other shepherds, but of the seven stars, no one is special being above the others and Jesus guides them.

Lulav said:
James was given the charge from his brother, Peter also served with him and we can see this synergism in the notes on the meeting in Acts 15 and John had his part as well. This is based on the premise of two or three witnesses. Two of the three of them were blood relatives of Jesus as well.

Note that Paul did not need approval from Jerusalem to develop the correct doctrine on circumcision. He got it right without the dream that Peter needed to correct his dealings with Gentiles. Paul went to Jerusalem to get the people that came from Jerusalem that he disputed with to agree to his authority and teachings.

Acts 15:1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” 2 This brought Paul and Barnabas into sharp dispute and debate with them. So Paul and Barnabas were appointed, along with some other believers, to go up to Jerusalem to see the apostles and elders about this question.

24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements:

Lulav said:
Peter didn't need to be 'set straight' about anything. In fact if you read that thoroughly you see that James makes it clear in the council meeting that Peter was sent to the Gentiles (Cornelius and his household).

Sorry, it was later that Paul had to set Peter straight about dealing with the uncircumcised, this after Peter supposedly professed a true understanding. Sometimes it is easier to speak the truth than to follow the truth.

Lulav said:
Does it make sense that 12 Jews would be only sent to the Jews and 1 Jew would be sent to all Gentiles? That Jesus would send those who lived, ate, slept, worshiped, sat under him to only the Jews, but only one who never knew him and witnessed all the things he did would be sent to all the Gentiles?

So instead of just reading clear words in scripture, we should reason if it makes sense?

Galatians 2:6 As for those who were held in high esteem—whatever they were makes no difference to me; God does not show favoritism—they added nothing to my message. 7 On the contrary, they recognized that I had been entrusted with the task of preaching the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been to the circumcised. 8 For God, who was at work in Peter as an apostle to the circumcised, was also at work in me as an apostle to the Gentiles. 9 James, Cephas and John, those esteemed as pillars, gave me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship when they recognized the grace given to me. They agreed that we should go to the Gentiles, and they to the circumcised.

Lulav said:
But we can agree to disagree.

I thought most of your comments were just additional information about my OP. I don't see where you refuted my argument.

Presbyterian Continuist · Sep 13, 2017

Monk Brendan said:
This is just such a BAD representation of the first 1000 years of Christianity. First of all, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople were not merged into one bishopric.

Next, you have forgotten all of the Counsels that met, discussed, and finally ruled on (sometimes) very abstruse point of Church Law. For instance, the Nicene Creed (all backed by Scripture), which all who are on these fora have to believe, (here is a link) sets out, in no uncertain terms, what Christians must believe and profess. This Council, called by Emperor Constantine in 325 A.D. was a meeting of all of the bishops in the world. Most of the Counsel was spent with the Christology of Arius. His teachings about the nature of the Godhead in Christianity, which emphasized the Father's divinity over the Son, and his opposition to what would become the dominant Christology, Homoousian* Christology, made him a primary topic of the First Council of Nicaea, which was convened by Emperor Constantine the Great in 325.

*The Nicene Creed describes Jesus (God the Son) as being ὁμοούσιος, "one in being" or "of single essence", with God the Father. It is one of the cornerstones of theology in Nicene Christianity.

I never said that the two Bishops were merged. The Bishop of Constantinople was the head of the Eastern Orthodox Church that broke from Rome.

You are better versed in the other information you have given, so you have the drop on me there.

AnticipateHisComing · Sep 13, 2017

Monk Brendan said:
Well, guess what. You're going to get that "red herring" anyway, and more.

You admit you can not refute my argument that there is clear scripture for my three other examples instituted by God but not the Papacy. You resort to a distraction that is easily refuted.

Monk Brendan said:
When Jesus said to Peter, “And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

Jesus promises to protect his Church, not his rock.

Monk Brendan said:
Is Peter still alive? NO! So, if the gates of hell will not prevail against it, then that rock must be carried on by another, right?

No. A church is not a rock. You build on top of the rock. You just don't keep putting foundation on foundation. Again, the it refers to the Church, not a person. And, scripture teaches so much more that Jesus is the cornerstone of the Church.

I have never said Peter was not an important apostle that was given special power, but the authority he received was given to the other apostles also. Further, scripture never puts him over the other apostles.
Lastly, you use assumption that Peter's rock must be carried on by another. The point of my OP is that institutions from God do not come from assumptions but from clear direct command.

Monk Brendan said:
And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Command and promise given to not just Peter.
Luke 22:28 You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29 And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30 so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
How many Popes have there been? Sorry, only 12 thrones.

Monk Brendan said:
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Authority given to not just Peter. Do Catholics only receive forgiveness from the Pope?

Monk Brendan said:
What we have through these three passages is that Peter is the Rock, that He was given authority BY JESUS to do all that the Pope now does.

The Pope does not do the miracles that Peter did. Preach the gospel, we are all charged with doing, the same with forgiving sins.

How about the others claims of the Papacy:
inerrant, not even the "first Pope" was.
supremacy, no scripture that Peter was.

Monk Brendan said:
And we can see that he was given authority to pass on his this ability to others.

Following the example of OT prophets, not even prophets chose their successors. This is even evident in the replacement for Judas being chosen by lot. If you wish to follow the high priest model, the successor would be a descendant. Of course this is by clear scripture detailing it.

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
Thanks for the informative post.
But, does the EO Church hold to apostolic succession?

Yes we do, all of them.

Forgive me...

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 13, 2017

AnticipateHisComing said:
I have no problem with shepherds of churches. I have a big problem with one person claiming to have some special authority from Jesus to be the one shepherd of the whole Church. Even Peter understood this.

The Eastern Orthodox Christians believe the same.

Forgive me...

scottSTANLEY · Sep 13, 2017

The office of the Papacy = the man of sin, held back by the Caesar. We are not waiting for an apostasy to happen. We are trying to come out of it.
The church had to be in apostasy already to allow a man to declare himself the vicar of Christ.

OrthodoxyUSA · Sep 13, 2017

John 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Forgive me...

parousia70 · Sep 13, 2017

Anguspure said:
But the Papacy and other doctrines of the RC church that do not find strict biblical support are the reason why the Papists do not hold to Sola Scriptura as the sole authority for establishing Church doctrine, and hold that Church tradition may also be appealed to in order to establish authorised traching.

Sola Scriptura is an oxymoron... but leaving that fact aside, the reason that Church Tradition is appealed and held fast to is because there is a scriptural command to do so:

2 Thessalonians 2:15
Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle.

The Church of scripture is one united ecclesial body (Eph 4:3-4; Eph 4:13-16; Jn 17:21; Mt 16:18) without schismatic divisions (1 Cor 12:25; Rom 16:17; 1 Cor 1:10; Jude 1:19; Gal 5:20; 3 John 1:9-10), with one teaching for all the churches (Acts 15:22-23,25,28/Acts 16:4-5; 1 Tim 1:3; 1 Cor 1:10; Eph 4:5; Jude 1:3), and one bishopric authorized of and by the apostles (Titus 1:5) by the laying on of hands in ordination (Heb 6:2; 2 Tim 1:6; 1 Tim 4:14; Titus 1:5), sharing ministers back and forth among all churches (1 Cor 16:3; Rom 16:1,3,9,21,23; Phil 2:19,25; Titus 3:12), receiving one another in fellowship and in greeting (Rom 15:5-7; Rom 16:16; Col 4:10,12,14; 3 John 1:9-10), where excommunication removes individuals from this one body (Matt 18:17; 1 Corinthians 5:1-2,4-5), and which existed from St. Peter and the apostles unto today (Matt 16:18-19; Eph 3:21).

scottSTANLEY · Sep 13, 2017

OrthodoxyUSA said:
John 20:22-23
And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.

Forgive me...

Hi,
They are forgiven. The peril is to allow the doctrines they teach to permeate your understanding. Babylon is divided into three parts: Paganism / Catholicism / Protestantism All three base there beliefs on God needing a human sacrifice in order to forgive the sinner. God is love (1 John 4:8, 16) and love does not keep a record of sin (1 Corinthians 13:5). The cross bears this out.

Did God institute High Priests, Baptism, Eucharist, Papacy?

Well-Known Member

Kaitiaki Peacemakers NZ

Newbie

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Matthew 4:4

Newbie

Senior Veteran

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Livin' in yesterday's tomorrow

Junior Member

Similar threads