Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It's hard to exercise any patience toward this view. I don't hope to convince you, but maybe other people will read this response.
You said, "It's clear that Peter was given particular authority from Christ to 'loose and bind'." You make a big deal out of Christ telling Peter that he has the keys, which are inseparably attached (as per Isaiah 22) to the power of loosing and binding.
Your reference is to Matthew 16. But what about Matthew 18:18? Doesn't Christ speak to all the apostles? Doesn't he give them the power to "loose and bind" in this place? It would seem then that even in Matthew 16 he didn't mean to be exclusive of Peter (as if the charge of stately office was excluded from the rest). Christ didn't have one prime minister or one emissary, but many. Jesus even elsewhere tells the twelve that they will sit on twelve thrones ruling over the twelve tribes. Revelation speaks similarly. There is no papacy here.
Even when Paul speaks of Peter, John, and James as pillars in Jerusalem, he doesn't even hint at any kind of pope-like status for Peter. He doesn't subordinate himself to Peter nor does he subordinate John and James to the supposed first pope.
The bottom line is this: The papacy was a historical development within Latin Christianity. Large bishopricks (especially in major cities) naturally began to rise in influence over smaller satellite regions. There came to be schools of thought associated with geographical affiliations (ex: Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Rome).
Rome was successful in dominating the churches far and wide (especially in the West). This influence is hardly any different than Paris dominating and influencing fashion throughout Europe and the Americas (and part of Africa) in previous centuries. Rome became a seat of power. This power developed over time and changed. Christianity's acceptance by the Roman Empire influenced this shift considerably. Though not specifically established by Christ, this Roman domination just worked out that way. Many traditions arose within this Latin Christianity (i.e. Romanism) which tended to bolster or uphold its legitimacy. The office of pope, centered upon the Bishoprick of Rome and supposedly beginning in Peter (or Peter and Paul as per Eusebius), was part of this tradition.
Yet the case to identify Peter as a Bishop of Rome, historically, is a major conflict of interest for Latin (i.e. Romanist)writers/historians. The Scriptural account shows Peter as a pillar in Jerusalem. He writes from "Babylon" in 1 Peter, which again is Jerusalem. If Peter lived beyond a.d. 70, then maybe I could see him going to Rome, but most of the same historians who claim that Peter served in Rome also believe that he was martyred prior to Jerusalem's destruction. The Romanist story does not fit together.
The papacy, to be sure, has many other problems, but I will leave the argument here for now. Yet I will say one last thing: it is beyond dispute that the first several Bishops of Rome had no idea that they were actually popes who had a divinely-appointed authority over other Bishopricks. They didn't exert this authority (because they didn't have that authority). It was only later revisionist history that gave them the universal-church-wide hierarchical office.
" '...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?"
Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae(Primacy text),4(A.D. 251),in NE,228-229
Today at 01:42 PM Stormy said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656747#post656747)
Could someone answer my question calmly, and clearly. I really just want yes or no answers. I am not out to debate, nor win any points for any cause, but rather just to gain knowledge for my own decision.
Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?
Today at 01:42 PM Stormy said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656747#post656747)
Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?
Today at 03:04 PM linda4jesus said this in Post #7
Stormy,
None of the Apostles singled Peter out and declared that he was the pope or head of the early Church. When Jesus told Peter that "He is the Rock" Jesus was referring to himself...Jesus Christ is the Rock. Every believer is a stone in Christ's Church. Peter was not the rock, but just one of many who are a part of this spiritual house of worship.
Today at 01:42 PM Stormy said this in Post #6 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656747#post656747)
Could someone answer my question calmly, and clearly. I really just want yes or no answers. I am not out to debate, nor win any points for any cause, but rather just to gain knowledge for my own decision.
Did Peter, or any other disciple, ever refer to Peter as the Pope... or even acknowledge him to be the head of all the early Churches?
Today at 12:45 PM Hoonbaba said this in Post #9
Stormy, as for the specific reference to Peter as 'pope', the quick answer is no. But neither is the trinity mentioned anywhere in the bible, yet almost every Christian denomination agrees it's biblical.
Today at 12:48 PM geocajun said this in Post #10
also, did anyone in scripture ever refer to scripture as the 'bible' ?
did anyone refer to Yahweh as triune?
Again, I hope only to provide you with some insight in how this weakens your position, instead of strengthening it.
Today at 03:07 PM Reformationist said this in Post #11 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=656931#post656931)
I just wanted to point out that it is, IMO, fruitless to explain something that you hold to be true by saying that it's possible because there are other examples in the Bible of things that are commonly believed that aren't directly spelled out.
Again, I hope only to provide you with some insight in how this weakens your position, instead of strengthening it.
God bless
Today at 01:55 PM Miss Shelby said this in Post #14
I don't think it weakens the position. Just because the word 'pope' isn't found in the Bible doesn't mean that the Bible doesn't teach it.
Michelle
Today at 02:03 PM kern said this in Post #15
Yes, it is true. What we are doing here is an example of the logical fallacy "tu quoqum" (or some latin phrase like that) which is basically "well, you do it too."
The truth is, when someone says the word "Pope" is not in the Bible, all we can say is "You are correct," and then explain why that does not bother us.
As a separate issue, we can point out that other commonly accepted terms are not in the Bible either. We are not necessarily saying that to prove that the Pope is correct, we are merely saying that the fact that the word "Pope" is not found in the Bible is not relevant to the issue.
isshinwhat: what is the source of the this quotation? From what collection does it come? The trouble with some of the writings of the church fathers is that many things are said to have been written or said by them which are spurious creations of the Middle ages. During this time in history it was not unheard of to create a document to support the claims of some one to legitimacy when the were making exaggerate claims. One example would be the Donation of Constantine, an other the false Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore. Sadly, the latter was used by Aquinas to support His claims for papal primacy in the Summa.
4. If any one consider and examine these things, there is no need for lengthened discussion and arguments. There is easy proof for faith in a short summary of the truth. The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, "I say 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, "Feed nay sheep." And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, "As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;" yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity. Which one Church, also, the Holy Spirit in the Song of Songs designated in the person of our Lord, and says, "My dove, my spotless one, is but one. She is the only one of her mother, elect of her that bare her." Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?