Jesus Says a Church Doesn't Need a Bishop

[Albion]

Read Isaiah. When the office of prime minister is vacated a new prime minister is chosen.

Except that this isn't about a Prime Minister. Surely you can appreciate that this theory is quite fanciful.

There's no linguistic connection. There's no connection as far as the offices or roles are concerned. There's no consensus in the opinion of the ECFs about who might be the leader of the Apostles. The keys aren't the same (one of them being only singular--key). And even if all of this were not a concern, there is absolutely nothing which indicates that Peter's role as Pope (assuming that he held such a position) could be or was, in fact, passed on to successors.

 

[timothyu]

the Apostles also chose a replacement for Judas.

That is assumption. There were a hundred and twenty believers present for the process. In other words, just as leaders of various churches in the towns were chosen by the people (enquiring who was worthy to go to - enquiring of who? The people), the people chose the new apostle. This is the proper way, not election or replacement of a leader by the administration, but by the people themselves. Some denominations prefer the traditional ways of man by keeping control within the 'government' to themselves. Do they represent the ways of the Kingdom, or follow the traditional ways of man?

 

[Valletta]

Except that this isn't about a Prime Minister. Surely you can appreciate that this theory is quite fanciful.

There's no linguistic connection. There's no connection as far as the offices or roles are concerned. There's no consensus in the opinion of the ECFs about who might be the leader of the Apostles. The keys aren't the same (one of them being only singular--key). And even if all of this were not a concern, there is absolutely nothing which indicates that Peter's role as Pope (assuming that he held such a position) could be or was, in fact, passed on to successors.

Prime minister is a good description of the office, the king's right hand man. Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter and to no other Apostle. Jesus did not parallel the words of Isaiah for nothing, in the Davidic kingdom, according to the Word of God, when the office is vacant a new prime minister is chosen.

 

[Dale]

This reminds me of the absurd RCC theology regarding the queen of Israel being the mother of the King and therefore, Mary, being the mother of King Jesus, is Queen of Heaven.

The only significant old testament reference to a queen is the Queen of Sheba who was, assuredly, not the mother of the King of Sheba. Queens reign as monarchs in their own right as, for example, Queens Elizabeth I and II, and Victoria, of England.

Years ago on CF, I ran into the argument that in ancient Israel the King’s mother is the Queen. Apparently Catholics start from there and conclude that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the Queen of Heaven. I found this absurd. Try these verses from Song of Solomon.

Sixty queens there may be, and eighty concubines, and virgins
beyond number;
but my dove, my perfect one, is unique, the only daughter of
her mother, the favourite of the one who bore her. The
maidens saw her and called her blessed; the queens and
concubines praised her.
Song of Solomon 6:8-9 NIV


According to Song of Solomon, there were sixty queens at one time. Obviously the King didn’t have sixty mothers. These queens could only be wives of the King.

 

[Dale]

Read Isaiah. When the office of prime minister is vacated a new prime minister is chosen. This should not be shocking, the Apostles also chose a replacement for Judas.

Prime minister is a good description of the office, the king's right hand man. Jesus gave the keys of the kingdom to Peter and to no other Apostle. Jesus did not parallel the words of Isaiah for nothing, in the Davidic kingdom, according to the Word of God, when the office is vacant a new prime minister is chosen.

When did Catholics come up with the idea that Peter’s confession had something to do with Isaiah 22? I never heard this until a couple of years ago. Did any of the great saints of the RCC ever say anything about this?

I looked up what the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia had to say about Isaiah. It has an article, quaintly titled “Isaias.” Here is what it has to say about Isaiah 22:

“Ch. xxii, 1-14, is a rebuke addressed to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. In the rest of the chapter Sobna (Shebna) is the object of the Prophet's reproaches and threats (about 701 B.C.).”


That’s all. There is no mention of Eliakim or a key or keys or a prime minister. The article makes no connection between this chapter of Isaiah and Peter, or the Gospels.

As I said, when did Roman Catholics come up with this story?


Link See “Second Section”
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Isaias

 

[timothyu]

According to Song of Solomon, there were sixty queens at one time. Obviously the King didn’t have sixty mothers. These queens could only be wives of the King.

It's more of a Constantine/mommy thing is it not?

 

[The Liturgist]

There was no mechanism existing at that time by which Popes were chosen. So the Roman Church later on simply stipulated that the next bishop of Rome was the second Pope. And I do mean "stipulated" because Peter didn't make Linus his successor, he wasn't even living in Rome at that time, and he of course had no idea that there was such a thing as a Pope. No one did.

However, the theory behind the Papacy, the Papal office, is that there has been an unbroken line of these men from Peter to the present, so it's necessary when making up a list like the one you presented to us, to make it look seamless.


Also, according the Catholic theory, the Pope is the bishop of Rome. The townsmen of Rome called for their favorite to be made Peter's successor as bishop--and John was nowhere near--so it was done.


All the Apostles are considered to be bishops, the first ones, even if they were not installed as such. John didn't have jurisdiction over any diocese (a bishop's territory) however.


No, just like today, some cities are the headquarters of a territory under their oversight. But many others are not. It's very much like states with state capitals.

Actually I believe John is regarded by EO historians as having been a bishop of Ephesus, to which Luke and the Theotokos are also connected.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Years ago on CF, I ran into the argument that in ancient Israel the King’s mother is the Queen. Apparently Catholics start from there and conclude that Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the Queen of Heaven. I found this absurd. Try these verses from Song of Solomon.

Sixty queens there may be, and eighty concubines, and virgins
beyond number;
but my dove, my perfect one, is unique, the only daughter of
her mother, the favourite of the one who bore her. The
maidens saw her and called her blessed; the queens and
concubines praised her.
Song of Solomon 6:8-9 NIV


According to Song of Solomon, there were sixty queens at one time. Obviously the King didn’t have sixty mothers. These queens could only be wives of the King.

Thank you!

 

[Dale]

Since Roman Catholics believe that Peter was Bishop of Rome, here’s something for them to consider.

At the end of the Book of Romans, Paul spends an entire chapter greeting various people. Twenty-eight people are greeted by name, and others indirectly, as in "those who belong to the household of ... " and "also the church that meets at their house."

The person that Paul doesn't greet is Peter. Paul has no thought of Peter being in Rome. Moreover, Paul doesn't greet the Bishop of Rome, or show any sign that anyone possesses that title. There appear to be several house churches in Rome, but there is no sign that the churches in Rome have a common leader. If Peter had been Bishop of Rome at that time, Paul might not have written the Book of Romans because Rome would have been under Peter's jurisdiction.

Scholars believe that the Book of Romans was written about 59 AD. By Catholic reckoning, Peter should have been in Rome in 59 AD. Yet Paul didn’t believe that Peter was in Rome.

 

[timothyu]

The person that Paul doesn't greet is Peter. Paul has no thought of Peter being in Rome. Moreover, Paul doesn't greet the Bishop of Rome, or show any sign that anyone possesses that title.

But if Roman gentiles were going to make this Christian thing their own then it is obvious that when in Rome do as the Romans do. Build a new institution based on the ones that went before and make it over in their own image. Lay claim to a fisherman but distance yourself from the Jews. Lay claim to Jesus but distance yourself from the Kingdom, an outside culture to the Empire's. Eventually bring the church governance and the secular governance together to form a new one world governance, neither of which separate or combined represents the Kingdom and Governance of God.

 

[Albion]

nm

 

[Dale]

But if Roman gentiles were going to make this Christian thing their own then it is obvious that when in Rome do as the Romans do. Build a new institution based on the ones that went before and make it over in their own image. Lay claim to a fisherman but distance yourself from the Jews. Lay claim to Jesus but distance yourself from the Kingdom, an outside culture to the Empire's. Eventually bring the church governance and the secular governance together to form a new one world governance, neither of which separate or combined represents the Kingdom and Governance of God.

Timothy: "But if Roman gentiles were going to make this Christian thing their own then it is obvious that when in Rome do as the Romans do. Build a new institution based on the ones that went before and make it over in their own image."


I've read that the structure of the early Catholic Church is modeled on the Roman civil service.

 

[timothyu]

I've read that the structure of the early Catholic Church is modeled on the Roman civil service.

Are not world governments and businesses run in the same way based upon the same principles. Why in earth would God do the same (especially after teaching us Himself and through Jesus that we have it all backwards)?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Timothy: "But if Roman gentiles were going to make this Christian thing their own then it is obvious that when in Rome do as the Romans do. Build a new institution based on the ones that went before and make it over in their own image."


I've read that the structure of the early Catholic Church is modeled on the Roman civil service.

Nothing new about that at all. American Christianity is closely modeled after contemporary secular culture.

 

[Dale]

Roman Catholics believe, or assume, that Peter lived in Rome, making him the Bishop of Rome. It is also believed that Peter died in a major persecution of Christians in Rome in 67 AD.

What do we know? From the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1946:

Some scholars believe that Peter had a home in the Greek city of Corinth.

“I Corinthians 1:12 mentions a party of Cephas at Corinth, and some have supposed that this implies a residence of St. Peter at Corinth as a consequence of which a party of his admirers was formed.”

What do we know of the time or place of Peter’s death?

“Nothing definite is known about the Apostle's death.”

In other words, we don’t know the year or the place.



From the Encyclopedia Britannica, 2007, Micropedia under Peter the Apostle, Saint:

"It is probable that the tradition of a 25-year episcopate of Peter in Rome is not earlier than the beginning or the middle of the 3rd century.”

In EB 2007 Macropedia under Papacy:

"There is no historical evidence that St. Peter was the first leader of the church of Rome nor that he was martyred there during a persecution of the Christians (c. 67AD).”

It is far more likely that Christians developed the habit of following religious decrees from Rome because Rome was the capital of the empire.

 

[Dan Perez]

Since Roman Catholics believe that Peter was Bishop of Rome, here’s something for them to consider.

At the end of the Book of Romans, Paul spends an entire chapter greeting various people. Twenty-eight people are greeted by name, and others indirectly, as in "those who belong to the household of ... " and "also the church that meets at their house."

The person that Paul doesn't greet is Peter. Paul has no thought of Peter being in Rome. Moreover, Paul doesn't greet the Bishop of Rome, or show any sign that anyone possesses that title. There appear to be several house churches in Rome, but there is no sign that the churches in Rome have a common leader. If Peter had been Bishop of Rome at that time, Paul might not have written the Book of Romans because Rome would have been under Peter's jurisdiction.

Scholars believe that the Book of Romans was written about 59 AD. By Catholic reckoning, Peter should have been in Rome in 59 AD. Yet Paul didn’t believe that Peter was in Rome.

In say

In JOHN 21:17--19 speaks about Peter and that he would die of old AGE , and never went to ROME !!

dan p

 

[prodromos]

This thread is over 3 years old and has been dormant for the last 2. What was the point of resurrecting it?

 

[timothyu]

The whole point of Christianity as far as humans are concerned is resurrection

This thread is over 3 years old and has been dormant for the last 2. What was the point of resurrecting it?

 

[prodromos]

The whole point of Christianity as far as humans are concerned is resurrection

Yes, Christ's resurrection, not some zombie thread on the forums

 

[timothyu]

Yes, Christ's resurrection, not some zombie thread on the forums

Well at least it followed the three rule.