The Papacy, How did it really come about?

[lionroar0]

....why is this thread in this forum?

Cause it's on the laundry list.

Peace

 

[Technocrat2010]

Oh??? Think again.

"Then an argument started among them [disciples]about who would be the greatest of them. But Jesus, knowing the thoughts of their hearts, took a little child and had him stand next to Him." Luke 9:46-47

And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.
Matthew 23:9-10 (KJV)

"And he called to him a little child, and set him in the midst of them, and said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye turn, and become as little children, ye shall in no wise enter into the kingdom of heaven. Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth me:
But whoso shall cause one of these little ones that believe on me to stumble, it is profitable for him that a great millstone should be hanged about his neck, and that he should be sunk in the depth of the sea.
Matthew 18:1-6 (ASV)

It is impossible to see the CC in that light. History bears that out, making literary 'referrences' unnecessary.

By your argument, then, we must not call our biological fathers "father", as there is no exception made in Christ's words. Either Christ was speaking in hyperbole or you would be disobeying Him by calling your father "father". The same with Master.

If Christ meant literally, then what was Paul doing in Philemon 10 by saying he has become the "father" of Onesimus?
What is John doing in 1 John 2 by calling the elders "fathers"?
What is Paul doing by saying he became our father in Christ in 1 Corinthians 4?

Luke 9 doesn't clarify if "greatest" means in terms of authority or notoriety, so your point with Luke is null.

Matthew 16:18-19 parallels Isaiah 22:20-22.

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."

As Matthew 18:1-6 shows, we must be humble and not cause others, especially the pure of mind, to fall to sin. Humility does not correlate with authority. One can be the king of the Universe and bring Himself to wash the feet of His disciples.

 

[Catholic Christian]

The bishops—successors of the apostles (from the Catechism Of The Catholic Church):
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

CCC 861 - "In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry."

CCC 862 - "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops." Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."

 

[Catholic Christian]

The bishops—successors of the apostles (from the Catechism Of The Catholic Church):
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt3art9p3.htm

CCC 861 - "In order that the mission entrusted to them might be continued after their death, [the apostles] consigned, by will and testament, as it were, to their immediate collaborators the duty of completing and consolidating the work they had begun, urging them to tend to the whole flock, in which the Holy Spirit had appointed them to shepherd the Church of God. They accordingly designated such men and then made the ruling that likewise on their death other proven men should take over their ministry."

CCC 862 - "Just as the office which the Lord confided to Peter alone, as first of the apostles, destined to be transmitted to his successors, is a permanent one, so also endures the office, which the apostles received, of shepherding the Church, a charge destined to be exercised without interruption by the sacred order of bishops." Hence the Church teaches that "the bishops have by divine institution taken the place of the apostles as pastors of the Church, in such wise that whoever listens to them is listening to Christ and whoever despises them despises Christ and him who sent Christ."

 

[Ormly]

By your argument, then, we must not call our biological fathers "father", as there is no exception made in Christ's words. Either Christ was speaking in hyperbole or you would be disobeying Him by calling your father "father". The same with Master.

If Christ meant literally, then what was Paul doing in Philemon 10 by saying he has become the "father" of Onesimus?
What is John doing in 1 John 2 by calling the elders "fathers"?
What is Paul doing by saying he became our father in Christ in 1 Corinthians 4?

Luke 9 doesn't clarify if "greatest" means in terms of authority or notoriety, so your point with Luke is null.

Matthew 16:18-19 parallels Isaiah 22:20-22.

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

"On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open."

As Matthew 18:1-6 shows, we must be humble and not cause others, especially the pure of mind, to fall to sin. Humility does not correlate with authority. One can be the king of the Universe and bring Himself to wash the feet of His disciples.

Something else you can't do, make distinctions between being a father, which you have alot to do with if you are one and calling a someone a father when it isn't warranted. I believe that is what Jesus was implying, don't you?

Ergo, the pope is no father since he has fathered nothing and certainly the priest who has fathered nothing and only follows the dictates of one whose title has be wrongly been applied.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Something else you can't do, make distinctions between being a father, which you have alot to do with if you are one and calling a someone a father when it isn't warranted.
I believe that is what Jesus was implying, don't you?

Just how do my statements imply an inability to make the distinction? Yes, Jesus was clearly pointing out that those who did not deserve the title should not be called as such. But by simply posting that verse without any clarification, how am I supposed to know you're not going for the most literal translation?

Ergo, the pope is no father since he has fathered nothing and certainly the priest who has fathered nothing and only follows the dictates of one whose title has be wrongly been applied.

The Pope need not sire a child in order to be a father, just as the Apostles often referred to the elders (and themselves) as "fathers". It's the concept of spiritual fatherhood that is at play here.

Please demonstrate how the title of the pope is wrongly applied.

 

[MyHeart07]

I just wish to point out a few facts about Peter if I may (thank you )

Peter was appointed as the apostle to the the Jews. If anyone should have been a 'pope' it should have been Paul.

Jesus Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:7-8).

Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles. And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter! "And when James, Cephas [Peter], and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace [i.e., the gift or office] that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal. 2:9).
Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles. This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable"(Rom. 15:16). How clear!Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."

We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11).Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius. NeitherPeter nor Paul established the Catholic Church. But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.

We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20). If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome.....

 

[Technocrat2010]

Peter was appointed as the apostle to the the Jews. If anyone should have been a 'pope' it should have been Paul.

Jesus Christ’s commission to Peter. This is often very embarrassing to Catholics, because Christ commissioned Peter to become chief minister to the CIRCUMCISED, not to uncircumcised Gentiles.
"The gospel of the CIRCUMCISION was unto Peter; (For He that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles" (Gal. 2:7-8).

This makes sense. The Pope is the leader of the worldwide Catholic Church, but his bishophric, that is, his personal ministry, is that of Rome. So, if Peter's bishophric was that to the Jews, it makes no difference in his primacy to the chair of the PM.

Here we have it in the clearest of language. It was Paul, NOT Peter, who was commissioned to be the chief Apostle to the Gentiles.

Yes. So?

And who was it that wrote the Epistle to the ROMANS? It certainly WASN’T Peter!

So?

Paul further mentioned his special office as the Gentile Apostle in II Timothy 1:11: "Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles."

Yes. We agree. So?

PETER is NOWHERE called the Apostle to the Gentiles. This precludes him from going to Rome to become the head of a Gentile community.

The term Trinity is nowhere to be found in the Bible either. Does that invalidate the Trinity? Obviously not. Peter was not the Apostle of the Gentiles. Paul was. We agree on that. But Peter was the Prime Minister of the Church AS A WHOLE, not just of the Jews and not just of the Gentiles, but both. AS I SAID, however, his bishophric, that is, his personal ministry, was that to the Jews.

Paul specifically told the Gentile Romans that HE had been chosen to be their Apostle, not Peter. "I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable"(Rom. 15:16). How clear!Paul had the direct charge from Christ in this matter. He even further relates in Romans 15:18 that it was Christ who had chosen him "to make the Gentiles obedient, by word and deed."

Yes. So?

We are told by Paul himself that it was he -- not Peter –who was going to officially found the Roman Church. "I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end ye may be established" (Rom. 1:11).Amazing! The Church at Rome had not been ESTABLISHED officially even by 55 or 56 A.D. However, the Catholics would have us believe that Peter had done this some ten years before -- in the reign of Claudius.

Peter's papal seat is in Rome because he established it there. His personal ministry was that to the Jews, but as the Prime Minister of the Catholic Church as a whole, he established his papal seat in Rome.

NeitherPeter nor Paul established the Catholic Church. But these proofs are given to illustrate that it is utterly impossible for PETER to have been in any way associated with ANY Church at Rome.

We find Paul not only wanting to establish the Church at Rome, but he emphatically tells us that his policy was NEVER to build upon another man’s foundation. "Yea, so have I strived to preach the gospel, not where Christ was named, LEST I SHOULD BUILD UPON ANOTHER MAN’S FOUNDATION"(Rom. 15:20).If Peter had "founded" the Roman Church some ten years before this statement, this represents a real affront to Peter. This statement alone is proof that Peter had never been in Rome before this time to "found" any church. Peter Not in Rome.....

Correct. Neither Peter nor Paul established the Catholic Church. Christ did, and He gave the Davidic Keys to Peter. Peter established the papal seat in Rome. Furthermore, to claim that Peter didn't have any association with Rome is rather ignorant of the facts.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_I

I just wish to point out a few facts about Peter if I may (thank you )

Okay, you've burned a few straw-men. I'm waiting for the facts...

 

[MyHeart07]

and He gave the Davidic Keys to Peter.

NO He didn't.

 

[Technocrat2010]

NO He didn't.

Yes, he did.

Matthew 16:18-19 -

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

These are the Davidic Keys foreshadowed in Isaiah 22:20-22 -

"On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. "

 

[MyHeart07]

Yes, he did.

Matthew 16:18-19 -

"And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

First of all, Peter was not the rock. We all know that. Jesus told him "your name is Peter --- a little rock" but I AM THE BIG ROCK and upon that 'BIG ROCK' I will build my Church....not on you, Peter

Now...about the keys: Not the key of the church, but the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Mt 13 i.e. the sphere of Christian profession.

I don't know how to say this, maybe because of the language barrier (forgive me) but the Church is NOT IN ROME . That is NOT what Jesus had in mind. It's not in the Pope's hands.

We are called to be saints. It's not the pope who decides that some dead person who has done good works and 'ok I now declare this person a saint'

That is so against scirpture! I'm sorry but saints are alive and not dead. I know I'm derailing the thread. Sorry.

 

[Technocrat2010]

First of all, Peter was not the rock. We all know that. Jesus told him "your name is Peter --- a little rock" but I AM THE BIG ROCK and upon that 'BIG ROCK' I will build my Church....not on you, Peter

Why are you reading the gospel of Matthew in Classical Greek and not the Koine Greek in which it was written? In Koine Greek, petros and petra are synonymous. In fact, if the gospel writer wanted to make a distinction between the two, lithos and petra would have been the proper pair.

Even in classical Greek the distinction is not without exceptions. In Oedipus at Colonus, for instance, we have the use of petros in v. 1595 used in reference to a large boulder used as a landmark - clearly, not a pebble.

Furthermore, the Aramaic versions of the gospel make use of the word Kepha when referring to both "Peter" and the "rock" in Matthew 16:18, showing no distinction between the two.

Now...about the keys: Not the key of the church, but the kingdom of heaven in the sense of Mt 13 i.e. the sphere of Christian profession.

Huh? This statement doesn't make sense. Can you explain?

I don't know how to say this, maybe because of the language barrier (forgive me) but the Church is NOT IN ROME . That is NOT what Jesus had in mind. It's not in the Pope's hands.

Actually, the Church is in Rome... and New York... and Calcutta... and Moscow... and in Purgatory, and in Heaven.

Can you show me where it was not in Jesus' interest to have a church established in Rome or any other city for that matter?

We are called to be saints. It's not the pope who decides that some dead person who has done good works and 'ok I now declare this person a saint'

Do not speak against what you do not understand. We are all saints in some fashion. We are all called to holiness. The Catholic Church recognizes those who led exceptionally holy lives by giving them a formal title. Does that mean no one else is a saint? Heavens, no.

That is so against scirpture! I'm sorry but saints are alive and not dead. I know I'm derailing the thread. Sorry.

No worries. Yes, the saints are alive. On Earth, and in Heaven.

 

[Ormly]

Just how do my statements imply an inability to make the distinction? Yes, Jesus was clearly pointing out that those who did not deserve the title should not be called as such. But by simply posting that verse without any clarification, how am I supposed to know you're not going for the most literal translation?

Being largely irrationally biased I don't expect much from you, but I'll give it a go.

Jesus said, "call no man father". He is not implying fathers of the flesh but spiritual fathers since He further qualifies it with referring to our heavenly Father being who He is, our only Spiritual Father. Ergo, Popes and Priest are disqualified. Having said that, there are intellectual 'fathers' we call our 'mentors'. Your Pope and Priest may fall into that catagory, though, given the track records of some, I can imagine the great disappointment of many who were mentored by them.

The Pope need not sire a child in order to be a father, just as the Apostles often referred to the elders (and themselves) as "fathers". It's the concept of spiritual fatherhood that is at play here.

I am glad we have agreement. One thing, though the pope was not always elected, and we won't get sidetracked on the subject of how many got to be pope who were not elected, he nevertheless doesn't qualify. The title is a spiritual mis-application that promotes semblance without substance. Respecive for it is fear driven.

Please demonstrate how the title of the pope is wrongly applied.

I believe I just did.

 

[Technocrat2010]

Being largely irrationally biased I don't expect much from you, but I'll give it a go.

You, irrationally biased? Don't be so hard on yourself.

Jesus said, "call no man father". He is not implying fathers of the flesh but spiritual fathers since He further qualifies it with referring to our heavenly Father being who He is, our only Spiritual Father. Ergo, Popes and Priest are disqualified. Having said that, there are intellectual 'fathers' we call our 'mentors'. Your Pope and Priest may fall into that catagory, though, given the track records of some, I can imagine the great disappointment of many who were mentored by them.

Please show me where Jesus made a distinction between intellectual "fathers" and spiritual "fathers".

I am glad we have agreement. One thing, though the pope was not always elected, and we won't get sidetracked on the subject of how many got to be pope who were not elected, he nevertheless doesn't qualify. The title is a spiritual mis-application that promotes semblance without substance. Respecive for it is fear driven.

So when the Apostles, in their Epistles, refer to themselves and the elders as "fathers", it's a spiritual misapplication. Correct?

I believe I just did.

I'm still waiting...

 

[Ormly]

Please show me where Jesus made a distinction between intellectual "fathers" and spiritual "fathers".

Why? <staff edit>

So when the Apostles, in their Epistles, refer to themselves and the elders as "fathers", it's a spiritual misapplication. Correct?

No. It is you who mis-apply the title that has lead you and your crowd to more readily embrace falseness.

I'm still waiting...

I do hope it is not raining where you are.

 

[Technocrat2010]

<staff edit for consistency>

No. It is you who mis-apply the title that has lead you and your crowd to more readily embrace falseness.

Then demonstrate it!

I do hope it is not raining where you are.

Actually it snowed out here a little while back... the sun is out and the snow is melting. The weather is quite good, in fact.

 

[Catholic Christian]

First of all, Peter was not the rock. We all know that. Jesus told him "your name is Peter --- a little rock" but I AM THE BIG ROCK and upon that 'BIG ROCK' I will build my Church....not on you, Peter

Wrong again. Opponents of the Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 sometimes argue that in the Greek text the name of the apostle is Petros, while "rock" is rendered as petra. They claim that the former refers to a small stone, while the latter refers to a massive rock; so, if Peter was meant to be the massive rock, why isn&#8217;t his name Petra?

Note that Christ did not speak to the disciples in Greek. He spoke Aramaic, the common language of Palestine at that time. In that language the word for rock is kepha, which is what Jesus called him in everyday speech (note that in John 1:42 he was told, "You will be called Cephas"). What Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 was: "You are Kepha, and upon this kepha I will build my Church."

When Matthew&#8217;s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ&#8217;s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man&#8217;s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.

Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson&#8217;s remarks on this passage in the Expositor&#8217;s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).

Some of the effect of Christ&#8217;s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."

Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."

If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn&#8217;t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew&#8217;s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.

The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.

 

[Ormly]

<consistency>

Then demonstrate it!

Demonstrate what?? What Jesus had on His mind when saying such a thing? Sorry, can't help you. The Bible is revelation truth. Understanding context is a step to understanding that. Seems you lack in that area when grasping for the truth.


<edit>

 

[Technocrat2010]

Demonstrate what?? What Jesus had on His mind when saying such a thing? Sorry, can't help you. The Bible is revelation truth. Understanding context is a step to understanding that. Seems you lack in that area when grasping for the truth.

The context doesn't indicate any demarcation between intellectual fathers and spiritual fathers. If I so lack in that area, it only makes sense for someone to show me, no?

Since you seem to know that Jesus made a distinction between the two, please demonstrate how you came to that conclusion. (In other words, please provide the scriptural context. )

 

[Ormly]

Who's whining?

You are. Get your finger off the 'report' button.