The supremacy of the popes (of Rome).

[RileyG]

Does God become your one true Father when you believe the gospel?

Of course!

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Does God become your one true Father when you believe the gospel?

What does that even mean? God becomes a Christian's Father by adoption when the Christian is received into the Church by baptism, and baptism may either precede an explicit confession of faith in Jesus Christ or it may follow it. And by becoming a Christian one does not lose one's natural earthly father, who remains your father both before baptism and after it, nor does one exclude the possibility of having earthly spiritual fathers as the scriptures show - see 1 Corinthians 4:15 DRB.

 

[WilliamC]

See Isaiah 22 and Matthew 16:18. It's uncanny how similar they are. Peter, and his successors, The Pope, are the Prime Ministers of Jesus Christ.

I think you are trying to compare Matt. 16:19 with Is. 22:22?
First, Matt. 16:19 mentions "keys of the kingdom" NOT "key of the house of David."
Second, the" key of the house of David" is based on a covenant promise that God made with David, who was from the tribe of Judah.
Ps. 89:3 I have made a covenant with my chosen, I have sworn unto David my servant, 4 Thy seed will I establish forever, and build up thy throne to all generations. 20 I have found David my servant; with my holy oil have I anointed him: 28 My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant shall stand fast with him. 29 His seed also will i make to endure for ever, and his throne as the days of heaven. 35 Once I have sworn by my holiness that I will not lie unto David. 26 His seed shall endure for ever, and his throne as the sun before me. (My Emphasis)

Isaiah 22 is about how the servant of Hezekiah... Shebna ( a treasurer over the house of David.) who had not been faithful in executing his duties. He was robbing the treasury for his own gain. God drove him away from his station..state.. and promoted Eliakim as the governor over the inhabitants of Jerusalem and the house of Judah. he was given the run of the place... "the key of the house of David." He now had authority to make the decisions concerning the government of the kingdom of Hezekiah. The house of David... Judah.
The covenant promise God made with David was that his seed (Judah) would rule the throne forever. Shebna was not ruler, Hezekiah was Judah ruler.
Fast forward. The covenant was made to last forever.
Heb. 7:14 For it is evident that our Lord sprang out of Juda; of which tribe Moses spake nothing concerning priesthood.
24 But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood.
Jesus as a high priest continues forever. He also is the mediator of the new covenant. Heb. 9:15; I Tim. 2:5

And last, Jesus tells us in Rev. 3:7.. that it is He that hath "the key of David", he that openeth, and NO MAN shutteth; and shutteth, and NO MAN openeth." (My Emphasis)
Jesus is the seed of David....Judah
He lives forever... upholding the covenant promise to David
He has the "key of David" and is the One that openeth and shutteth... NOT ANY MAN! (My Emphasis)
Jesus fulfills all the covenant promises to David. No mere man could never assume these promises.

The disciples could never compete with Christ, as Jesus admits that NO MAN could ever have the "key of the house of David".
Jesus told Peter he would give him the keys to the kingdom. And whatsoever they bound on earth was bound in heaven, and whatsoever they loosed on earth was loosed in heaven.(My Emphasis)

They (Peter and the other disciples) had the means, teachings, to open the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven.... that they now have the fulfillment of the true Sacrifice, a Redeemer in heaven who forgives them of all their sins.. a Mediator between men and God.
This teaching could open heaven (where Jesus mediates) for sinners, making forgiveness of sins possible....or the Disciples could not relay this true teaching and close heaven for the sinners, and bind them in their sins. That is why real truth matters. Blessings!

 

[hislegacy]

I do not know why so many people object to the use of the word father in connection with a priest or a bishop.

It might be the Words of Jesus:

Matt 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

That could be why....

 

[BobRyan]

Indeed, I don't think she was the successor to any ordained person whatever.

And no ordained person that I know of was "ordained because he was a successor to someone" -- neither were NT prophets given that office because they claimed to be "a successor".

 

[BobRyan]

Let me give you a few illustrations:​

​

​

To begin with Pope St. Clement, who was the third successor of St. Peter, and who is laudably mentioned by St. Paul in one of his Epistles​

since this is one of the anchors in your proposal - a few questions are in order

1. Was there ever a "Pope St. Clement"?? did Paul refer to anyone by that title or did anyone in the second century use that title for him?
2. Are there any first or second century documents with such a title for Clement -- published to the second century church?
3. Did any first or second century source claim that Clement "sat in Peter's chair"?? Eusebius is a 4th century source as we all know
4. Was there ever a time when any first or second century Christian called Clement a Pope? or claimed that Clement was handed something by Peter or inherited from Peter?
5. Since Clement is supposedly #4 in the list - is there any first century document/event where someone was handed "the chair" of Peter as number #2 ??

These questions seem a bit redundant; #1, #2, and #4 all seem to be asking basically the same question.

1. asks if the term "Pope Clement" was used by his contemporaries.
2. Asks if we have a document using such a title - published in the 2nd century
3. Asks about the idea of "sitting in Peter's chair" - to see if there is a first or second century source for that idea
4. Was there ever a time where it is claimed that Clement "Was handed something" by Peter.
5. Asks if a first or second century document claims that the chair of Peter was some office or authority given to someone.

I'm also confused as to why you ask for a source that says Clement "sat in Peter's chair"

This may help -

Chair of Peter

Chair of Peter.—Under this head will be treated: I. The annual Feast of the Chair of Peter (Cathedra Petri) at Rome; II. The Chair itself. Read more here.

www.catholic.com

But your main question, as shown by the fact it's asked multiple times, is whether Clement was referred to as pope in the first or second century. The title of "Pope" developed in the third century as a term for various bishops

1. So then it could not be a title that Clement even knew about much less a term any of his contemporaries knew to call him.
2. Pontifex Maximus was a term used by the Roman Emperors.

from: Papal titles - Wikipedia

​

"Since the early third century, the term "pope" has been used as an expression of affectionate veneration for both the bishop of Rome and the other bishops of the West."​

​

"Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church (Summus Pontifex Ecclesiae Universalis)"​

from: Pontifex Maximus - New World Encyclopedia

"The title of "Pontifex Maximus," dating back to the times of the Roman Republic, was eventually adopted by the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. The terms pontifex maximus and summus pontifex were for centuries used by the Bishop of Rome also known as the pope. After Christ himself, the pope is considered to be the "high priest" (the veritable meaning of summus pontifex and "pontifex maximus")"​

But since that was a later thing, obviously you won't see "Pope Clement" (let alone "Pope St. Clement") used as a phrase in the first or second centuries.

agreed. It is not a term that Clement or any of his contemporaries would recognize

However, even if the specific term "pope" was not used, as has been noted, pope in English is simply used as shorthand for "Bishop of Rome".

Agreed - our use today is as you say.

So the question becomes, did anyone refer to Clement as being the bishop of Rome in the first or second century?

There were many bishops in the first and second century church - such that many held that title at the same time.

Irenaeus did so in Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 3 (note for context, the "blessed apostles" mentioned at the start

"The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate.

"episcopate" -- office of bishop.

That idea is in the first century -- and it is true that many bishops were appointed in both first and second century to lead local churches..

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

It might be the Words of Jesus:

Matt 23:8 But you, do not be called ‘Rabbi’; for One is your Teacher, the Christ, and you are all brethren. 9 Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10 And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ.

That could be why....

That is what some say but they seem to be ignoring 1 Corinthians 4:14.

 

[hislegacy]

That is what some say but they seem to be ignoring 1 Corinthians 4:14.

No - it doesn't - once again there is zero - none - nadda - not one reference in Scripture or contemporary writings of someone calling Paul father - perhaps because Jesus the Lord said not to.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

No - it doesn't - once again there is zero - none - nadda - not one reference in Scripture or contemporary writings of someone calling Paul father - perhaps because Jesus the Lord said not to.

Except for saint Paul calling himself the father of the Corinthian church.

 

[WilliamC]

Except for saint Paul calling himself the father of the Corinthian church.

Did he literally call himself the father of the Corinthian church? Or is it you who wants to call him that?
I think Paul is taking some pride in making this statement.. like a father might brag over his children, when he says that he begat them (mongenes= uniquely born). Some would even call this the act of born again.
Paul is telling the Corinthians they were begotten through the gospel (truth) he preached. .(My Emphasis).
And this rings true as we also see in James 1:18 that it is God that begat us with the word of truth..."Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.."
God is the Father who begat us all in the truth...the gospel. We are born again through the preaching of the true gospel. Paul did the presenting and preaching of the truth...and the were begat by God.
Paul also bragged on Onesimus Phil. 10..when he stated that he had begotten him while in bonds. Paul was not a literal father over those he helped bring to the real Father. Sometimes one can't help but brag out of pride.

 

[tampasteve]

Let's keep this on track, the OP can correct me, but I don't think this thread is about calling someone "father". IMO it is immaterial to the conversation of Papal supremacy. It may be a tangential conversation, but it is not the direct issue. The Eastern Orthodox and Anglicans don't have an issue with using "father" but do have issues with the Papacy. We should not get bogged down in that side conversation, IMO.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Did he literally call himself the father of the Corinthian church?

I have no idea how saint Paul could be "literally the father of the church in Corinth", but he most certainly was the spiritual father of the church in Corinth as he himself says. And the title "father" is about spiritual fatherhood; in the sense in which saint John uses it in his letters.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just. (saint John writes as their father)​

1Jn 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one. (Saint John writes to the fathers among the saints)​

 

[WilliamC]

I have no idea how saint Paul could be "literally the father of the church in Corinth", but he most certainly was the spiritual father of the church in Corinth as he himself says.

Sorry, but where does he 'say' he was their spiritual father? I believe I Cor. 4:14 simply reads..."but as my beloved sons".
In other words, one must assume, or read into the verse that, Paul is calling himself a father of sorts.

And the title "father" is about spiritual fatherhood;

When Jesus spoke in Matt. 23:8-10, the Pharisees were being hailed as someone of importance. Jesus simply stated that these titles interfered with who was really the important figure. There were no masters among men to Jesus, just as there was no one who was to be hailed as a spiritual father in His Kingdom. God was the only Father and Master when it pertained to His Kingdom.

in the sense in which saint John uses it in his letters.

1Jn 2:1 My little children, these things I write to you, that you may not sin. But if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the just. (saint John writes as their father)​

Oh, and don't forget 2 John1 when John calls the elect (church body) the elect lady (woman) and her children. (My Emphasis).

1Jn 2:13 I write unto you, fathers, because you have known him who is from the beginning. I write unto you, young men, because you have overcome the wicked one. (Saint John writes to the fathers among the saints)​

Good for him. I don't believe he was calling them spiritual fathers, just as he simply calls the younger males...young men.
We have Gen. 2:24, and Eph. 5:31; 6:2and Ex.20:12 where God used the term father as we would our biological father.
I don't believe it is in the context of not calling your own sire, father, but in the context pertaining to God's kingdom, and elevating anyone associated with His people to an authority or title that only belongs to God.. is what Jesus was speaking about.

And tampasteve, you can stop pretending that you are some kind of neutral moderator. I see your thumbs up, when you previously suggested we were getting off topic. So much for sticking to your guns. Your preconceived leanings show.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Sorry, but where does he 'say' he was their spiritual father? I believe I Cor. 4:14 simply reads..."

I see, well it isn't verse 14, try 15 which says

1Co 4:15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.​

I referred to verse 14 with the implication that the context would be read. so to make it as clear as I can:

1 Corinthians 4:6-21 ASV Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. (7) For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? (8) Already are ye filled, already ye are become rich, ye have come to reign without us: yea and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. (9) For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men. (10) We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonor. (11) Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; (12) and we toil, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; (13) being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now. (14) I write not these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. (15) For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. (16) I beseech you therefore, be ye imitators of me. (17) For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church. (18) Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. (19) But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will; and I will know, not the word of them that are puffed up, but the power. (20) For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (21) What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?​

 

[WilliamC]

I see, well it isn't verse 14, try 15 which says

1Co 4:15 For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.​

I referred to verse 14 with the implication that the context would be read. so to make it as clear as I can:

1 Corinthians 4:6-21 ASV Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other. (7) For who maketh thee to differ? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? but if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? (8) Already are ye filled, already ye are become rich, ye have come to reign without us: yea and I would that ye did reign, that we also might reign with you. (9) For, I think, God hath set forth us the apostles last of all, as men doomed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, both to angels and men. (10) We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye have glory, but we have dishonor. (11) Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwelling-place; (12) and we toil, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we endure; (13) being defamed, we entreat: we are made as the filth of the world, the offscouring of all things, even until now. (14) I write not these things to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. (15) For though ye have ten thousand tutors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers; for in Christ Jesus I begat you through the gospel. (16) I beseech you therefore, be ye imitators of me. (17) For this cause have I sent unto you Timothy, who is my beloved and faithful child in the Lord, who shall put you in remembrance of my ways which are in Christ, even as I teach everywhere in every church. (18) Now some are puffed up, as though I were not coming to you. (19) But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will; and I will know, not the word of them that are puffed up, but the power. (20) For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. (21) What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love and a spirit of gentleness?​

I see. Well, thank you for your post.

Here was my earlier post:

Did he literally call himself the father of the Corinthian church? Or is it you who wants to call him that?
I think Paul is taking some pride in making this statement.. like a father might brag over his children, when he says that he begat them (mongenes= uniquely born). Some would even call this the act of born again.
Paul is telling the Corinthians they were begotten through the gospel (truth) he preached. .(My Emphasis).
And this rings true as we also see in James 1:18 that it is God that begat us with the word of truth..."Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth.."
God is the Father who begat us all in the truth...the gospel. We are born again through the preaching of the true gospel. Paul did the presenting and preaching of the truth...and the were begat by God.
Paul also bragged on Onesimus Phil. 10..when he stated that he had begotten him while in bonds. Paul was not a literal father over those he helped bring to the real Father. Sometimes one can't help but brag out of pride.

Are you willing to overlook the Scripture that states that God begat us with the word of truth? James 1:18?
Or that even Paul told the Corinthians that it was through the gospel, in Jesus Christ that they were uniquely born (monogenes)? He helped them along, instructing them... till they were born again.
Jesus was instructing people in Matt. 23 against inaccurately attributing fatherhood—or a particular kind or degree of fatherhood—to those who do not have it. Thanks for listening. Blessings.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Are you willing to overlook the Scripture that states that God begat us with the word of truth? James 1:18?

No.

In other words, one must assume, or read into the verse that, Paul is calling himself a father of sorts.

No, no assumption is required, saint Paul states it explicitly in verse 15. "I begat you"

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

the Pharisees were being hailed as someone of importance

Pharisees are not Christians. Saint Paul is a Christian. His use of "father" for himself is not an honorific to make himself seem important.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Oh, and don't forget 2 John1 when John calls the elect (church body) the elect lady (woman) and her children. (My Emphasis).

I would never forget that; Catholics know and teach that the Church is our mother.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

And tampasteve, you can stop pretending that you are some kind of neutral moderator. I see your thumbs up, when you previously suggested we were getting off topic. So much for sticking to your guns. Your preconceived leanings show.

We are off topic, in a little side-issue that you brought up as a part of the "master critique" of the papacy, "pope" apparently being a word too far (like a bridge too far) for your theology to cope. So I do not especially mind the diversion, for a little while. I am, I confess, a little surprised about how few passages relating to fatherhood your posts use. And even more surprised at how scant the exegetical information in your posts is.

 

[tampasteve]

And tampasteve, you can stop pretending that you are some kind of neutral moderator. I see your thumbs up, when you previously suggested we were getting off topic. So much for sticking to your guns. Your preconceived leanings show.

I'm not neutral on this at all, and I didn't intend my post to seem that way. My post was pretty clear that I see the issue as being tangential to the real question of Papal supremacy. Nearly all of the churches tracing any historicity don't hold any issues with using the term "father", it's a pretty recent development to have issues with it. I see the evidences against it (essentially based around one verse) to be base and superficial, ignoring what Christ was really meaning and focusing too much on a word.

I am willing to see that people hold differing opinions and views, without feeling a desire to compel them to believe as I do. But that does not mean I don't hold views and that I am not willing to state them. Broadly my views are pretty middle of the road, and so long as someone is willing to engage in a friendly manner and is able to express their views in a way that makes sense we can get along just fine.

Next time try and quote or tag me, I almost missed this post and would not have seen your reply/critique of me.