The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

Well, let me see....I like your wit and sense of humor. If that is a good thing, then your looks must be good also. Does that say much?

MEE

 

Hi Ed,
Ever noticed how the same thing can be seen from two diferent angles? One of the earliest "proofs" of Roman supremacy is often quoted as being when Victor of Rome excommunicated the quartodecimans for celebrating the death and ressurection of Jesus on the day taught by the apostle John. That he felt he could do so shows he was pope, so the argument goes. Now, from that precise same act (the idea of throwing people out of the church for celebrating the death and ressurection of Jesus [on ANY day, let alone one with apostolic practice to back it up]) many other people would argue that, what ever Victor was, a sucsessor to the fisherman he wasn't.
Perhaps more importantly, we are taught not to trust in genealogies or lines of sucsession. Dont say we have Abraham as our father, I tell you God is able from these stones to raise up children of Abraham. Likewise, and in a letter written to Rome(!) Paul teaches that we only hold our position by faith, and that if we loose that faith, so goes our position. That is, our position cannot withstand the loss of faith. Even if I accepted your original argument (which I do not), you cant have a few Borgias, and then happily go back to supremacy. Take away faith and your supremacy is gone. You are saved by faith in Jesus, not by faith in church history. Jesus died for YOU, the church did not. We gather together for mutual edification, but our headship is in Jesus.
Take care, Colin

 

Hi Colin,

I find your logic interesting but somewhat lacking. The quadrametian problem was much deeper than your glossy history. The Pope wished to standardize the day Easter was celebrated for unity in the church and to establish a Church Calendar. Something foreign to Baptists who's pastor picks the favorite scripture. He may well never get to many verses in the Bible.
The Catholic Church on the other hand has what is called a liturgical year. The same scriptures are read worldwide in the Catholic Church. Part of the Quadrametian problem was that they rejected his authority to do this. The odd thing about it is that they were the only little group to reject his authority to set easter. And the other odd thing is that when he excommunicated them the rest of the Church recognized his authority to do so. These facts blow a hole in your arguements, implying that he was just some power hungry man or whatever your theory is.

As for your setting up a dichotomy between the Church and Christ, that does not work either. The Church is the "pillar and support of the truth". Without it the truth is not carried on. The truth is not defended and those who are outside the Church do not have the fullness of Christ. So it is not the Church or Christ, it is Christ through his Church. Yes Jesus died for our sins but the Church is the body of Christ. It is a living, breathing, visible organism, contrary to Baptist invisible Church theory. It is a light on a hill for all to see. (will I get the "the Church is not a building arguement here, I sure hope not). It has been visible and knowable to all generations. That is why history is important. Yes the faith is in Jesus Christ, but that faith is in his words. And his words allow for a prevailing Church through time. One that we can know. The invisible Church theory makes Matt 18 unittelligible. How can a pentecostal and a Baptist settle their dispute by taking it to the Church? They cannot. There is one true Church with the fullness of the truth. The rest have varying degrees of the Church but are more a result of mans inner desire for God (romans 2:15) than any truths gleaned from the Bible.

Blessing Colin

 

Okay,

Obviously you guys never read what's right in front of you. And you guys can argue "it ain't so" all you want in spite of the obvious. But, anyone else who reads what is posted knows that black is black and white is white. (I sure wish I could remember which catholic theologian it was that said, and I'll paraphrase, "If the Holy Mother Church tells me black is white I am bound to believe it so."

First, number one rule concerning RCism: Unanimous Consent of the Fathers.

The First Vatican Council, meeting in 1869-70, reaffirmed Trent's position:

The so-called Unanimous Consent does not, nor ever did exist.

Now, CC,

Whatever you think . . .

How so?

Actually, what puts Peter and Paul on equal footing (as well as the other eleven apostles) is:

Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Mar 9:35 And he sat down, and called the twelve, and saith unto them, If any man desire to be first, [the same] shall be last of all, and servant of all.

1Cr 1:12 Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.

1Cr 1:13 Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?


Mat 20:21 And he said unto her, What wilt thou? She saith unto him, Grant that these my two sons may sit, the one on thy right hand, and the other on the left, in thy kingdom.

Mat 20:22 But Jesus answered and said, Ye know not what ye ask. Are ye able to drink of the cup that I shall drink of, and to be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? They say unto him, We are able.

Mat 20:23 And he saith unto them, Ye shall drink indeed of my cup, and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with: but to sit on my right hand, and on my left, is not mine to give, but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared of my Father.

Mat 20:24 And when the ten heard [it], they were moved with indignation against the two brethren.

Mat 20:25 But Jesus called them [unto him], and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.

Mat 20:26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;

Mat 20:27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant:

Mar 10:40 But to sit on my right hand and on my left hand is not mine to give; but [it shall be given to them] for whom it is prepared.

Mar 10:41 And when the ten heard [it], they began to be much displeased with James and John.

Mar 10:42 But Jesus called them [to him], and saith unto them, Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and their great ones exercise authority upon them.

Mar 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister:

Mar 10:44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all.

Luk 22:23 And they began to enquire among themselves, which of them it was that should do this thing.

Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.

Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.

Luk 22:26 But ye [shall] not [be] so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.

It amazes me how the RCC can take an obscure verse such as Matt 16:18, build a whole theological system from it (and intelligent people such as you guys buy it ), and completely ignore explicit verses which teach completely contrary to the teachings of the RCC.

But it does.

<snort>Uh . . . ukaayyy . . . .

(foregoing the fact that you have provided no such texts to me, I will respond on the basis of the responses other RCs have given me) I don't refuse to accept the texts you post. My point is that the required "unanimous consent of the Fathers" that your belief system is based upon, does not exists. Apparently, they didn't only conflict with each other, but they contradicted themselves on occasion. I'm not trying to prove that the ECFs beliefs were in complete alignment with Evangelical beliefs. My belief is not dependent upon them or the RCC, but on the guidance I receive from the Holy Spirit.

Now, that's just downright funny!!! We torture Scripture? Hey, can you blame us for thinking that if anybody can buy into the many outrageous teachings of the RCC which blatantly contradict Scripture, that there is a small hope that in a moment of clarity you may receptive to the obvious and see the light?

Poor Ed.

Now you just played into my hands and admitted that Unanimous Consent is non-existant. However, Augustine was one of the most highly regarded of the Church Fathers, and he's not the only ECF who did not hold to the same belief as the RCC on Peter the Rock.

Who is ranting? Now look who's getting testy.

Because, they are just as lost as many Catholics are.

So, given the fact of the huge volumes of writings by the fathers, how much digging would we have to do to find writings contradicting your beliefs, if ECF writings were as pro-RC as you would have one believe? Believe me, the quotes I post are not hard to find.

Are you calling Augustine a dissident?

But, those teaching did exist. Don't believe it? Just read your Bible. The RCC just took great liberties and got away with it for centuries because of illiteracy and the lack of accessibility to Biblical texts. Luther and others broke away when they saw the inevitibility of laity discovering the Truth on their own.

Nope. It didn't disappear. It's always been around.

Do you have any idea what that comment sounds like. . . . ?

[ January 20, 2003, 04:20 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Carson,

Well, my exact words were that that statement "sort of" negated it, not absolutely. However, my comment may be a non sequitur if I based my belief solely upon that comment. However, you're one to be throwing that accusation around. How many RC teachings are based upon non sequiturs? Please . . .

According to you. However, you're going to have to justify that comment by proving that Iraneaus' beliefs were more in line with yours than mine?

I'm simply wondering why he didn't just say all other churches must "obey" or "submit." Agreement insinuates equal authority.

No.

Yep.

Most likely neither are in 100% alignment.

Another non sequitor on your part.

Non sequitor. Let me point out one more time what Iraneaus said:

Iraneaus clearly could have listed the successions of all bishophrics.

I'm not. Like I told Ed, I'm just showing you the fallacy of the RCC claim of "unanimous consent" among the ECFs.

And you base this non sequitur on what evidence?

[ January 20, 2003, 04:43 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

CC,

Before you make that statement, you have to prove that Peter was the General. Which you haven't, because you can't . . .

How so?

If you don't know Greek, upon what basis to you make that claim? No, I don't know Greek, but please tell me why you believe the Holy Spirit can protect the passing on of oral apostolic traditions, and not see to it that the Bible is translated well enough for us all to get the Gospel.

As mine does when reading a majority of RC teachings and arguments.

I disagree with my husband often. Guess . . . I'm hellbound . . . .

1Pe 2:13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;

1Pe 2:14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.

Do you believe that we should submit to governing authorities unquestioningly? Even when the government opposes christianity?

Iraneaus says nothing about obeying. You are reading into the text.

Yes, I do. The covenantal authority of my faith is God, not the church I attend.

I often wonder how RCism continually ignores those reprimands from Christ. The RCC is repeating the same errors. However, it is said that History repeats itself. So . . . .

Uh huh, God in heaven.

It's hogwash in black-n-white. You may choose to pretend you don't see, but the rest of us know it's there.

God Bless ya, Ed

[ January 20, 2003, 10:55 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

I am being honest, Ed. Are each of them TRULY submitting to Christ as Head? It is one thing to say it and another to do it........

And Catholics don't disagree in areas of theology? Yes it is a tad off, but just because you (I am not saying you Ed, just a general term for anybody) can take a verse out of context and twist it does not mean your position is Biblical. I still stand by what I say, that if people would truly die to self and live for Christ, things would be different.

This is where I differ with you. I try not to judge someone's salvation, but there are probably some here without it. Remember, there will be many who say, "Lord, Lord" and shall not enter the Kingdom.

I agree with the lack of unity. And I see this from a lack of dying to self and living for Christ.

And I disagree about there having to be a single mind for everyone (i.e. someone making all the decisions). Are we not going to stand before Christ one day and answer for ourselves? What is the point of us answering individually if there is someone to make all the decisions for us? And there is nothing Biblical about a pope making the decisions for everyone to follow. Look at Philippians 2:1-4. Paul did not say, "Here, follow what Peter says and be of one mind", but rather he leaves it up to the people there in Philippi to do that. And this is a passage where I think we as Christians today are lacking greatly. I am not disagreeing that there is a lack of unity among Protestants, but if you look at many of the reasons, a lot of them boil down to fulfilling selfish desires, a lack of love for others, and a lack of humility.

Neal

[ January 21, 2003, 04:26 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

I think that this is a wonderful statement. I have only been posting on this board for a short time but I have already come to love doing so. I want to ask all of you that while these discussions are normally kept civil, how do they appear to any non-believers that happen here? Do you think that they are pointed toward Christ? Whether you are Catholic or Calvinist or Baptist or whatever, if you claim Christ then isn't the priority to serve Him and to show Him to others? How can bickering over doctrine accomplish this? Would it not be better to discuss these sort of things in private with each other? I realise that it is important to defend the faith and to defend correct doctrine but are we leading others astray? Will someone read this and say "Wow, God is surly a loving and caring God", or will they say "These followers of Christ can't even agree with each other, why should I listen". This is a Baptist Board, the only reason I mention this is because I was a member of a "Christian Forum" that turned out to be a Catholic Forum. I found this out by denouncing a certain Catholic belief and I was swarmed by everyone, including the moderators! I was not proud of that incident and I did not handle it very well and it certainly did not show forth the love of God. What I am saying is that if there cannot be agreement, there is a place for both sides.

I hope that no one is offended by this but I feel that we are doing nothing to further Christ with this sort of discussion. Is that not the purpose of forums like this? Sorry for the length of this I just wanted to explain myself clearly.

Love in Christ,
Grayson

 

I think if people would truly look to and submit to Christ as Head

As a Catholic, I submit to Jesus as the head of the Catholic Church.

"As Lord, Christ is also head of the Church, which is his Body (Eph 1:22). Taken up to heaven and glorified after he had thus fully accomplished his mission, Christ dwells on earth in his Church. The redemption is the source of the authority that Christ, by virtue of the Holy Spirit, exercises over the Church. The kingdom of Christ is already present in mystery, on earth, the seed and the beginning of the kingdom. (Eph 4:11-13)" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 669).

The reality of the matter - that is, what the Bible tells us - is that the Father sent the Son who in turn, and in the same way, sent the Apostles whom he formed during his public ministry.

John 20:21-23, "Jesus said to them again, 'Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.' And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, 'Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.'"

When those first Christians received the sacraments & teaching from the Apostles, they were listening to and receiving Christ himself.

The question isn't whether Christ is our head. The question is: who did Christ appoint to speak in his name?

God bless,

Carson

 

Carson,

Christ established His church, Matt 16:18.

Um, Christ sent the Holy Spirit after His ascension.

Jhn 14:26 But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Jhn 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, [even] the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:

Jhn 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

I'm not sure where the "mystery" part comes from in that Scriptural passage.

Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:

I do especially like verse 4:14, though:

Eph 4:14 That we [henceforth] be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, [and] cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;

Exactly how are we suppose to protect ourselves from deception?

What did Jesus mean, " . . . If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained?" Let's see what Augustine thought:

The authority bestowed on the Apostles by Christ is simply this: If a person seeks forgiveness and repentance, then he should be forgiven. The Apostles were not given authority to judge worthiness of forgiveness. If a sinner asked for or believed his sins could be remitted, the apostles were to accept his repentance.

Can you provide any evidence for the Apostles hearing personal confessions from the repentant? Actually, as a rule, the apostles didn't even perform baptisms. Neither did Christ. So, why do you insist that the authority of the Apostles is passed on, when clearly the powers of the apostles were not. Exactly, when did the powers to heal and cure end? Can the Pope now tell a man to get up and walk who has been crippled his entire life?

Who? Where?

Actually, the answer is nobuddy.

1Jo 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

Hbr 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Hbr 8:10 For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:

Hbr 10:16 This [is] the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

1Cr 1:21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

[ January 21, 2003, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Here's another interesting point I noticed while reading Iraneaus:

Where did Peter and Paul go? Iraneaus says they having founded and built up the Church, committed it to Linus. So, I'm confused. Were Peter and Linus Pope at the same time in Rome? Or did Peter rule from elsewhere?

 

Carson posted:

The answer is given in Scripture.

Mat. 18:18, Jesus addresses the church and speaks to the church about binding and loosing, concerning judgements made by a local church with respect to church discipline. This has nothing to do with the head of the church, nothing whatsoever.

Mat. 28:18-20, Jesus speaks to the eleven, giving them the Great Commission to go into all the world and teach all nations. He appointed the eleven.

Acts 1:8, Jesus, again speaking to the eleven commanded them to be witnesses both in Jerusalem, and in all Judea, and in Samaria, in unto the uttermost parts of the earth. He appointed the eleven.

Acts 1:15, There were now 120 disciples praying together awaiting the coming of Holy Spirit. It is reasonable to conclude that Jesus appointed these 120 to speak in His name as they obviously did.

Acts.2:41 There were 3,000 souls that were saved here. They also spoke in Jesus name, as the church increased daily. Every believer is appointed to speak in His name.

BTW, isn’t this thread on the Primates of Rome. I suppose that would be the RCC.
DHK

 

Ed, I don't know if you have seen too many people who think like that or if you think like that. Alright, remember, I don't like labels. I am a Christian first and foremost, a son of God by adoption. Ed, I do not have the pride or conceit to think that I have everything figured out about God. And guess what, I don't submit to God all the time, I still have selfish desires that get in the way at times! No, in no way, shape, or form was the statement meant as you took it. It means exactly what it says, If people would TRULY, not just with words or in arrogant pride, submit to Christ, things would be a lot different!

I could say that about Baptists, that we have certain basic beliefs that we agree on.

That argument does not float. They still call themselves Catholic. For that matter, I could just say anyone who does not believe the way we Baptists do aren't Baptists. But there are those who don't and still call themselves Baptists. And there are many who call themselves Christians and are not. Try using that argument on one of the threads about Islam and Christianity and see how far that will get you.

Agreed.

Exactly! Christ is the Head, He is the Commander!

Interesting. So it doesn't matter what someone believes, just as long as they do good?

No Ed. I have never once claimed perfection. You don't see what I am getting at. People are selfish by nature! It gets in the way of much! Will everyone always agree on everything? No. But many of the dividing issues in the Church today are results of people holding on to selfish desires and seeking self first, not Christ. There are many out there who do not have salvation and yet 'play' church every week. You don't think that causes problems? Many churches are run by a select group of people who will not give up power for anything. They are not submitting to Christ, they are submitting to the god of self!

I guess I will be bowing out of this discussion as there is not much coming of it. My next to last post (on the 18th) was basically ignored and none of the issues were addressed, and Biblical evidence was ignored in my last post. It is turning into a game of semantics now. I don't have much time to do all this because I have much to prepare for this week (youth tomorrow, my first sermon on Sunday ). Last word to you, my friend.

Neal

[ January 22, 2003, 05:23 AM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Hi there,
the idea that people should be kicked out of the church for minor diferences is in itself not a minor matter. Jesus showed charity to those who did not come under the disciple's authority (Mark 9:38) and more pertinantly, Romans 14, 4-12 (written to Rome) explicitly commands charity re days. The quartodecimans cited apostolic tradition as their authority, (an argument accepted by the their opponents (Irenaeus in Eusebius, History eccl 5:24). So Victor goes against apostolic teaching and practice to enforce uniformity. How can he then claim to head an "apostolic" church? Power proved more important to Rome than either apostolic teaching or apostolic tradition. The Bible gives Christians freedom and generosity towards one another in many areas. The kingdom of God is about joy in the Holy Spirit. Read Romans 14:10.
Again, this is evidence that Victor was not a true sucsessor to Peter. Corruption and power plays were already creeping into the church.
Take care, Colin

 

Austraillian Student:

What's the big deal, Adam just ate a piece of fruit for crying out loud. And who were those two in Acts that died on the spot when they didn't give all there money to the Church? Minor things it would seem. Rejection of legitimate authority is never a minor thing. People of different races and tongues recognized Pope Victors authority to excommunicate. Excommunation is not intended for the condemnation of the soul but as a drastic measure to call it back. Kind of a wakeup call. These people called themselves Catholic (I am quite sure the Quadramecians did) and yet rejected the Pope's authority over them. I am also quite sure that Catholics who traveled in their area fully accepted the Pope's excommunication of them and so did not attend their Chrurch services.