A Simple Case for the Papacy

122 comments

1. Well done, sir! Thanks for making this available.

   Reply

   1. Hear, hear. Thanks for the simple clarity.

      Reply

      1. The simple clarity is demonstrated quite thoroughly in the Acts and Letters of the Apostles.

         We see the churches being set up. What we don’t see, even though there are hundreds of chances to do so, is a pope.

         Not a single word. So Paul, who explains everything and anything like words themselves are going out of style soon… and nothing in like 40 years of preaching ? Really guys?

         We also see the Churches in Revelation. We see nothing.

         We see nothing because it was posthumously added as a doctrine. I’ll never understand this. You guys know what blindness is. You’ve seen examples of people so biased they gather around them virtually nothing of substance to back up their beliefs. You’re acting like you *Need this to be true.

         It’s not there guys. If you want a pope for yourselves organically why not just be honest? Why try and back it up with that. I’m mean guys… this is God you’re putting words in his mouth. Ever think, why isn’t the simplicity of Christ’s gospel enough for me. Why do I need to pile on all this religion on top?

         Reply

         1. …yet you can’t refute a single claim he made or choose not to?

            Reply

2. Great post! I also like to use Isaiah 22 to help explain the Papacy—“…the key of the House of David…” etc. For me, this text is as plain as the writing on the wall: authority in God’s church. Without earthly authority, there would not be any real understanding of God’s word—only one’s fallible opinion would rule the day.

   Reply

3. “gives him the Keys of the Kingdom, and gives him personally the infallible binding-and-loosening power that He elsewhere gives to the assembled Church”….

   Where do you get “infalliable” from? Where is that in the text?

   Even if it was Peter that was the Rock, you cannot read your “papacy doctrine” into the text. Show me where “infallible” is? Show me Apostolic succesion? Galatians 1:1 says…

   Paul, an apostle (not sent from men nor through the agency of man, but through Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised Him from the dead),
   Galatians 1:1

   To be an apostle as your church claims you had to have direct authority from Christ Himself and from God the Father? None of your popes can claim being given direct authority from God now can they? Peter yes, your popes absolutely not.

   Reply

   1. Infallibility is easily seen from Jesus’ own words.

      Here is the verse:

      19 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.”

      The key question to be asked is this: Can there be error in Heaven? I have asked this question of numerous Protestants and all of them have said: NO. That being the case, notice Jesus says whatever Peter binds shall be bound in Heaven. Ergo, when exercising the power of the keys, when Peter binds (or looses) it is infallible.

      scott said:

      To be an apostle as your church claims you had to have direct authority from Christ Himself and from God the Father? None of your popes can claim being given direct authority from God now can they? Peter yes, your popes absolutely not.

      The error you make here is that Jesus gave the power of the keys and authority not just to Peter, but to an office. The Protestant biblical scholars W. F. Albright, Gerhardt Meier, Torg Forberg ….admit that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, in Matthew 16. And you know who else admits it? Martin Luther. Luther, writing in 1530, years after he left the Catholic Church said this:“Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, ‘I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.'” This is Jesus talking, “‘Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.’

      So in giving the keys, Jesus gave direct authority not just to Peter, BUT TO AN OFFICE.

      Reply

      1. I don’t want to cross the conversational streams, here, but this Luther reference is misquoted. “They are an office” is from a sentence in the next paragraph (after several intervening sentences), not the next words after “his keys are my keys.”

         More to the point, “They are an office” is the start of a sentence, not the whole thing, and the remainder of the sentence… rather changes its meaning. This is badly misleading.

         Reply

         1. So we stand here and with open mouth stare heavenward and invent still other keys. Yet Christ says very clearly in Matt 16:19 that He will give the keys to Peter. He does not say He has two kinds of keys, but He gives to Peter the keys He Himself has, and no others. It is as if He were saying: why are you staring heavenward in search of the keys? Do you not understand I gave them to Peter? They are indeed the keys of Heaven, but they are not found in Heaven. I left them on earth. Don’t look for them in Heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them. Peter’s mouth is My mouth, and his tongue is My key case. His office is My office, his binding and loosing are My binding and loosing” (*Martin Luther, The Keys, in Conrad Bergendoff, ed. trans. Earl Beyer and Conrad Bergendoff, Luthers Works, vol. 40, Philadelphia: Fortress, 1958, p. 365-366.)

            Reply

            1. Hi Duane,

               That’s a more correct quote, but it doesn’t include the sentence which begins, “They are an office,” which again is taken from the next paragraph.

               Let me provide the remainder of that sentence, since you originally quoted it: “They are an office, a power or command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.” The “office” in question, per Luther, is the office of preaching the word of God for the forgiveness of sins, given to all Christians. I doubt either scott or I (or many other Protestants) find that claim shocking; I’m not sure why you list it as proof that Luther believes Christ is referencing Isaiah.

            2. Hi Irked,

               I was not clear. I was trying to state that Luther admitted the keys were to an office, not just a man.

         2. Irked,

            I admit that Luther is not arguing for the Papacy, but he contradicts himself in these passages.

            Don’t look for them in heaven or anywhere else except in Peter’s mouth where I have placed them.

            Notice, Luther says they can only be found in Peter’s mouth, and nowhere else!!!

            But later Luther says this:

            Here we have the true significance of the keys. They are an office, a power or command given by God through Christ to/strong> all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.

            Wait a minute. Earlier Luther said they can only be found with Peter, but now he says we all wield them. But nowhere does Scripture say that Jesus gave the keys to all the Apostles, or to His Church as a whole, so Luther has just stepped outside of bible alone to fit his theology. If we look at Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22, Luther’s position becomes untenable.

            “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying. The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.”-W.F.Albright Anchor Bible Commentary

            Reply

            1. Duane,

               I’m not primarily interested in defending the exact way Luther worded things. My concern is that, whether Luther is right or wrong, you badly misrepresented what he actually said on the subject.

               That said, it seems to me that you are still badly misrepresenting him, and in particular ignoring the surrounding paragraphs that explain why he would say both that the keys are “only with Peter” and with all Christians.

               (The short version: to Luther, the keys are the preaching of the gospel; they are in Peter’s mouth alone in the sense that they are not anything other than the preaching of the gospel, i.e., that there is no special charism beyond that preaching. Given that interpretation, it follows naturally that all Christians are given the keys.)

               I’ve no problem with disagreeing with Luther, but you do not seem to be accurately representing him in this thread. Had you actually read the full text of “The Keys” prior to your initial post?

               If we look at Matthew 16 in light of Isaiah 22

               Can you find me anyone in, say, the first thousand years of Christendom who explicitly suggested this connection, or is this a modern invention?

4. Hi Joe,

   As you note, this is the “make-or-break” doctrine; the singular essential thing that Catholics assert must be believed is that there exists some other authority apart from and equal to Scripture, with all of our other disagreements falling out of that claim. Your complaint against us is not that we reject Christ, not that we question his divinity or humanity or atonement or any of the thousand-and-one other early heresies: it’s that we do not accept that there exists such a thing as “the chair of Peter” conferring the authority you claim.

   In light of that, I think two questions are relevant.

   1) Is it your contention that these are the only plausible ways to read these passages? Look at the entailments here: the rock on which the church is built must be the man Peter, and not his faith or the assembled group or anything else. “The church” must refer to a temporal institution, and not to the body of believers in general. “Building” must entail monarchical leadership. The keys of the kingdom must confer infallible decision-making. “Strengthening” must likewise imply monarchical authority. If even one of these admits another interpretation – not requires, not necessitates, but even simply plausibly admits – then the Catholic case falters. Is it your argument, then, that the only realistically conceivable way of fairly reading them is as you do, unless one is simply twisted by Protestant rebelliousness?

   I assume you’d say yes. In which case: did the fathers universally read all these passages in only the way you assert?

   2) Suppose for the sake of argument that I grant, without contest, that all of these verses can be read only as you assert: that the establish that Peter was head of the church, with a charism of infallibility and supreme authority over his brothers. What here establishes that this authority was necessarily heritable – that is, what in these verses establishes that the seat of Peter was ever to be filled by anyone but Peter himself?

   Reply

   1. Irked,

      Excellent questions. If I may, let me clear up a few things. Catholics don’t believe that “the singular essential thing that Catholics assert must be believed is that there exists some other authority apart from and equal to Scripture, with all of our other disagreements falling out of that claim.” In fact, that position is explicitly rejected in Dei Verbum 9-10:

      “9. Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)

      “10. Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God, committed to the Church. Holding fast to this deposit the entire holy people united with their shepherds remain always steadfast in the teaching of the Apostles, in the common life, in the breaking of the bread and in prayers (see Acts 2, 42, Greek text), so that holding to, practicing and professing the heritage of the faith, it becomes on the part of the bishops and faithful a single common effort. (7)

      “But the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church, (9) whose authority is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ. This teaching office is not above the word of God, but serves it, teaching only what has been handed on, listening to it devoutly, guarding it scrupulously and explaining it faithfully in accord with a divine commission and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it draws from this one deposit of faith everything which it presents for belief as divinely revealed.

      “It is clear, therefore, that sacred tradition, Sacred Scripture and the teaching authority of the Church, in accord with God’s most wise design, are so linked and joined together that one cannot stand without the others, and that all together and each in its own way under the action of the one Holy Spirit contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.”

      The ideas that Catholics think the papacy is equal to Scripture, or independent from Scripture, are two common Protestant straw men, and I can understand why you might think that from the outside without familiarity with Catholic teaching. But the Catholic Church rejects both of those claims, and no knowledgeable Catholic holds to them.

      Reply

      1. Hi Joe,

         Thanks for the reply – I appreciate it, and I understand that life is too short to reply to every rando commenter. 🙂

         The ideas that Catholics think the papacy is equal to Scripture, or independent from Scripture, are two common Protestant straw men, and I can understand why you might think that from the outside without familiarity with Catholic teaching. But the Catholic Church rejects both of those claims, and no knowledgeable Catholic holds to them.

         So I had to reread this several times before our disconnect clicked: I didn’t specifically claim that the papacy was equal to Scripture, only that something was – and in context, “the papacy” is a very natural read, so that’s on me. Had I explicitly said “tradition,” I would think we’d have no obstacle here?

         I grant that there is, in an ultimate sense, a difference in the Catholic view between “tradition” and “the teaching office of the bishops” – but would you grant that there is, in a practical sense, no guaranteed means of knowing what is and is not apostolic tradition except the teaching of the bishops? As Dei Verbum says, “the task of authentically interpreting the word of God, whether written or handed on, (8) has been entrusted exclusively to the living teaching office of the Church.” (Obviously from a Protestant view, we see the Magisterium as creating tradition rather than simply passing it on, but I’m trying not to argue from that perspective for the moment.)

         Because it’s specifically that claim – that the teaching of the pope and his subordinate bishops is of weight equal to Scripture – that troubles us so. It may be proper, from a Catholic perspective, to argue that the papacy is simply the mouth of tradition, and not its origin – but it doesn’t change that it’s that claimed function to which we primarily object. A pope who is not also the final communicant of infallible revelation – who is, in other words, just head of a denomination – is less of a problem for us.

         Your argument above focuses on authority, rather than tradition explicitly – but to me, the most troubling part of that authority is the authority as applied to tradition. I hope that clarifies why I’d argue as I did; my apologies for the miscommunication.

         (I guess there’s no actual theological argument from me here, just an unpacking, but we’ll probably get to that in the next post.)

         Reply

   2. I also don’t mean to suggest that the papacy is the most important Catholic teaching, just the most distinctive. The Eucharist is more important than the papacy, and the existence of God is more important yet. But believing in God, and even believing in the Eucharist, doesn’t necessarily mean that one is Roman Catholic. The Eastern Orthodox, for example, believe in both. So in calling this the make-or-break issue for Catholicism, I mean that it is the one issue on which Catholic stand apart from all other people. And in that sense, it’s the defining belief of Catholicism, even though it’s not the most important. A truck bed or chassis is the distinctive feature of a truck (vis-a-vis a car), but the engine is more important. Does that distinction make sense?

      Anyways, to your questions:

      1) No, I’m not saying it’s the only possible interpretation. I’m saying it’s the best. You can actually take a different view of Matthew 16 and still hold to the papacy (see, e.g., St. Augustine). And it’s possible to hold that the meaning is nuanced, with more than one referent – Peter personally because of his faith, or Peter personally and as representative of the Church, etc. I think Matthew 16 proves the papacy, but I don’t think Matthew 16 is *required* for the papacy… hence the section on Luke 22 at the bottom, for example.

      2) If we agree that Christ established a papal structure during His own lifetime (when it was *least* needed), it becomes absurd to claim that He did so intending the papacy to end with the death of Peter, and for some new (and never mentioned) alternative structure of Church leadership to emerge. Christ established the Church the way He wanted it, and we don’t have a fickle Christ. More on that point here, though.

      I don’t have as much time as I would sometimes like, so I’m sorry in advance that I can’t answer you more often. I appreciate your inquiries!

      In Christ,

      Joe

      Reply

      1. Joe,

         A truck bed or chassis is the distinctive feature of a truck (vis-a-vis a car), but the engine is more important. Does that distinction make sense?

         Yup!

         1) No, I’m not saying it’s the only possible interpretation. I’m saying it’s the best… I think Matthew 16 proves the papacy, but I don’t think Matthew 16 is *required* for the papacy… hence the section on Luke 22 at the bottom, for example.

         Gotcha. Would you agree, then, that (as I implied), your reading is not universal among the early fathers, and (as Craig explicitly stated) that it’s actually a minority reading – that readings like “the faith of Peter” and “the confession of Peter” were actually more common?

         Would you agree that the reading of Luke 22 is likewise broadly divided? Cyril of Alexandria, for instance, in his 144th sermon on Luke expounds this passage much as I would: that Christ foresees that Peter above his brothers will fail, and so offers both prayers and encouragement to him above his brothers as one in most dire need of them. There’s nothing in his commentary that suggests this is a granting of authority.

         It seems like the Protestant is in good company to read these passages in a way which attributes no special authority to Peter.

         If we agree that Christ established a papal structure during His own lifetime (when it was *least* needed), it becomes absurd to claim that He did so intending the papacy to end with the death of Peter, and for some new (and never mentioned) alternative structure of Church leadership to emerge. Christ established the Church the way He wanted it, and we don’t have a fickle Christ

         Here I have to point back to your claim at the start of the post: “Jesus could have set up His Church any way He chose… we can see His choice from the evidence of Scripture.” That Peter’s authority is heritable (and more specifically, that it is inherited, and inherited by the bishop of Rome) is absolutely essential to the doctrine of the papacy – if this authority was given to Peter alone, then every other so-called Pope is a pretender to something not rightfully his.

         Your argument here, though, does not rest on Scripture at all; it’s an argument about what would make sense to do – and projecting what path will look best to God is iffy at the best of times. (I doubt either of us would have laid a compelling case in advance for the whole “born in a manger” strategy.) In this case, it’s even easy to justify a one-generation gifting: “When the church was fewest in number and did not even have the Scriptures, it needed a head with infallible authority. As the church grew and codified the infallible teachings, that authority became unnecessary.”

         Can you demonstrate from the evidence of Scripture that Peter’s authority was inherited by the bishop of Rome? If not, it seems to me impossible to show that the papacy is grounded on Scripture.

         Reply

         1. It seems that the reference to “the keys to the kingdom” from Isaiah would suggest that this office would be handed down (as stewardships were handed down after the death of a steward, if the king had not returned yet).

            Finally, you ask for exegesis from Scripture to prove the Catholic position. I ask you, how do we know what Scripture is? And is that knowledge infallible? Christ certainly never told us which books are infallible or divinely inspired. Now, granted, that may only get you to Eastern Orthodoxy or Coptic Christianity, but it certainly seems that you have to accept some form of authoritative non-biblical tradition, and unless you believe that all Christians are personally qualified to interpret that Tradition, you must accept the authority of some type of Magisterium.

            To go from there to the Papacy, I would argue from practical, historical, and scriptural considerations. Scriptural would involve the passages in question (among others), historical would be to look at the writings of the Church Fathers and Way Church History played out, and practical would be how a monarchal structure is unifying. Christ certainly wants a unified Church (one Body of Christ), and even with all of the similarities between Catholic, Orthodox, and Coptic Christians, it is still easy to have great schisms that separate the Body of Christ. A monarchal authority (like the Pope) can unite everyone under one belief.

            Reply

5. If Joe is wrong then all of Christianity is another made up fairytale. Have some guts with the consequences of words and history. Why bother trying to create a “reformed” version of Christianity if the papacy is fake. Everyone got it wrong, including the Apostles, right out of the gate and for over 1,000 years. Geez

   Reply

6. Jo]e, forgive me my arrogance and ignorance, but I think we can agree that even if Peter is “the rock” (a minority position among the early church fathers), that him being “the rock” does not entail the full blown doctrine of the Papacy. One would need tradition to inform them in this interpretation and we must admit that this would not be an universal tradition of the ancient or medieval Church either. The Papacy is the key issue that separates East and West, ultimately because of key epistemological differences over which thread of tradition they favor.

   God bless,
   Craig

   Reply

7. If the Church was wrong or confused right out of the gate on this issue then Jesus lied and this is all a fairytale. Why believe anything Christian if the Papacy was wrong by so many for such a long period of time???? The majority of people were just confused for 1,000 years and then figured out that there is no Pope to guide a visible church?????

   An Orthodox Church was lurking in the background all these years before the split?

   No way. Flush it all down the drain if Rome is wrong.

   Reply

   1. To be fair the Orthodox viewpoint was always the majority viewpoint east of Italy. I think people think Ortodoxy came after the schism but we have saints in the pre schism church explicitly rejecting papal supremacy. Even after the schism the west appeared not to fully accept the papacy had had concilliarists among their own ranks until the 15th century. Just sayin…

      Reply

8. I often wonder why Protestants seem to fear the concept of a ‘monarchical’ type ‘papacy’ when Jesus Himself frequently referred to the ‘kingdom’ of Heaven and taught us to pray “Thy kingdom come on Earth as it is in Heaven”. Everyone knows monarchical kingdom as Bp. Sheen, above, noted is highly organized and has a visible and known leader who will be succeeded by a relative after the leader’s death. In Christianity Jesus is the King, but on Earth He chose twelve men who would sit on thrones and Judge the twelve tribes of Israel. So, these 12 are clearly seen to be rulers in the kingdom, and one of the 12 is clearly the leader, Peter, and as is noted by Joe regarding Matt. 16 and the keys.

   So, we see here that Jesus intended to have Church leadership patterned after a hierarchical model, with Peter as head and the 11 apostles as relatively subordinate, and this is seen throughout the Gospel teachings as well. And these apostles are also only mean’t to be the ‘foundation’ of the Church, even as Jesus said the ‘foundation stone’ was Peter. So, even as a magnificent building has sophisticated architecture and structural order inherent it, so too does the Holy Church have a similar order wherein it becomes more and more sophisticated as the additional elements of it’s infrastructure are added to the building. Should this be a mystery to anybody? Everyone surely understands that Jesus knows something about the construction of great buildings…. as His earthly profession was a that of carpenter??

   Moreover, we all know the history of ancient Israel. Was this nation an anarchical nation which lacked national unity and culture? Or, was it well developed and organized as a holy nation under God. And is not the Church patterned after and even the true successor to this great nation of ancient Israel? And did not Moses say that the very customs and holy culture of this great nation would draw admiration from all other nations on Earth, due to the sophistication and wisdom of it’s statutes and laws that govern it? Here is what Moses said, and it also applies to Christ’s future Church:

   ” For this is your wisdom, and understanding in the sight of nations, that hearing all these precepts, they may say: Behold a wise and understanding people, a great nation. Neither is there any other nation so great, that hath gods so nigh them, as our God is present to all our petitions. For what other nation is there so renowned that hath ceremonies, and just judgments, and all the law, which I will set forth this day before your eyes? Keep thyself therefore, and thy soul carefully. Forget not the words that thy eyes have seen, and let them not go out of thy heart all the days of thy life.” ( Deut.4:6)

   Now, does this model, found both in the words of Jesus Christ and the words of Moses, resemble in any way the model of the Church proposed by the Protestant sects?

   Or rather, is it the model that the entire world has clearly seen over the last 2000 years as presented in the Catholic Church and through the holy and just culture that it has fostered and developed resulting in holy institutions such as monasticism, ecclesiastical canon laws, soaring cathedrals, universities, exquisite Christian art, profoundly holy Christian music, devout Christian liturgies and countless other Christian wonders?

   Clearly, it is the world wide Catholic Church that resembles the model of the Church as is presented in Sacred Scripture.

   Reply

   1. I can speak for myself Al. It comes from pride and anti roman prejudice. I also think some of the abstractions that define the papacy are incomprehensible to most people which makes it hard to accept too.

      Reply

   2. To add a different perspective to Craig’s, I think the question is the wrong one out of the gate; it presumes a motive of fear, when the truth is that Protestants (like anyone else) have a variety of motives: some positive, some not.

      But to the question of why Protestants oppose a monarchical papacy, I could point to another story of Israel: of the time when Israel’s only king was God, and the people demanded an earthly king to go along with that. No doubt they made many of the same arguments as you do above: that an earthly king would help them to be well developed and organized. (We know they say “a king to lead us and to go out before us and fight our battles,” which sounds pretty similar to me.)

      And their kings do these things. And indeed, God ultimately uses the kingly line of David as a pointer back to the true king: the coming Messiah. But the things Samuel warns against also come to pass; the kings are a source of terrible hardship to the people, and ultimately lead them into sin and captivity. Most condemning of all are the Lord’s words: “It is not [Samuel] they have rejected, but they have rejected me as their king.”

      Now, that’s not an argument; it does not, in itself, show that the papacy is or is not established by God. But I think it works as a metaphor to explain something of the resistance we have to inventing new kings – and it seems, at least to me, that the papacy is an invention.

      It also shows that you and I can both spin metaphors that support our side all day long, which is why this debate should not be about metaphor. Rather, it should be about the plain teaching of Scripture – and I’ve made my comments there already.

      Reply

      1. Hi Irked,

         I like your reference to the era of Israel during the time/centuries of the ‘Judges’, and to some degree it makes spiritual sense. However, in the Divine Providence of God, we find countless indications that the kingship of David was an important turning point for the people of Israel, and the biography of Jesus supports the importance of Davidic importance and symbolism in many areas the Bible. For instance, the Gospels and Acts of the Apostles provide abundant references to Jesus’ connection to David’s ‘throne’ and ‘kingship’ for the purpose of highlighting the significance of the ‘royal’ significance and heredity between the two leaders. Here are only a few examples:

         “Ye men, brethren, let me freely speak to you of the patriarch DAVID; that he died, and was buried; and his sepulchre is with us to this present day. Whereas therefore he was a prophet, and knew that God hath sworn to him with an oath, that of the fruit of his loins one should sit UPON HIS THRONE. Foreseeing this, he spoke of the resurrection of Christ.” [Acts 2:29]

         “He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the most High; and the Lord God shall give unto him theTHRONE of DAVID his father; and HE SHALL REIGN in the house of Jacob for ever.”
         [Luke 1:32]

         “And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth into Judea, to the city of David, which is called Bethlehem: because he was of the house and family of David,”
         [Luke 2:4]

         “Doth not the scripture say: That Christ cometh of the seed of David, and from Bethlehem the town where David was?”
         [John 7:42]

         “This Jesus hath God raised again, whereof all we are witnesses. Being exalted therefore by the right hand of God, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath poured forth this which you see and hear. For David ascended not into heaven; but he himself said: The Lord said to my Lord, sit thou on my right hand, Until I make thy enemies thy footstool.”[Acts 2:32]

         [36] Therefore let all the house of Israel know most certainly, that God hath made both Lord and Christ, this same Jesus, whom you have crucified

         “And all the multitudes were amazed, and said: Is not this the son of David?”
         [Matthew 12:23]

         “And the multitudes that went before and that followed, cried, saying: Hosanna to the son of David: Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord: Hosanna in the highest.”
         [Matthew 21:9]

         * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

         Of course, there are many more such quotes. But where is even one reference to the time of the Judges in relation to, or with typological significance to, Jesus ?

         Thus scripture itself seems to point to the significance of the royal ‘hermeneutic’ and monarchical association that exists between David and Jesus. And therefore, the Church itself should reflect this monarchical hermeneutic also, since the Church is known as ‘The body of Christ’, and so is consequently integrated into the ‘royal throne of David’ also, and with all of the prophetical significance that such a royal lineage signifies.

         And again, is there ANY such linkage to the era of the Judges to compare with to the many prophetic and typological references to King David?

         So this seems to be a proof from scriptures themselves that the present Catholic Church is indeed patterned after a monarchical type hermeneutic and this is seen in early Church history also with it’s countless priests, deacons, bishops and archbishops; synods and councils, geographical jurisdictions, successive ordinations, integrated organizational expansion, etc….as compared to the rather anarchical hermeneutic found in the history of Protestantism.

         Best to you.

         Reply

         1. Hi Al,

            But of course, there’s no objection to the church structuring itself as the subjects of a Davidic king – we both believe that, provided the king in question is Christ.

            The question is whether the church has any other king. And for that, the parallels you indicate – parallels specific to Christ, not to Peter – do not apply, unless we argue for the papacy by first assuming our conclusion. That the church is the true Israel was your (true!) argument, not mine; it seems fair to me to note that the people who bemoaned Israel’s “anarchical” state – that is, that it was ruled by God alone – are the rebels in 1 Samuel 8.

            That’s not a proof, but then, the fact that parallels alone are not proof is rather my point.

            Reply

            1. The way I see it is that Jesus gave the Church it’s inherent structure in the method He used to choose and train His Apostles, and then left these Apostles with the gift of the Paraclete to guide them to make the proper decisions necessary for carrying out Jesus’ command…ie..’Go out into all the world ….and teach them to observe all that I have commanded you’…etc. Through a review of the history of the 1st 3 centuries we find that these same Apostles and their successors chose to form a hierarchical form of leadership, with one of the first decisions being the creation of the ‘office of the diaconate’ as is related in the Acts of the Apostles. Moreover, as new territories were converted to Christ, these new areas were left with bishops to guide them as we find in the first 3 chapters of the Book of Revelation. So, this is to say, the Church was copying the form of government we find with common empires and kingdoms, wherein certain rights, responsibilities and governorship are given to the leaders/bishops over a particular territory or city, and it was typically a lifetime appointment for that parish or territory.

               This is what we find detailed in Eusebius’ Church History. And this is what we find today in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and wherein there is still much controversy over the control of various countries and territories…ie. for a modern day example..consider what is happening within the Orthodox churches in the country of Ukraine. This same thing has been going on since the beginning of Christianity, and following the leadership style detailed in the Book of Revelation.

               Anyway, the Catholic Church has been very consistent with this original means of the ecclesiastical governance of cities, states and countries since the beginning of Christianity. And this is why the Catholic Church has been associated with this monarchical type of governance…because this division of power over territories (dioceses) was established at the very beginning of Christianity and in the Catholic and Orthodox Churches has continued largely unchanged ever since. At the very least, we Catholics have this powerful historical precedence on our side.

            2. Al,

               I’d quibble a bit with your history, there. The government at the time of the early church was the wreckage of a republic – certainly not properly what it had been, but not a monarchy, either. And indeed, much of early church history reflects the lack of a single monarchical role. I’m not going to send us down the same argument over Cyprian again, but we certainly see republican (small-r, there, just to avoid a totally unnecessary tangent!) values in, say, 1 Cyprian 44, where “the consent of the whole church” is described as part of the process of appointment of local leaders. Jerome, likewise, notes that the single-bishop model is simply a convenience, a response to factionalism, and is neither theologically necessary nor the original model of the church. Neither of those sound particularly monarchical, and indeed the church’s best/worst examples of powerful monarchies would not come for centuries. (In this reading, the power of the papacy grew in part because Christians became more accustomed to monarchies.)

               But there’s a bigger issue, I think, which is: suppose that you’re right, and the church did pattern its earthly organization after monarchies. That doesn’t establish that it is best organized in this way, let alone that it must be – does it?

            3. Hi Irked,

               I believe the Holy Spirit operates through common sense, and the common sense that ruled the day back in 50 AD, or so, is that Rome was an ’empirical’ power that could not be avoided, and that if Rome could be completely converted to Christ, it would be the motherlode bonanza for the Church for the purpose of spreading the faith throughout that same empire. And, moreover, Jesus also taught His apostles the need for not only common sense, but calculated and strategic ‘common sense’, which is why He told his disciples that they would be ‘Fishers of Men’.

               Now it is also common sense that fishing is anything but easy, that you need to target a particular fish in its particular body of water, know how deep it likes to swim, know what it’s feeding times are, know if it migrates of not, find the things it likes to eat for bait, build a boat or make poles to access the fish, etc… And so, all of those apostles were fishermen, and every one of them instinctively knew that if Rome was converted it would be like getting a drag net around an entire lake so as to catch every single fish in the lake. Also, we know Jesus said ” The kingdom of God is like lightning striking from East to West, and so this also would be pointing them towards the most important city in the world back then.

               So, it is common sense that Rome would be a target for missionary with seeking to convert the entire world in ‘one fell swoop’, and for this reason it is no wonder why Peter and Paul died in Rome, and even why Paul didn’t mind being taken there for His last testimony to the Faith.

               So, I would say that the apostles were strategic fishermen and even though it took 300 years to substantially convert Rome, and the Roman Empire, still they had that plan and goal in their minds from the very beginning.( and we don’t need scripture to figure that out…only common sense and world history 🙂 ) It would be like the Christians in China today, if they can totally convert the Communist leaders in Beijing to the faith, then sooner or later, all of China would follow.

               So, if we apply Fisherman ‘common sense’ to the argument for why the Bishop of Rome has historically been seen as the ‘first among equals’, as compared with the bishop of Jerusalem, for instance, we can understand it’s due to the fact that the apostles (and their implied successors) were ‘sent out’ to the whole world from Jerusalem… and the CENTER of that whole world, and the ‘super prime’ fishing grounds therefore at that time, was….Rome.

               Again, just a little Christian fisherman….common sense.

               Best to you.

            4. By the way, if anybody objects to the importance of using common sense when analyzing Christian history and Christian principles we might remember that Jesus often praised it and even did miracles when people utilized it such as when Jesus termed the Syro-Phoenician Woman ‘a dog’ and she replied that even the puppies receive the crumbs that fall from the table; and when He also rewarded the blind man that He healed after the same healed man rebuked the Pharisees to their faces with some common sense and even humor. And Jesus also complained against His disciples when they were slow to comprehend various common sense, and easily to understand or remember items that occurred during their travels and times together.

               So, the Early Church certainly had this common sense, which is really an attribute and gift of the Holy Spirit because ‘common sense’ is a by-product of both wisdom and truth. Moreover, without common sense I don’t think anyone can understand the least things about the parables that Jesus taught, which demand some level of ‘common sense’ too understand.

            5. Al,

               I’d just note, then, that in this view the Catholic Church pronounces anathema against fellow believers simply because they do not hold to its “common sense” system – a system justified not (at least in this defense) by any divine command, but simply by the practical expediencies of life under an oppressive centralized government that no longer exists.

               I think you’re absolutely right that the historic primacy of the bishop of Rome emerged out of the fact that everyone was used to thinking of Rome as the center of the world; I do not see any reason that, fifteen hundred years after the decline of the Roman Empire, I should be obliged to share in the error of correlating political clout with theological authority.

               I don’t really see what sharper critique I could make of Catholicism than the defense you’ve just laid out.

            6. Well, I guess even as the seat of Israeli religious authority in ancient times dwelt in Jerusalem, and this persisted through mellenia….so it is common sense to conclude that the same could have occurred with Christ’s Church on Earth, but wherein Rome would be the new ‘seat’ and center for the governance of a global Church.

               This is probably because… as Jesus gave the said ‘Keys’ to Peter…Peter then in turn gave those same keys to his successor in Rome, where Peter died. And, just like the Pharisees occupied the seat of Moses for centuries, so too the Bishop of Rome occupies the seat of Peter. which we now call the…’The Holy See’. (Seat)

               To me it makes perfect sense. In a highly organized and ever expanding Church, such a localized and well known center such as Rome would be the perfect location to choose for expanding the Church world wide. The infrastructure and language was already there, and the barbarian nations already had some degree of familiarity and respect for Rome. When the Church actually converted Rome, via Constantine, it would have reverberated throughout the entire known world at the time.

               Anyway, this was a very wise ‘fisherman strategy’ that the Apostles elected for ‘preaching the Good News to all the world’. They knew very well how to not waste time by fishing primarily in dried up desert ponds like Somalia and Mongolia (…those countries would come later). And I’m sure Jesus gives them credit for their excellent fisherman strategies that they employed back then, because every Christian alive today is a beneficiary of that excellent strategy. If Peter hadn’t chosen this path, it is most likely that you and I would never have been born.

               So, I praise God for the growth of the Holy Church throughout every century…even the 16th… 🙂 …otherwise I would probably never have been born. I just hope the Holy Church is as wise today as it was back then…but I sometimes doubt it! 🙁

            7. Hi Al,

               Peter then in turn gave those same keys to his successor in Rome, where Peter died.

               Do you have any clear, first-hand account – let alone any inspired first-hand account – showing this event, or is this purely speculation? Joe’s original pitch here is that he’s grounding the argument for the papacy on “the evidence of Scripture” – where is this transition in Scripture?

               In a highly organized and ever expanding Church, such a localized and well known center such as Rome would be the perfect location to choose for expanding the Church world wide.

               I agree – I think it makes perfect sense that churches would, over the centuries, develop a centralized government in Rome. But that’s a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.

            8. Hi Irked,

               Joe is basing his argument on scripture, but I was not limiting myself to scripture, as scripture is only one element of many in seeking for the truth regarding the history of the early Church. I take a comprehensive view of all literature generated in the first centuries of Christianity, and then also look at some modern findings too, such as the bones of St. Peter that were allegedly excavated in St. Peters Basilica in Rome. I also look at early Christian literature such as ‘The Shepherd of Hermas’ and then I look at Eusebius’ Church History and try to piece things together that way also. So, by analyzing Early Church Fathers, Early Church literature, Early Church liturgical practice, Early Church synods and councils and Eusebius’ Early Church History…and keeping an open mind…I think a person can get a pretty good comprehensive view of what actually took place back then.

               If you’ve never read ‘the Shepherd’ written in about 120 AD, it’s quite a good metaphorical analysis of the nature of the Church as it was widely understood back then. Here’s how wikipedia describes it:

               “….a Christian literary work of the late 1st or mid-2nd century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers such as Irenaeus. The Shepherd was very popular amongst Christians in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. It is part of the Codex Sinaiticus, and it is listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus.”

               Anyway, it’s quite interesting and well worth the time to read. And… if it’s good for Irenaeus, a great saint….it’s good for me too.

               Best to you.

            9. I forgot to add that there is a passage in the same book that relates to St. Clement of Rome who was pope at around the time that Hermas wrote. I’m providing a link that gives some historical info. about the relationship between Hermas and Clement at that time, as it pertains to ‘papal authority’:

               http://www.churchinhistory.org/s3-gospels/dating-clement.htm.

            10. Hi Al,

                I guess I don’t really have anything to add to my last remark; if you have any clear first-hand account of Peter as Roman bishop, much less of Peter’s transition of authority to someone else, I would be interested to see it. Otherwise, we can each claim all sorts of things about those early years; there’s considerable scholarly backing for the claim that Rome does not even have a singular bishop for a century or so, having instead a council of equal elders. Certainly neither Paul’s letter to Rome nor Peter’s letters make reference to a singular bishopric – nor, as your link notes, does 1 Clement.

            11. Glad you acknowledge that the Church is a monarchy. But your Q. is not quite right. Christ had to leave His earthly Kingdom: He prayed, ‘And I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves.…I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me.’ (Jn 17:11–13, 20–23) Even though He REIGNS over the universe, i.e. His Kingship remains (& is eternal), He no longer RULES on earth. He kept & guarded the Apostles, but at this time was going to the Father. They still needed ruling, & so would those who would believe, the Church.

                An earthly king appoints a governor for each province, & a mayor for each town, directly or by people he’s given royal authority to in delegation. Then, consider what happens & what doesn’t if an earthly king has to leave his kingdom.

                What doesn’t happen: Commoners who disagree w/ their mayor or governor deciding to set up their own towns as enclaves, refusing rule by the royal governor; commoners arrogating authority, some feeling ‘called’ to become mayors of the enclaves (or possibly governors of several), others setting them up as such; commoners reading the royal books of laws & advice on their own, deciding what they mean; when they disagree w/ their mayor, leaving & setting up yet more enclaves; many towns deciding certain books of the history of the kingdom & of the king’s advice are not true; towns disagreeing on the meanings of the rest of the books & excluding residents of other towns, saying that they interpreted the laws wrong, but no one can OBJECTIVELY say who’s wrong & who might be right about the meanings; but the people still saying they agree on ‘the essentials’ or ‘the fundamentals’, other laws the king already laid down being considered practically negligible, while several small towns—& 1 huge ‘no-go zone’ (having broken away 1000 yrs b/f the others) not even acknowledging anymore the king’s existence as himself, & that has set up a renegade law-book—don’t agree on even ‘the essentials’; even though the written laws mention unwritten ones, the people generally agreeing that no unwritten laws exist; their believing that everything the king ever commanded, & the needs for every possible contingency, are in the group of royal books which they accept, as if the purpose of the collection were to be the absolute instruction-manual of the technicians of the kingdom (everyone being a technician), or as if the kingdom could be reverse-engineered, since even though people still proclaim their allegiance to the king & generally attempt to discern his will from the books, the kingdom has de facto already fallen; their telling officials that 1st-hand evidence for everything has to be available, but there’s no 1st-hand evidence for the commissioning of practically any royal book itself, or for the req. of 1st-hand evidence of anything in the 1st place (to the exclusion of nth-hand authority); nobody being able to tell where the borders of the kingdom are or guard them, or even be sure he or anyone else is IN the kingdom; & no 1 person having the authority to unite the authority of the governors, or to rule, to do the job of the king, to keep all the people united. This is not monarchy, but anarchy. And it’s the Protestant paradigm: yes, some agreement, & no, not total chaos, but not functioning as a monarchy; lit. ‘rule by 1’.

                What actually happens: The king appoints a regent. The regent is not ‘any other king’ but someone given authority BY the king to ACT AS the king, to act IN HIS NAME, not to reign but to rule temporarily. The reign is of the 1 named, the rule is the acting, e.g. clarifying the law, legislating as necessary, punishing wrongdoers, & keeping order. The commoners are subjects united by the hierarchy under the regent. They all have royal authority to act in the name of the king according to their offices, i.e. commoners in their families, mayors in a local way, governors in a broader & greater way, & regent exactly as the king. Everyone is actually called by those w/ authority to do so. If there’s any rebellion, it’s obvious who is in the right & who is in the wrong. Revolutions are suppressed. (Did you know 1 of Barabbas’s crimes was political insurrection?) The kingdom is guarded all around, & it’s clear who is a subj. & who isn’t, who is inside & who is outside. People can ask questions & get definitive answers, & get an audience as necessary. The king est. a procedure for replacing the regent in the event the latter dies b/f the former comes back. A monarchy functions this way, in an orderly way, & this is the Catholic paradigm. The Pope is the regent, the bishops are the governors, the priests are the mayors, the laity are the subjects. All in authority have the royal authority, i.e. ‘power to act’ (Strong)—the exousian—of the Holy Spirit, in degrees for their various offices, received biblically, in succession from others, from Christ, from the Father. ‘Catholic’ actually means just ‘universal’, i.e. 1 Church for the whole world. This is the oneness Christ prayed for in Jn 17.

                Protestantism doesn’t have this oneness, w/ their many 1000s of communions & faiths (consider all the ‘non-denominationals’ & ‘emergent churches’ deciding on their own, w/o biblical exousia, their Biblical canon, the meaning of the Scriptures they accept, & the contents of their faiths), so they’re not doing the will of Christ in this regard. Protestants cannot say where the biblical exousia is, what happened to it. They act as if it’s been abolished, unbiblically. But by allowing their pastors to preach, & just by calling them ‘pastors’, they acknowledge that exousia is necessary. They’ve set up unbiblical authority.

                I think it can be proven that in 1Sa 8, the sin wasn’t in asking for a king. Royalty could be holy (i.e. in behavior & faith—it was always holy in personage, by the anointing), & Israel had already been prophesied as a holy kingdom, but in that ch. Israel didn’t want the king God had promised.

                1. Holy Abraham was accepted as ‘a prince of God’ by the Hittites. (Ge 23:6) I don’t think the Hittites were cursed for this.
                2. God said to Abraham, ‘I will establish you for nations; and KINGS will come forth from you,’ (Ge 17:6b) & likewise to Jacob/Israel, (35:11) both times when He changed their names.
                3. To Moses, He said, ‘[Y]ou shall be to me a ROYAL priesthood, and a holy nation. (Ex 19:6a)
                4. Salem was a holy kingdom, b/c holy Melchizedek was king of it.
                5. Holy Moses commanded, ‘These are the statutes and rules that you shall be careful to do in the land that the LORD, the God of your fathers, has given you to possess, all the days that you live on the earth. You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods [&c.] You SHALL NOT DO ACCORDING TO all that we are doing here today, EVERYONE DOING WHAT IS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES, for you have not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance that the Lord your God is giving you.’ (Dt 12:1–8) Then later, there were the evil acts in the Book of Judges. Idolatry, setting up a priest w/o the authority to (both ch. 17), concubinage, sodomy (implied), gang rape, abuse of a corpse, civil war, & mass kidnapping & rape (rest, chs. 20,21) were all summarized as, ‘In those days there was NO KING in Israel. EVERYONE DID WHAT WAS RIGHT IN HIS OWN EYES.’ So, together, these mean that God’s intention was for the people to have a king who would lead the people in holiness.
                6. When she brought Samuel to the Temple, holy Hannah prayed, ‘The Lord…lifts up the needy from the ash heap to make them sit with PRINCES and inherit a seat of honor.…He will give strength to our KINGS [or king]…’ (1Sa 2:7–10)
                7. After being judged by Samuel’s corrupt sons, the people said, ‘And now place over us a king to JUDGE US AS ALL THE NATIONS.’ (v. 5) They wanted a king b/c they wanted to be ruled as the Gentiles were ruled, not as God wanted. They didn’t understand that He had allowed them to be governed as they had been.
                8. He told Samuel, ‘[I]t is not you they despise, but only Me they despise, to NOT REIGN OVER THEM. According to all the works which they did to me, from which day I led them from Egypt, and until this day; even AS THEY ABANDONED ME AND SERVED OTHER GODS, so they do also to you.’ (vv. 7,8) They didn’t accept that Christ is the King of kings—hasn’t He always been? Why wouldn’t it have been right to ask for a godly king? You quoted v. 7 & called it ‘most condemning of all’, but I don’t see how it could be: they of course had rejected God’s rule (through prophecy) over them, so they rejected the prophesied holy king, & so God gave them an unholy one instead.
                9. The people replied to Samuel, after he prophesied about Saul, ‘Not so, but let it be that a king will be over us. And WE ALSO WILL BE AS ALL THE NATIONS. And our king shall judge us, and he shall go forth in front of us, and he will wage our war.’ They thought they could escape both God & their duties, like Jonah. If the Gentiles around them had had republics, they would have asked for a republic. They wanted an ungodly, Gentile-like king, & that’s what they got.
                10. But then holy Samuel told them, ‘If you should fear the Lord and should serve him and should hearken to His voice and should not contend with the mouth of the Lord, then you should be, even you yourselves and the king who reigns over you, going after the Lord your God. But if you should not hearken to the voice of the Lord and should contend with the mouth of the Lord, then the hand of the Lord will be against you and your king.’ (12:14,15) And that too is what happened. After they repented, showing themselves worthy of 1, He gave them the prophesied holy king.

      2. That’s why I spoke only for myself. 🙂

         Reply

         1. Yeah, you were very clear! And I don’t want to imply there’s nothing of pride and anti-Romanism in Protestantism in general (or even in me personally) – we are creatures of sin and tradition the same as anyone else.

            Consider it more an additional reason than a replacement.

            Reply

      3. Irked :
         Now I want to know why Jesus couldn’t fulfil the brokenness of the past with a promise of a something new and lasting .. I think your argument simply doesn’t work because < Jesus promised a church that would enjoy his protection for all time until his return with a clear parallel to Isaiah having been fulfilled with a new Steward that would not just be given the Physical keys to the gate but the the keys to the kingdom itself .. Soi if Jesus gives Peter a supreme patriarchal position amongst the other apostles , then there is no basis for you to reject a continuance of such an office .. ( PAPACY )

         This has NO parallel in protestantism in any sense

         If it fits for Peter , then a supreme Patriarchy is well and truly legitimised

         At the end of the day , protestants of various denominations invariable have their own Papal figures in the various pastors and preachers ( Patriarchal Figures ) whom they give their assent to .. They just don't call them "Popes" ..

         There really is no difference , is there .. when you think about it .. so there is no reason to reject the Papacy … when yo already give assent to someone within the protestant paradigm

         The difference between the Papacy and protestant pastors and preachers is that the various pastors and protestants with their numerous differing theologies is far more tenuously grounded in scripture than the Papacy is .. Far and way .

         So no , the metaphors you speak of are that support your side are not the same at any level whatsoever

         Lastly , a Pope is not a king , so your parallel is wanting wanting .. God doesn't condemn Kingship in the Bible … He appoints them .. Nor does he he condemn Patriarchy .. It is Christ who bring them to completion ..

         I am glad that you recognise the shaky ground in which your claim stands ..

         Reply

9. Hi Joe,
   Great Article! Have you written anything on St. Odo? I came across him in some of Christopher Dawson’s historical work on the Middle Ages.
   Thanks
   Jeff

   Reply

10. Irked –

    Unless the Bible states the Trinity it should be rejected.

    Unless the Bible states what books should be in it it should be rejected.

    Do you see the potential issues with your standard of proof you stated to awlms for the Papacy issue? A fair amount of Christianity cannot meet the standard you’re using to judge whether the Papacy is correct.

    Reply

    1. Johnny,

       I would argue I did not set the evidentiary standard for this article; Joe did, by saying that he’d show the form of government God established by evidence of Scripture. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to ask for this evidence on all the required components of the doctrine, nor to point out that the early church – a church that supposedly had the institution of the papacy from the very beginning – did not reliably read the relevant verses in the way Joe does.

       I agree with you on at least one point: if Scripture did not demonstrate that the doctrine of the Trinity is true, that belief should be rejected. As church father Cyril of Jerusalem said, “No doctrine, however trivial, may be taught without the backing of the divine Scriptures, for our saving faith derives its force, not from capricious reasonings, but from what may be proved out of the Bible.” Thankfully, our denominations are united at least in that the reality of the Trinity is proved from the Scriptures.

       Reply

11. Irked –

    In your opinion, does Scripture demonstrate the Papacy?

    If not, what level of scripture is necessary for you to believe in any significant issue? I’m looking for your standard that would be applied to a matter.

    Reply

    1. Johnny,

       It doesn’t, no. To my mind, the relevant papal doctrines require:

       1) Peter is given specific authority as the divinely-ordained leader of the apostles, with an obligation for all other Christians to acknowledge him as hierarchical head and yield to his interpretation.
       2) This authority specifically includes such matters as a charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals, and access to a divine storehouse of surplus merit.
       3) This authority can be inherited.
       4) Peter’s authority was then inherited by all subsequent bishops of Rome.

       I don’t think the papacy can survive the loss of any of these. If (1) or (2) is false, the papacy lacks either the authority or the powers it claims. If (3) or (4) are false, Peter’s authority dies with him.

       Since you ask for a “level of Scripture”: I’d need to see a clear, unambiguous teaching of the truth of each of these four facts. I don’t find any such thing; no one in this thread has even suggested Scriptural support for (3) or (4), and I’ve previously argued at length that (1) seems contradicted by Paul’s teaching in Galatians 1-2.

       You raised the subject of the Trinity; when we argue for (say) the divinity of Christ, we can appeal to passages such as 1 Peter 1:1: “Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, to those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours,” emphasis mine. Or Titus 2:13. Or John 1:1. Or John 20:28-29. Or John 8:58. Or Mark 14:62. Or Philippians 2:6. The testimony is constant, and taken as a whole – even taken in individual verses, for the most part! – it is unambiguous and irrefutable. That’s the kind of standard we hold to for essential doctrines of the faith.

       Instead, what we have here is supposition – that “strengthen” requires leadership, that “the rock” is one of half-a-dozen plausible possibilities, that to build the church upon a person is to make him eternal head of that church and not merely a great leader and evangelist in it. Even Joe, above, agreed that these other readings are plausible. And while he thinks his is the best, his readings are a minority in the early church – the majority of the early fathers do not see these passages establishing what he says they do. Even then, (3) and (4) are left untouched!

       That’s enough, perhaps, for supposition. It’s enough for hypothesis; perhaps even to believe that your view is true. It’s not enough to ground the whole host of other Catholic dogmas, nor is it enough to expel with the anathema anyone who differs on the interpretation.

       That’s the standard I’d apply. “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and by plain reason…”

       Also: happy 501st Reformation Day, everybody!

       Reply

       1. YOU SAID :
          I don’t think the papacy can survive the loss of any of these. If (1) or (2) is false, the papacy lacks either the authority or the powers it claims. If (3) or (4) are false, Peter’s authority dies with him.

          1) Peter is given specific authority as the divinely-ordained leader of the apostles, with an obligation for all other Christians to acknowledge him as hierarchical head and yield to his interpretation.>>>>>>

          ## If you accept the late authority of any protestant churchmen , who existed or exists subsequent to Peter then you have already accepted a version of continuous authority .. the only differences the gap in the protestant timeline between Peter , and the subsequent PAPAL type figures of protestantism

          2) This authority specifically includes such matters as a charism of infallibility on matters of faith and morals, and access to a divine storehouse of surplus merit.

          ## Yes , infallible because Christ said “WHATEVER” you bind on earth shall be bound i heaven . If a teaching is bound in heaven then it must ordinarily be infallible ; this is the protection of the Holy Spirit ..

          3) This authority can be inherited.

          ## Absolutely it is . If Christ is fulfilling Isaiah , and in the same moment tells us that his new kingdom ( THE CHURCH ) shall never be prevailed against ; implies a continuance of office . The office of Peter , and the continuance of the church are summarised in the same

          4) Peter’s authority was then inherited by all subsequent bishops of Rome.

          ## This really is the same as premise #3 , just worded differently . There has been a Bishop of Rome since day dot , so once again History also testifies to the Papacy , even in its primitive form ..

          It seems to me that neither of your 4 conditions have been defeated as proof against the papacy .. They are hardly so ambiguous as to disprove the Papacy .. They are not so ambiguous in light of Isaiah or reason or history for that matter .. But I guess if you want them to be ambiguous as you do , then you can certainly say that , and run wth that as a proposition ; but the ambiguity you claim is not irreconcilable in light of further evidences in scripture that establish for us an solid reason to believe in the Papacy ..as well a reason and history

          As far as ambiguity goes . how is your multiple references to John , Mark or Philipians ground you in protestism as though Catholics somehow have rejected these in favour of the Papacy .. The Papacy is hardly threatened by any of those benign arguments , and thats the kind of Dichotomous arguments that many protestants make against catholicism . They try and pitt Catholicism against Scripture with such ambiguities as these . In fact these scriptural references have very little force in either advancing the cause of protestantism or denying the Papacy ..

          TITUS 2:13 …… JOHN 1:1 …….JOHN 20:28-29 …… JOHN 8:58 …….. MARK 14:62 ……. etc !!!
          All of these UNAMBIGUOUS verses are accepted by catholics .. but that doesn’t’ mean we lay aside or reject truths of the faith because other concepts are a bit more challenging , obscure or require some further investigation . If thats all that is required , then just grab your bible and don’t worry about what any protestant or catholic churchmen has ever said in the past .. Just cut out the easy ones and just run with those as though those things are the only truths you must believe ..

          It seems that plain reason AND scripture testify to the Papacy .. Plain reason certainly doesn’t qualify for a protestant worldview by stretch of the imagination , and neither does scripture ..

          The Catholic Position rests far more solidly grounded in scripture and reason than does protestantism
          In light of that Will you then be abandoning protestantism any time soon , since its own scriptural basis is wanting

          Reply

12. ” Even D.A. Carson, the founder and president of the Gospel Coalition (a popular Reformed Evangelical fellowship), said that “if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretation, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.””

    And yet the consensus of the Fathers, all who predate the Protestants and their reactions, identifies the Rock with St. Peter’s confession, not his person.

    Reply

    1. Peter could not have confessed had he been other than a person. The Fathers are writing from the perspective of apostolic succession — how to derive, arrive or determine succession from a first person confessing.

       Reply

       1. Peter is not the Person being confessed. “No man can say the Lord Jesus, but by the Holy Ghost””No man can come to Me, except the Father, Who hath sent Me, draw him.” The Apostles were sent by Christ, not St. Peter (Acts 8:14; St. John 13:16), and ALL bishops succeed St. Peter in his confession and position, not just the bishop of Old Rome, made so by the same Holy Spirit (Acts 20:28)
          .

          Reply

          1. I am not sure that we aren’t saying the same thing.

             Do you believe that the papacy and its succession is or is not found in scripture?

             Perhaps my writing was not clear if you understood me to say that Peter was the “Person” being confessed. I was trying to say that Peter confessed because he was a person, a person who could talk, a person who was blessed with knowledge from the Father and the Holy Spirit. He was inspired to speak the truth.

             Peter was the first disciple to answer Jesus’ question with the correct answer. No other disciple, no other person confessed Jesus as Christ prior to Peter. So it was Peter, as a person, who confessed to Jesus that he, Peter, believed that Jesus was the Christ. Christ gave Peter the keys by virtue of Peter’s being the first to confess Jesus as the Christ.

             Can we separate the words of Peter from the person of Peter? No. His words arise from within his personal being as surely as yours arise from your essence and mine from mine.

             Reply

             1. Hi Margo,

                I think – not to put words in Isa’s mouth – that the point is that, while it’s true that only persons can confess, a person is not the same thing as his confession. To say that the rock is Peter as a person does not mean the same thing as saying the rock is confessed faith in Christ, even if Peter-the-person was the first to do so. A fair number of the fathers explicitly hold to the latter interpretation; if modern Catholics insist on the former, then modern Catholics are out of step with the fathers on this issue.

             2. Hello Irked,

                I’d like to review the evidence of the Fathers’ interpretation which is as you suggest. Can you please cite sources? I’m not a miracle-worker, so I cannot review or refute thin air!

                You acknowledge, by presuming to speak for Isa, that you do not put words in Isa’s mouth, that your words belong to you.

                Peter’s utterance was inspired and true. The idea behind the utterance was given to Peter, accepted by Peter, and voiced by Peter. (No mere flesh and blood could have spoken so.)

                Jesus named Peter “Cephas.” Jesus did NOT bestow the name “Cephas” on the words which Peter spoke.

                Peter was the Spirit’s instrument, and Peter cooperated with the Spirit. The Spirit could just as easily have spoken to any other disciple; we aren’t told so we don’t know. But we are told that Peter issued words as he had been moved to do. Peter was the first and only person to speak as the Spirit directed.

                Words signify the knowledge or truth which a speaker possesses, and words are under the control of the person who utters them. The words do not exist in and of themselves. The words exist only because Peter gave them voice.

                Analogously, we claim that Jesus is the Word of God and His Word is found within the Bible. We recognize that the Bible represents or signifies Jesus. The Bible is not Jesus in person or essence. Yet the words Jesus spoke (and the actions he undertook) arose from him and no one else. Do we honor the signification of Jesus (the written record of the words he spoke and the actions described)? Yes, but more so and only because the words arose as a result of the existential being of the person named Jesus.

                Jesus called Peter the Rock on which he would build his Church. Peter’s person is the rock on which Jesus wished his Church be built.

                P.S.: Any words of wisdom issuing from the mouth of the babe yet? 🙂 Usually the first one is “Dada.” Listen for it!

             3. Hi Margo,

                I’d like to review the evidence of the Fathers’ interpretation which is as you suggest. Can you please cite sources? I’m not a miracle-worker, so I cannot review or refute thin air!

                Sure. Here’s a few. (To head off possible arguments down the line, I want to be clear that I’m replying in defense of a narrow, specific claim: that Joe’s interpretation of “the rock” is not a consensus, nor likely even a majority, in the early church – that more popular views read it as “faith” or “the confession of faith.” These quotes are not intended to establish that none of the men involved believed in anything like the modern papacy; that’s not the debate.)

                Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Book 12, Chapters 10-11, says broadly that everyone making this confession may be taken to have the surnames “Christ” and “Peter” – “Margo Christ Peter” just as Cephas was “Cephas Christ Peter.” All are Peters, and the promises are made to all of them. Here’s the quote:

                “And if we too have said like Peter, “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, “Thou art Peter,” etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
                ..
                “And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For all bear the surname of rock who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, 1 Corinthians 10:4 that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of the rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters. And taking occasion from these things you will say that the righteous bear the surname of Christ who is Righteousness, and the wise of Christ who is Wisdom. 1 Corinthians 1:30 And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, You are Peter, etc., down to the words, prevail against it.”

                ***

                Augustine wrote of Peter as the rock early in his ministry, but he ultimately shifts views. Which, heh, you can find Joe documenting in his article “St. John Chrysostom and St. Augustine on Matthew 16:18 and the Papacy.” While Joe argues that both men held Petrine doctrines in general – which I’m not contesting for the moment – the only question we’re considering for the moment is, “What did they think of Matthew 16?” And, well, here’s Augustine in his sermons:

                “In Peter, Rocky, we see our attention drawn to the rock. Now the apostle Paul says about the former people, “They drank from the spiritual rock that was following them; but the rock was Christ” (1 Cor 10:4). So this disciple is called Rocky from the rock, like Christian from Christ… Why have I wanted to make this little introduction? In order to suggest to you that in Peter the Church is to be recognized. Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession. What is Peter’s confession? “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

                Not on a man, but on Peter’s confession. Here’s his reflection late in life, in his Retractions (explaining why his later writings disagree with his earlier “Peter is the rock” writings):

                “But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: “Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,” that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,” and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received “the keys of the kingdom of heaven.” For, “Thou art Peter” and not “Thou art the rock” was said to him. But “the rock was Christ,” in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter.”

                There’s “the rock” as “Him whom Peter confessed.”

                ***

                Since we’re talking about John Chrysostom, let’s do that, too. Here’s Joe’s quote from him, from his In pentecosten:

                “Having said to Peter, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonas, and of having promised to lay the foundation of the Church upon his confession; not long after He says, Get thee behind me, Satan. And elsewhere he said, Upon this rock. He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built. And what is this faith? You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”

                And here’s his Homily 54 on Matthew:

                “[T]herefore He added this, And I say unto you, You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; Matthew 16:18 that is, on the faith of his confession.”

                ***

                This is running long, so a few more in quick succession

                Theodoret, Commentary on Canticle of Canticles:
                “Surely he is calling pious faith and true confession a ‘rock.’ For when the Lord asked his disciples who the people said he was, blessed Peter spoke up, saying ‘You are Christ, the Son of the living God.’ To which the Lord answered: ‘Truly, truly I say to you, you are Peter and upon this rock I shall build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’”

                Cyril of Alexandria, Dialogue on the Trinity:
                “Now when Christ heard this true opinion of him, he repaid Peter by saying: ‘Blessed are you Simon Bar–Jonah, for flesh and blood have not revealed this to you but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ The surname, I believe, calls nothing other than the unshakable and very firm faith of the disciple ‘a rock,’ upon which the Church was founded and made firm and remains continually impregnable even with respect to the very gates of Hell.”

                There are others I could repeat as well, but at this point I think I’ll turn the evidence over to the Catholic side: if this is indeed the majority interpretation of the early church, show it – and if not, why do they misread what’s claimed to be the Scriptural proof for the papacy?

                ***

                To the rest of your post: I don’t think anyone denies that Peter recognized an important truth. The question remains whether it is on the confessor, or on that truth, that the church was to be built, and I don’t see that your argument forces an answer either way.

                P.S.: Any words of wisdom issuing from the mouth of the babe yet? 🙂 Usually the first one is “Dada.” Listen for it!

                “UP UP UP!” is popular, if of questionable wisdom.

             4. FWIW, my interpretation of the babe’s words? He wants to go to heaven.

                No time more to answer the rest of your post, but what you’ve offered seems not to counter my claim that words are instruments, significations which rely on persons to pronounce them. My claim is that Jesus called Peter a rock. Jesus did not call Peter’s words the rock.

             5. Hi Margo,

                Sure, but the argument is not that words were the rock. The argument is that faith as expressed in a confession is the rock.

                And the key difference is that I can’t be the man Cephas, but I can have and confess the same faith. In that sense, I can be Peter just as he was: “And so in regard to all His other names, you will apply them by way of surname to the saints; and to all such the saying of the Saviour might be spoken, You are Peter, etc., down to the words, prevail against it.”

                If these words are spoken of all who have that same faith, they don’t convey special authority on the man Cephas; they convey special authority on us all.

             6. Scriptural evidence for papal succession is implicit by the disciples’ replacing Judas by Mathias. Surely if this were a problem for God, he would have corrected and directed the disciples otherwise as he walked and instructed his disciples in his glory.

                Yes. There is much of scripture, as in all our words, that is implicit. Yet in the particular case of Peter, the logic is evident. Aristotle would agree (see On Interpretation) with the clear ‘cookbook’ logic of Jesus’ stating that Peter IS cephas and upon that cephas his church is to be built. To deny or equivocate about the words of Christ denies the logic and the truth of those words.

                Peter is the rock. Sure. Peter’s utterance was by virtue of his faith, but Jesus did NOT say, “Your faith is Cephas and upon that cephas, I build my church.” He did not say to the world, ‘Upon your faith my church is.’ He syllogized that Peter was the rock was his church.

             7. Hi Margo,

                Scriptural evidence for papal succession is implicit by the disciples’ replacing Judas by Mathias.

                Say for the sake of argument I accept this argument; that’s still only evidence for apostolic succession, isn’t it? The papacy in general – and Joe’s reading in particular – is premised on Peter being given authority beyond that of the other apostles; where is Petrine succession established? Where is it established that it will pass specifically to the bishop of Rome?

                Aristotle would agree (see On Interpretation) with the clear ‘cookbook’ logic of Jesus’ stating that Peter IS cephas and upon that cephas his church is to be built.

                So here’s what’s funny to me: you’re arguing for an Aristotelian interpretation of Christ’s words. The fellas down below are complaining that Protestants improperly attempt Aristotelian interpretation of Christ’s words; see awlms’s statement, “Moreover, Jesus didn’t teach like a Aristotlilian in Athens might teach.”

                I can’t win for losing, here!

                To deny or equivocate about the words of Christ denies the logic and the truth of those words.

                Peter is the rock. Sure. Peter’s utterance was by virtue of his faith, but Jesus did NOT say, “Your faith is Cephas and upon that cephas, I build my church.” He did not say to the world, ‘Upon your faith my church is.’ He syllogized that Peter was the rock was his church.

                Okay. But the argument that’s been raised several times, and that Isa initially made, is that the fathers by-and-large disagree with you on this point.

                “Christ, you see, built his Church not on a man but on Peter’s confession.”

                “For, ‘Thou art Peter’ and not ‘Thou art the rock’ was said to him. But ‘the rock was Christ.'”

                “He did not say upon Peter for it is not upon the man, but upon his own faith that the church is built.”

                Now, I have no problem saying the early fathers are sometimes wrong. But inasmuch as Protestants are being critiqued at the bottom of the thread for doing precisely that, I want to be clear that this is indeed what you are saying: that when Origen and Augustine and Chrysostom and Theodoret and Cyril and others all say, “The rock is the faith of Peter’s confession,” you believe the fathers are wrong on this point – more, that they are either denying or equivocating on the truth of Christ’s words.

                Correct?

13. Pingback: THVRSDAY MORNING EDITION – Big Pulpit

14. “The Catholic Church is an institution I am bound to hold divine — but for unbelievers a proof of its divinity might be found in the fact that no merely human institution conducted with such knavish imbecility would have lasted a fortnight.” — Hilaire Belloc

    What applies to the Catholic Church applies in spades to the institution of the Papacy.

    Reply

15. Irked –

    Why do you believe the books in your Bible? There’s no scriptural index. Why not apply your same scriptural standard to the books in your Bible? Or to put it another way, when is one allowed to deviate from scripture in your worldview?

    Reply

    1. Johnny,

       Respectfully, Joe’s post was on the subject of biblical evidence for the papacy, and I’d like to stay within the bounds of his topic. I’m sure there will be an opportunity for a sola Scriptura debate another day – or you’re welcome to look at comments I’ve left on the subject in the past – but for now, I’ll decline.

       Reply

16. Irked –

    I’m interested in your thought process for this article and how I can apply it to other areas. I’m not as concerned about your conclusion as your process. You indicated that there must be scriptural support for a position and that such support doesn’t exist for the Papacy. Joe says it does exist. How does one reconcile the differences?

    I’m not looking to debate sola scriptura but to delve deeper into the standards one uses in their analysis.

    I can’t reconcile your process in this analysis and then apply it to what books should be in the Bible. I’m uncomfortable using different standards for such major issues.

    Reply

    1. Johnny,

       Indeed, it’s clearly a different kind of evidence that leads us to accept our first source as canonical. It has to be, because the questions “Is this source inspired and infallible?” and “What does this source actually say?” are entirely different in the kinds of evidence they consider. The former question ranges over the whole of our reality: the testimony of Jewish antiquity; of early fathers; of the testimony of other, already accepted texts; of the apparent nature, content, and authorship of the source; of the internal witness of the Spirit; and so on. The latter question ranges over a finite number of comprehensible sentences.

       We both face this first question; the Catholic faces it when adopting the Magisterium as infallible (with the canon falling out of that decision), while the Protestant applies it to Scripture directly. We’re both fallible in our attempts to answer it. But having derived an answer to that question, it’s much more directly possible to determine what the source actually says.

       (For a metaphor, which is the more straightforward to show: that there exists an infallible Magisterium entrusted with sacred traditions, or that the Magisterium teaches that certain forms of birth control are wrong? You may believe the former argument is possible, but it’s surely easier to do the latter: “Look, here’s Humana Vitae saying exactly that.”)

       Now, one might argue that your belief in the papacy is justified in the same way as our belief in the canon of Scripture is justified. That’s fine! But that wasn’t Joe’s argument, and it’s not the thing to which I’m responding.

       How does one reconcile the differences?

       By prayerful, considering debate among Christians pondering the evidence, as I hope we’re doing now.

       Reply

17. Jesus declared, the gates of hell shall not prevail against his Church. He also said, he would send the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit has given much revelation to the Church. During the time of St. Malachy, the pope of that time did not believe that the Church would continue on because of the difficulties of that time. Yet, St. Malachy was given visions of all the Popes that would continue for centuries. Interestingly, this pope is the last on the list. St. Malachy states: “In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church, will be occupied by ‘Peter the Roman’, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven-hills (Rome) will be destroyed and the formidable Judge will judge the people. The End.” Is this Pope Francis? It seems so. A judgment will take place in the 2030s but is not the end.
    We live in a spiritual storm that is growing with intensity. We are in a battle. Pope John Paul II had visions of the future, while convalescing after an attempt on his life and was aware of a great storm on the horizon: “Precisely at the end of the second millennium, there accumulates on the horizon of all mankind enormously threatening clouds, and darkness falls upon mankind.” An awakening is coming!! Pope John Paul talked about the Lamb (Jesus Christ), who is the only one able to open up the seven seals: “That scroll contains the whole series of divine decrees that must be accomplished in human history to make perfect justice prevail. If the scroll remains sealed, these decrees can be neither known nor implemented, and wickedness will continue to spread and oppress believers. Hence, the need for authoritative intervention: it would be made by the slain and risen Lamb…to take the scroll and to open its seals.”
    According to prophecies, this 5th Church age is “coming to a close”, after 10 events unfold that Mary, Mother of Jesus has predicted at some major apparition sites throughout the world. This information also comes from canonized saint’s prophecies. A 6th Church age of peace will come, the Triumph of Her Immaculate Heart. There are 7 ages for the Church.
    A book and web site called, After The Warning To 2038, has prophecies from credible sources that are predicting these kinds of events.

    Reply

18. Irked –

    Is it fair to say that these issues come down to whether the Catholic Church is who it claims to be?

    If so, then the Catholic worldview logically flows since it would be a metaphysical entity guided by the Holy Spirit. If not, then about 150 years after Christ died there was nothing left but his word and we had to interpret his word by ourselves and the world was corrupted by a false church?

    Reply

    1. Johnny,

       I certainly agree that “If Catholics are correct, then Catholics are correct” logically follows. I’m not sure what “these issues” are.

       I don’t agree that the church ca. 200 AD was particularly like the Catholic church of today, nor have I claimed that either time period is a “false church.” I think you guys err, and that your error has compounded over time. I still think you’re my brothers in Christ.

       But this seems somewhat afield from the actual question on the table today.

       Reply

19. Ratzinger’s book (1996) Called to Communion beautifully presents his reasoned scholarly support for Peter’s primacy, apostolic succession, et al. In essence, the Catholic Church is the Body of Christ with mercy at its heart and commissioned by Christ to save sinners from Hell. Built upon the rock of Peter (no mere human flesh and blood but the rock of truth, the rock of the Paraclete, the rock which sealed the mouth of death by rolling away three days later), the Roman Catholic Church is Christ’s bride, He is its head, we members are His Body. Although individual persons as popes, bishops, priests, or laity as individuals may and do certainly err, the Church with Christ as its Head is INCAPABLE of error. In short. Its physical size may change over time, its Popes may be sinners or heretics or otherwise anti-Christ, but those whose souls magnify the Lord project His image upon the caves of others’ souls entombed. If only they had eyes to see.

    One example. Called to Communion (pp. 15-16) quotes scholar J. Jeremias (1926):

    From a rabbinical text, “Yahweh spoke: ‘How can I create the world, when these godless men will arise to vex me?’ But when God looked upon Abraham, who was also to be born, he spoke: ‘Behold, I have found a rock from which you have been hewn’ (Isaiah 51:12).”

    Ratzinger continues: Abraham, the father of faith, is by his faith the rock that holds back chaos, the onrushing primordial flood of destruction, and thus sustains creation. Simon, the first to confess Jesus as the Christ and the first witness of the Resurrection, now becomes by virtue of his Abrahamic faith, which is renewed in Christ, the rock that stands against the impure tide of unbelief and its destruction of man.

    Lest some argue: “Faith is the rock.” I rejoin: When and where did God name faith his rock? Where and when did He give keys to anyone other than Cepha?

    Reply

20. Irked –

    What beliefs did the early church believe that are materially different from the RCC today?

    For example, do you believe that the dominant view of historical churches in early Christian history from 35-200 AD rejected the Papacy and correspondingly rejected the Mass?

    If so, what is the name of such person in early church history that holds such view? I’m looking for evidence that supports your view that a Catholic version of history did not dominate the early Church from 35-200 AD.

    Reply

    1. Hi Johnny,

       That the Catholic Church coined the name ‘catholic’ as early as 110 AD says a lot about the nature and beliefs of the Church back then. I’m not sure that Irked appreciates this little detail, but this definition and title unites the earliest Church with the Church of the First Ecumenical council 200 years later. That is, there was at least a common ecclesiology professed in the first 3 centuries because the early Church thought that their doctrine was ‘universal’ amongst them in both their Gospel teachings and liturgical sacraments such as Baptism, Eucharist, Ordinations etc…. They even codified them in various early Church synods and developed ‘canon law’ that can still be studied and analyzed today. This compares to the myriad of gnostic sects that existed back in the early centuries, each of them having their own particular beliefs and practices, and which sects seem to be comparable in many ways to the Protestants/Evangelicals/Fundementalists of our present day.
       The ‘universality’ of the faith back then, is therefore an important distinction of the Early Church which the Protestants today cannot claim as one of their particular attributes. If it was so, then they would try hard to unite themselves by synods and councils, even as the Catholic Church did back then….so as to maintain that ‘universality’ that they later on codified in the early synods and ecumenical councils.

       One question then, might be: How can a Protestant recite the Nicaean creed when they are anything but ‘universal’ and ‘apostolic’ in their various Christian ideologies and liturgical practices? As compared with the authentic ‘catholic’ Church, they are not ‘universal’ at all. And, if one objects….then with how many other Christians on Earth do they share that identical ‘universal’ creed, and where is that creed written down on paper (ie..universal catechism) so as to have something to ‘universally’ agree upon, codify and pass on to future generations until the end of the world?

       Reply

    2. Hi Johnny,

       Nah, I’m cutting us off there; this is the start of an infinite recursion that proceeds through me posting a long discussion about Cyprian and other early fathers as I’ve done a fair few times before, and none of that ever cycles back around to Joe’s actual topic.

       Do you think I’m correct in my identification of four component doctrines required for the papacy? Do you think all four of these have been, or can be, compellingly shown from Scripture? If we resolve that, perhaps we can push onward, but I’d like to see some engagement with the arguments I’ve made so far first.

       Reply

21. Irked –

    I believe you violate sola scriptura by trying to create four conditions for the papacy. Inherent in sola scriptura is a violation of the law of non tradition at every turn which is why this doctrine boxes you in from a logical standpoint.

    Starting with history and what actually happened in the early church should be included in any scriptural analysis and be taken in high regard. Unfortunately, you’ve lumped off tradition from your analysis (even though scripture itself doesn’t support such action) which causes you to be unable to interpret scripture itself. Scripture was never meant to be a recipe book but that is what happened when the deformers (they weren’t reformers, they deformed the Church).

    The logical outworking of your position is an invisible church with no leader and everything stopped after Peter. The Papacy is the logical outworking of scripture just like the Trinity. If the Papacy is wrong then why believe anything in Christianity since the Church was wrong on such a major issue from the start.

    Until you accept the reality of history we will never see eye to eye and we aren’t unified. You reject a fair amount of major Catholic doctrines but think we’re unified? That isn’t logically possible.

    Reply

    1. Johnny,

       Inherent in sola scriptura is a violation of the law of non tradition at every turn

       I’m afraid I don’t know what this means; what is “the law of non tradition?”

       Starting with history and what actually happened in the early church should be included in any scriptural analysis and be taken in high regard.

       But I agree – I think the ways in which Scripture have been interpreted are useful to us and should be paid attention to. That’s part of why I think it’s so striking that Joe’s interpretation is not the historical majority view, let alone a consensus: you guys are arguing against the early church.

       I’m just not willing to extend that conversation out into infinity without ever getting a counter-argument. There are lots of things we could talk about, but Joe talked about Scriptural evidence for the papacy, and I’ve written a fair bit on that subject now. I’d like to finish that conversation. If my arguments ignore Scriptural evidence, let’s have that conversation; if not, let’s concede that Scripture does not, in fact, prove the papacy, and then we can move on.

       Reply

22. Awlms –

    I agree with you. History is OVERWHELMINGLY Catholic but that fact is ignored when trying to interpret scripture. People assume those in the early church weren’t as intelligent as modern man to interpret scripture so however they acted muster have been wrong given their bad interpretation.

    Reply

    1. Yes, Johnny,

       It seems people want to interpret scripture and neglect the ‘inherent meaning’ found in scripture at the same time. For instance, Protestants declare that ‘sola scriptura’ is a means for attaining true doctrine, theology and consequently salvation, which signifies that for them it is a ‘book’ that is the main thrust and focus for all of our theological inspiration. But in declaring ‘scripture ONLY’, they neglect to comprehend those very same scriptures where Jesus Himself gives His own mode and path for attaining salvation, and that is through the reception of the sacraments of the Living Church that He Himself founded (ie…”upon this Rock I will build my Church”) Moreover, Jesus never wrote anything down for future posterity, and never told anyone to write anything either (except in an off hand way to St. John in the Book of Revelation.) But He did leave to us the Holy Eucharist, and other sacraments, and made many statements about these same sacraments while He taught His disciples and ‘the multitudes’ in Israel.

       And one of these teachings of Jesus regarding the Eucharist was: “Do this in remembrance of Me”. So He both commands them to DO SOMETHING, and then gives the reason why….”in remembrance of me”. That is, He provides His means for helping His future disciples to continually remember Him…which is through the reception of the Holy Eucharist. So, Jesus is not saying to go out and create scriptures as a ‘New Testament’ at the Last Supper, He is telling His Apostles that He Himself will be the ‘New Testament’ and be with them in His very Person, in the Holy Eucharist, and which no book ever written could ever substitute for. And, because of this True Presence of Christ amongst us in the Holy Liturgy of the Mass, Christians will thereby be united to Him always and ‘remember Him’….even as the Jews before Him remembered ( and still remember)the Exodus from Egypt when they celebrate the Passover each year.

       So, Jesus instituted a ‘holy liturgy’ for the purpose of providing both sanctifying grace and also ‘remembrance of Him’ without ever saying anything about a book that needed to be written. The book that the apostles finally decided to start writing was a mere auxiliary aid to instruct Christians during the early liturgies of the Eucharist. This is why Eusebius points out that only the literature read at the earliest of Church liturgies was considered for inclusion into the future canon of sacred scripture. But again, this was a decision of the Church and Jesus never instructed on such writing. So, we see here that there was an emphasis by Jesus on the importance of the ‘Living Church’ that was to be built on Peter, and which was to carry out all that Jesus had taught them while He preached in Israel.

       Basically, it seems that the Protestants are trying to replace this ‘Living Church’ with a Bible…which Bible can never substitute for real ‘flesh and blood Christians’ living under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Even the Jews of Jesus’ time knew that the ‘living out’ of the instructions in the ‘Law and the Prophets’ is what was important, and not merely the listening to, or reading, the ancient scriptures. So, we find here the model for the future Church also. Moreover, Jesus instructed His disciples:

       “And he said to them: Go ye into the whole world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
       He that believeth and is baptized, shall be saved: but he that believeth not shall be condemned.” (Mark 16: 15)

       So again…here He says ‘preach the gospel’ He doesn’t say…” Go out and write a book so that everyone can read and so it will not be necessary to waste time preaching”. In fact, Jesus could have easily wrote anything He wanted if that was His design for the inspiration of all His future followers. But he did not choose this way. He chose the sacraments as His method for transmitting the holy faith, person to person, soul to soul. And to effect this, a vibrant and ‘living’ Church was needed where the gospel message would be operating in the living hearts and souls of each member, and where future Christians would be inspired by the Holy Spirit working and acting through these same ‘living members’ of His Mystical Body…even as St. Paul taught in his letters.

       Anyway, it seems that Protestants prefer ‘a book’ …to the Living Church of God amongst us, and operating in all of the Catholic parishes throughout the world today. Moreover, no book will be needed in eternity, only myriads of holy souls and holy angels all of whom are adoring forever the One, All Good, Holy God and Father, and His Son Jesus Christ our Savior, and with the Comforter, the Holy Spirit. Amen.

       Reply

23. Awlms –

    The Renaissance and Reformation tried to remove the metaphysical aspect of life and replace it under the guise of “science” and “reason”. Wormwood would be proud!

    If one removes the metaphysical aspect of Christianity then you can come up with thousands of versions of it with ones reasoned interpretation of scripture (that was provided through metaphysical tradition and confirmed in a metaphysical Church). Modern man detests the metaphysical because life is so much easier if we just deal with the physical.

    Reply

    1. I often wonder about the over use of logic when arguing about scripture, and this is because so much of scripture is, as you said, metaphysical in nature. And, often times logic must be avoided so as to come to a correct interpretation. One example of this was found in todays Gospel reading at Mass, in this teaching:

       “Master, which is the greatest commandment in the law? Jesus said to him: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”

       Someone who tries to only understand this explicitly, logically or literally would say …” if you love God with your ‘whole’ heart and your ‘whole’ soul and your whole mind….’whole means exactly that…WHOLE, ALL, Everything and with nothing left for anything else….and so there is nothing left for you to love your neighbor with. Therefore you cannot love your neighbor if you love God with your WHOLE heart, soul and mind because the scriptures say EXPLICITLY that you must do this!”

       Anyway, I find many Protestants use this type of logic when defending their scriptural exegesis. As you say, they ignore the metaphysical connotation that Jesus soften trying to convey.

       Best to you.

       Reply

       1. “The problem with Protestants is that they try to interpret Scripture logically” is probably my favorite criticism.

          Reply

          1. I’m not sure if you do this intentionally, but it appears that you often create a strawman argument and then give your counter arguments. Would it not be better to give your counter arguments to the absolute best representation of the actual argument?

             I am not as astute as most of you here, but simply “copying” and “pasting” your quotation of AWLMS’s post isn’t found anywhere in his post and reading the sentence that you wrote to capture his argument actually mocks his original argument.

             Reply

             1. Hi Tron,

                It is a little bit… maybe not mocking, but snarking, for sure. I think saying that “often times logic must be avoided” – and that is a direct quote – is silly, and worth teasing.

                I do not intentionally straw man my opponents’ actual arguments; what would be the point? I’m certain I do misrepresent them; trying to learn to not do that is the point of the whole conversation.

24. Awlms-

    Scientism rules the day for modern man! There is no longer any room for the metaphysical in our lives as man has figured everything out and those in the past were ignorant and stupid.

    Reply

25. Awlms –

    Have no fear of those who fail to grasp the limitations of logic and try to create a purely physical world. I think certain people interpret scripture from an ahistorical, atraditional and with the blinders of scientism so they can create a new form of Christianity for themselves. Of course, where are these interpreters that logically interpret Christ’s command to eat his flesh and drink his blood? This statement was logically symbolic even after people walked away from him without any correction by Christ???

    There is no universal whole when man is left to his own “logical” interpretations. No one person has enough knowledge, history or logic to properly interpret all of scripture. Wouldn’t we logically need a church on earth to have such deposit of knowledge? Hmmm.

    Reply

26. “And the Lord said the half filled glass should never be replaced.” (Made up quote folks – sort of like the book called II Hesitations)

    Was the glass half full or half empty?

    Use your logic and answer the question as best you can.

    One position would be that the glass must be half full or half empty and the glass must be either or. Of course, a more universal perspective might cause one to realize that the glass is simultaneously half full and half empty.

    Reply

27. “It is impossible to speak in such a way that you cannot be misunderstood.”

    Karl Popper

    Logic tells me there are limits to language. If so, then why base an entire religious reality upon language only???

    Reply

28. “The problem with Protestants is that they try to interpret Scripture logically” is probably my favorite criticism.

    Hi Irked,

    What I actually said was…”I often wonder about the OVER USE of logic when arguing about scripture, and this is because so much of scripture is, as you said, metaphysical in nature.”

    So, logic that is based on shaky theological premises is the problem, not just the logic itself. Moreover, Jesus didn’t teach like a Aristotlilian in Athens might teach. Jesus generally taught through parables, comparisons, analogies, metaphors etc… such that the premises must be understood after much meditation and with great wisdom so as to base any reasonable or logically conclusion on. And, many of the Protestant theological conclusions seem to be based on premises that aren’t supported by the many parables, metaphors and analogies of Jesus. They seem to ignore the metaphysical implications and typology inherent in these parables and similitudes.

    Take for instance the OSAS, ‘once saved always saved’, doctrine of many Evangelicals. In the parable of the ‘Wise and Foolish Virgins’ account, Jesus teaches on the necessity of always being carefully prepared for His appointed arrival, even if it seems to be late or delayed.

    An ‘OSAS’ believing evangelical will ignore the metaphysical implications and premises inherent in this parable because it doesn’t correspond in any way to an OSAS and ‘sola fide’ theology.In the story, all of the ‘virgins’ obviously know the ‘Bridegroom’ well, and all are initially provided sufficiently with the necessary oil and lamps with which to follow the ‘bridegroom’ through the dark night when He finally arrives. So, they all initially have the necessary supplies to complete their objective which is …attendance at the ‘marriage feast (ie..salvation and entrance into Heaven). However, it was not ‘faith alone’ that was sufficient for entering the wedding feast. All ten of Virgins needed also to work diligently to GUARD and CONSERVE their provided ‘oil’ (…grace) so as to have it ready for the arrival of the Bridegroom. Here is what happens:

    “Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps. And the foolish said to the wise: Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. The wise answered, saying: Lest perhaps there be not enough for us and for you, go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for yourselves. Now whilst they went to buy, the bridegroom came: and they that were ready, went in with him to the marriage, and the door was shut.”

    It says “all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps” which is to say they ALL still had ‘some’ oil, just ‘NOT ENOUGH’ of the oil. So, it is the QUANTITY of the oil that was also necessary, not only the oil itself. In other words, they all had the same quantity at one point in time….or…they all had sufficient ‘faith’ and ‘grace’ needed to complete their appointed mission and enter the wedding feast. But, 5 of these same virgins wasted their essential supply of oil (…ie..faith and grace) through negligence and frivolous use, and needed to go out and try to ‘buy some more’. Unfortunately for them they were too late, and even after buying more, they were too late….and “…the door was shut.”

    So, how on Earth can a OSAS Evangelical protestant conclude that a person can be irrevocably saved by faith alone without needing any works to be done….merely after ‘BELIEVING’ in the ‘bridegroom’ ? It is clearly contradicted in this same parable of Christ.

    This is just one example of how protestants often ignore tsuch metaphysical analogies that were provided by Jesus to teach His faithful about the nature of salvation. It this analogy it is not ONLY ‘faith’ that is needed, or ‘once you are saved you are always saved’, but rather…. faith can both be increased and decreased over time, depending on the care taken to either guard that faith and grace(oil), or deplete the same faith and grace through sin and negligence. And this is very different from ‘OSAS’ and ‘SOLA FIDE’.

    So, logic cannot suffice to reveal the principles of this parable. Wisdom, practical experience, a discerning heart, etc… are needed to understand it. And, it seems that anyone who believes in OSAS has never attained this understanding, otherwise they wouldn’t believe in such a wacky protestant doctrine. So, again this is just an example of how logic must be based on metaphysically correct premises… and 2000 years of Catholic saints and ‘fathers’ expounding on such holy premises, parables and analogies of Christ are what is needed to base their logical and theological conclusions on.

    Best to you.

    Reply

    1. Hi Al,

       We could have a long conversation about that, but the reason I was a little bit flippant in my initial reply is that we don’t seem to be able to talk about Joe’s actual topic. Joe raised the argument that Scripture shows us that the papacy is correct. I asked whether Scripture shows a necessary component of the papacy (i.e., that Peter’s authority is heritable). The only answers have been… critiques of the Reformation and the Enlightenment?

       Those critiques might or might not be valid, but, like, my question on Joe’s topic is still on the table, and there’s no real attempt to engage with it. Why are we over here in sola Scriptura and sola fide when the original question is still right there?

       When I ask an evidentiary question about an evidentiary argument, and the reply is, “You’re being too logical,” that’s pretty darned funny.

       Reply

       1. Hi Irked

          Like many aspects of Catholicism, practices develop as understanding of the underlying theology grows. Not wishing to overload you, but rather drawing on far more skilled persons than me, I offer the following links which may help in your understanding and appreciation of the Catholic position:

          From ‘Called to Communion’, a website run by and contributed to mainly by converts to Catholicism, of (in my view) a group of highly skilled and knowledgeable men, have a look at
          http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/04/the-primacy-of-peter-according-to-the-new-testament-and-the-principle-of-historical-fulfillment/

          and for an understanding of Catholic thinking around 400 AD, http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2011/05/the-commonitory-of-st-vincent-of-lerins/

          If you aren’t feeling too overloaded, you could finish off with http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2013/01/studies-on-the-early-papacy-a-must-read-for-church-history-geeks/

          Finally, if you are still game, try ‘An Essay on the development of Christian Doctrine’ by John Henry Cardinal Newman, which you can get online at http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/index.html

          I have enjoyed reading your contributions on this blog – it has caused me to more fully research and understand my Catholic faith, for which I thank you.

          Reply

          1. Hi Peter,

             Thanks for the links (and the kind words)!

             Reply

29. Irked –

    The necessary component evidence about the heritableness of the Papacy you seek is not explicitly stated in scripture. Why do you believe this necessary component must be explicitly stated in scripture? Where does scripture make such condition precedent?

    If it wasn’t inheritable then the Church is left without a leader when Peter dies. You make such logical leaps when you believe in the Trinity from scripture but not for the Papacy.

    Sola Scriptura is the real issue behind your request because you’re trying to show the inheritableness of Papacy isn’t scriptural. If everything must be explicitly stated in scripture then you have a fair amount of beliefs that should be rejected like the Trinity.

    Of course, tradition pre-dates scripture but that is another point for another day.

    Reply

    1. Hi JohnnyBGood,

       I honestly think it’s all proven in scripture when Jesus hands Peter “the keys to the kingdom” aka handing over the “office” as prime minister and it’s so clear and blatant it’s actually an odd wonder as to why another interpretation would exist.

       The appeal to the Sola Scriptura being the issue isn’t visible to most non-Catholic Christians because it’s something they’re raised in so they wouldn’t be able to identify it despite always putting up on flags and saluting it.

       Reply

    2. Hi Johnny,

       The necessary component evidence about the heritableness of the Papacy you seek is not explicitly stated in scripture.

       Nor is it anywhere clearly implied, yeah?

       Because at the end of the day, that’s really the thing we’re debating. If Peter’s authority isn’t heritable, there’s no papacy. If Scripture doesn’t show it to be heritable, the papacy isn’t shown by the evidence of Scripture, contra Joe’s original post.

       If it wasn’t inheritable then the Church is left without a leader when Peter dies.

       Christ doesn’t count?

       Reply

       1. Irked –

          If it’s not inheritable then man is left without leadership. That is realistically unworkable and leads to chaos for a living breathing Church created by Christ to last. The issue comes down to whether you believe Christ created a visible and tangible Church on planet earth that is universal. If you object to such a Church then your worldview makes more sense. If not, then your worldview on the Papacy makes less sense.

          Reply

          1. Johnny,

             I don’t “object” to it. I just don’t think there’s any good evidence Christ intended to establish such a thing. If you agree there’s nothing in the Scriptures on Petrine heritability, it seems like I’ve proven my main point.

             If it’s not inheritable then man is left without leadership.

             Except for Christ. And the witness of the Spirit. And the work of the elders and deacons appointed at each local church.

             Reply

             1. There’s a lot more evidence that Jesus appointed and empowered a leadership structure as the basis of His Church than there is that he intended or authorized anything be written as a basis for His Church. Even scripture testifies to this and shows the principle of apostolic succession in practice. If Peters’ specific charism/office was not heritable, it would not have had the traction to persist for very long and the Church itself would have started falling into anarchy. Certainly Jesus has not been physically present since the Ascension to answer questions and provide first hand leadership. Practically speaking, the ‘witness of the Spirit’ is even more vague. Without an empowered leadership, it’s practically impossible to universally discern the true witness of the unseen Spirit and what’s to be done about it. Lastly, the universal leadership structure established by Jesus including bishops, priests and deacons has been in place and operational from the beginning. If the pastors/deacons of local churches are not tied into that structure, their own credibility and authority is seriously compromised.

30. Tron –

    The issue is whether the inheritabless of the Papacy is explicitly stated. It isn’t and that shouldn’t be surprising. Scripture wasn’t intended to be a recipe book. Sola scriptura compels scripture to be a recipe book and violates itself. If everything must be explicit then a fair amount of Christianity would never be known.

    Reply

    1. Being ‘overly explicit’ when teaching difficult to understand spiritual or philosophical subject matter has it’s own inherent limitations in regards to the comprehension of one’s listeners. And this is especially the case when trying to communicate with a predominantly illiterate population. This is why parables and similitudes are preferable, even as “…a picture is worth a thousand words”. When paper/parchment is expensive, and schools are only for the wealthy, parables and stories are the most effective way to teach moral and spiritual lessons to the ‘unlearned’ populations. Basically, similitudes and allegories get essential points across in a most memorable and comprehensible way. And, on the contrary, philosophical arguments, theories and concepts are both difficult to understand and difficult to remember in detail, even for well educated lawyers and scholars. So, it is no wonder that the Gospel is filled with allegories, parables and metaphors., as this is how large numbers of normal folk can be able to comprehend many essential truths regarding the Holy Faith.

       In these regards we should really appreciate and learn from the Lord as to His method of communicating and teaching, as He himself said: “Neither be you called teachers; for one is your teacher, Christ.” [Matt. 23:10] And, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” [Luke 21:33]

       Basically, Jesus chose this method of teaching, and therefore it is the best method possible, otherwise He would have obviously chosen another way of teaching the faith to the world. Moreover, it was not only with words that He taught the Gospel, but also through miracles, good examples and other holy actions. And, this is another reason why an over emphasis on logic is not the best means of communicating the holy faith as it only covers one aspect of the faith… relating mainly to the intellect.

       On the contrary, Jesus communicated His ‘Sacred Heart’ in many different ways, and mainly through healing people, welcoming outcasts and sinners, being patient with his overly intellectual persecutors (i.e. Scribes and Pharisees), and His overall kindness to everybody, even those who were crucifying Him. So, in these circumstances logic cannot communicate almost anything. Basically, Divine love is easier to demonstrate through action, than portray or define with insufficient words. And a ‘crucifix’ is a good proof of this basic truth.

       Reply

31. Well said Awlms.

    Sola Scriptura is not only self defeating by definition, it removes 99% of the world for over 1,400 years. I rarely see such crowd truly ask themselves if this doctrine has any support in early Christian history and what is the logical outworking of such doctrine (it makes Christianity and Christ smaller and easier to manipulate). Getting people to believe a lie is the greatest asset of the devil. Yes, sold scriptura is a doctrine born from evil as it causes men to justify their rejection of Christianity and adopt a made up, ahistorical version of Christianity. Plenty of good and well meaning folks who believe this lie though.

    Reply

    1. Johnny,

       …Keep being good. You’re a good Catholic apologist. I like the way that you approach the Christian faith broadly, including metaphysics and mystical theology into the analysis. Without these, how do we account for the miracles that were used by both Jesus and the apostles, and also the countless saints of the Church since then? Moreover, a narrow focus on ‘sola scriptura’ takes attention away from the importance of Church History, and history has always been a main focus both in Judaism and in Christianity which followed Judaism. For instance, the ‘Gospels’ and the ‘Acts of the Apostles’ are historical accounts of the earliest happenings that occurred in both the Life of Jesus Christ and the First beginnings of the His Holy Church.So, History has always been important for the Church ever since those early days

       OR, did history stop being important? Or, is the history after the Acts of the Apostles to be considered ‘dubious’ only because it is not included into the canon of scripture? What ridiculousness!.

       So, after the ‘Acts’ were written, we find works such as the ‘Didache’, ‘The Shepherd of Hermas’, the Letters of Ignatius and Polycarp, The Letter of Clement , The ‘Apostolic Constitutions’ and Eusebius’ ‘Church History’. Are these not to be believed because they were not included into the canon of scripture? Or, on the contrary, were these other works a product of Christ’s holy Church in post apostolic times, but never the less filled with examples of holiness and virtue even as the scriptures themselves were meant to be? Were not the scriptures themselves a by product of the same ‘Living’ Church founded by Christ and His apostles?

       So, Christianity has always been much more than mere scripture. The ‘Church of the Living God’ cannot be reduced to a mere book of a few hundred pages. The Holy Church is an organism, and organization of living souls all on their way to Eternal Life with the Holy Trinity. And so the focus should always be on this ‘Living Mystical Body of Christ’ rather then be ‘self chained’ to just the pages of Sacred Scripture. The Church is actually NOTHING if it isn’t the actual living embodiment of all the truths and principles found in scripture….and also all the truths and principles found throughout all of the teachings of authentic Christianity….much of which is catalogued in the Vatican Library!.

       If mere scripture was more important than the Living Church and her sacraments of grace….then those apostles who wrote nothing down must have been losers? Were all of the apostles who wrote nothing down mere apostolic ‘losers’. And especially Peter himself…as the volume of actual scripture that he authored totaled only 8 very short chapters of text? What about St. Thomas. And yet, he and the other apostles, who wrote nothing, were told by Christ:

       “…when the Son of man shall sit on the seat of his majesty, you also shall sit on twelve seats judging the twelve tribes of Israel.” [Matthew 19:28]

       Rather, the ‘Living’ Church, filled with her countless holy institutions, catechetical schools, parishes, hierarchy of leaders (Bishops, Priests, Deacons, Teachers, etc..), sacraments, holy literature, canon laws, monasteries, ecumenical councils, etc…was built by these same men whose foundation stones they laid down with their preaching, miracles and good examples for faithful Christian living.

       I just don’t see how so many Protestants just ‘don’t get it’….don’t understand these very simple things??

       Best to you in the Lord. And keep up your excellent comments on this site.

       -Al

       Reply

       1. One question, fellas, as you’re critiquing Protestants for ignoring the early church:

          Who, in this thread, has appealed to the early fathers’ interpretations of Matthew 16:18? Who has actually quoted the fathers’ own commentaries on this verse?

          Reply

          1. Irked,
             Why move onto the early fathers when some are still stuck on scripture?

             Reply

             1. Margo,

                To the Jews, we ought to become as Jews; to the Catholics, I argued as a Catholic.

             2. Hi Irked,

                You may have done that, but I somehow missed it.

                Best to you in the Lord.

32. Awlms –

    Most Protestants don’t know out of ignorance. The internet allowed me to search and confirm with my conversion from Pism to Catholicism. Also, I estimate that half of American Catholics are truly Protestant deep down and want Christ on their made up terms. Being a Catholic is the hardest thing I’ve ever done. Protestantism is easy. If I don’t like a belief I just switch churches or create a new one out of thin air.

    This all gets back to authority. Ones personal authority or recognizing that the Catholic Church is real, tangible and created by Christ. If not, then flush it all away.

    Reply

    1. Good assessment, Johnny,

       I agree that most Catholics are ‘cafeteria Catholics’. And also, that “the harvest is great but the laborers are few’ and so ignorance generally ‘rules the day’ because of that sad reality. Regarding how hard it is to be a Catholic, I think If you read the biographies of as many saints as you can, you will definitely know what a ‘real’ Catholic should be. They’re almost universally fired up with the love of God, and were willing to do pretty much anything they could to spread knowledge of Him to as many people as they could. Pretty extraordinary people, to say the least. Francis of Assisi, St. Martin de Porres, St. John Bosco, St. Louis deMontfort, St. Anthony Mary Claret, St. Rose of Lima, St. Francis of Paola, St. John Brebeuf and company….all are people everyone should know about. Their faith is contagious! St. Benedict Press is a great source to find these biographies…besides the internet which usually has just short summations.

       Best to you.

       Reply

    2. I agree that many (most?) American Catholics are not Protestant name but are so in belief and practice. Many do whatever they want when they want. Sleep in on Sunday. Sleep with whomever whenever, contracepting and aborting, and consorting with whatever sex appeals at the moment.

       I experienced one Sunday Mass which followed a Saturday vigil at a Planned Parenthood abortuary. A young gal and her beau walked past me into the abortuary. She turned and looked back at me that day.

       The next day at Mass, she turned to share her sign of peace with me. In the pew in front of me she stood with her beau. And yes, they both received Holy Communion. May God have mercy on all our souls.

       We probably know and can tell many more examples, but that above is probably the most heart-rending I know.

       Reply

       1. Hi Margo,

          This is a product of almost a complete lack of classic Catholic catechesis. Most of these people have never opened up a Bible in their lives, much less read even one biography of a Catholic Saint. Most really have no idea of what true Christian spirituality is like. And I know, because when I was about 17 years old I was like this, and even though I went to a Catholic ‘all boys’ school.

          The thing about it though, was that even though the school was ‘so called Catholic’, it was filled with very effeminate brothers who almost everyone at the school thought were a little weird, and there was also no Catholic catechesis except for about 3 Masses in the cafeteria each year. There was a chapel with Mass in it in the morning that the brothers attended but I don’t ever remember it being opened to the school body, as no one ever talked about it. I vaguely remember that some nerd types went to it, but it was more a part of the religious order that ran the school. I never remember the word Jesus said in all that time, 4 years, and didn’t even expect it. Everyone was too occupied with trying to make it onto the basketball team, soccer team, football team or drama club. So, true religion wasn’t even in the radar there…except for a statue of the Blessed Virgin Mary in a large court yard. That was the only one thing that made that school Catholic, I think.

          Anyway, after I graduated it only took me 16 months to find a copy of the Life of St. Francis in a public library and my life was changed forever. I read it in two days, and wanted to join the OFM order as soon as I graduated from the University…that’s how strong was my reversion. However, I think I was too radical for the OFM, and they didn’t want me. I think they wanted someone who could fit into the local OFM high school and coach football or some other sport. I was quite naive in thinking that the Brothers of St. Francis were somewhat like the companions of S. Francis were when St. Francis lived. I only knew what I read in my lives of the Saints books.

          I also went back to my former school to talk with the leaders, and told them that I was very lucky to find the Catholic faith in a public library, as they did nothing to help me in all during that time. And, they said they were sorry and that things were changing…and they did, actually. But, in my conscience I felt obliged to tell them, so I just went in and told them the truth as I had experienced it. Today the school is quite better, actually.

          So, now I only try to educate as many people as I can in the lives of the saints and the life and words of Jesus Christ….because I know that there are so many ignoramus’ out there that have no idea as to what life is really all about. Mostly, they think the most essential thing in life is if their local football team has good players and a winning streak this year, or not. So, what is really needed is for those who have the true faith to get out there and do something about it. If someone doesn’t know what to do, then just promote the local Relevant Radio station in your area. Or, buy some good Catholic books and start giving them away. If every devout Catholic did this, we might actually make a dent in the problem.

          Best to you always.

          Reply

          1. In a similar vein, I found myself drawn into reading the writings of the saints as well as other great religious thinkers. I ended up with a big stack of books mostly from Paulist Press’s Classics of Western Spirituality collection. I typically skipped the lead-in/commentary until after after I read what the writers had to say. I was struck by how deep, rich and and consistent is the Catholic tradition and the non-Catholic/non-Christian writers add a dimension that I think make me appreciate my Catholicity even more.

             Reply

             1. Liked that series as well, John.

          2. Al,
             I always appreciate your personal stories. You are absolutely correct about a lack of catechesis in the Church as well as its general dearth in Catholic schools. It has also been my experience that EVEN IF Catholic schoolchildren KNOW CHURCH TEACHING, they often present the secular view as the dominant popular view as equal. Church teaching is acknowledged to be in opposition to the pop-cultural view, and the children seem to lack the desire, will, or reason to accept the Church view.

             As part of my experience with a parish Gospel of Life group, in conjunction with the KOC, we asked eighth-graders for essays on abortion, awarding small monetary prizes for the best. The first year, the students failed to even mention the Catholic position. The following year, we asked that the essays discuss Catholic teaching. They did that, but again the predominant cultural view took precedence. With support from neither the principal nor the pastor to effect any change, I abandoned that battle front. (Indeed, the pastor had acceded to our request to form that Respect Life group…only after great reluctance and under duress.)

             Reply

33. I find the best way to talk to religious non-Catholics is to focus on their political thought process and ask them why they don’t apply the same process to their beliefs. Most people who are religious are conservative in their political views and aren’t big fans of progressivism and liberalism and revere history.

    The Reformation was lead by modern day liberals/progressives who tried to completely change the Church and distort history. They hate that in politics but accept it with their theology???

    Reply

34. Hey, I’ve wrote a post on How Good God can Help you through Troubling Times. Check it out here- http://bit.ly/2B3PDoQ

    Reply

35. Well, surely Christ meant to say, “…and I will give IT the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven…”, or he meant to say “…and all your successors for ever….”

    Yes, we know he meat to say that, but it had a been a long day and he just forgot you know. Really just a slip of the tongue.

    Fortunately we have the keys so we just corrected it slightly to read as it he really meant it to, and the rest is history.

    “Indulgences, get your lovely indulgences here!”

    Reply

36. Read this if you care for truth.

    http://biblelight.net/claims.htm

    I advise particular attention be paid to the words of he who is called “Gegory the Great”, though he would renounce such an appellation with the contempt it deserves.

    Reply

37. Consider if you will, who Christ called “The prince of this world”

    The Popes claim the title?!

    Consider who is “The Kind of Heaven”

    And who is the “The king of hell”.

    It seems to me a trifle presumptuous to claim the crown of the King of Heaven, a trifle odd to claim the title king of the world, and strange indeed to claim the crown of the king of hell, whoever that be.

    The closer one looks, the stranger it all becomes. Very strange indeed.

    Reply

38. Consider if you will, who Christ called “The prince of this world”?

    The Popes claim the title?!

    Consider who is “The King of Heaven”?

    And who is the “The king of hell”?

    It seems to me a trifle presumptuous to claim the crown of the King of Heaven, a trifle odd to claim the title king of the world, and strange indeed to claim the crown of the king of hell, whoever that be.

    The closer one looks, the stranger it all becomes. Very strange indeed.

    Reply

39. My, it’s gone awfully quiet around here. Won’t someone at least try to refute ye heretick: http://biblelight.net/claims.htm

    Reply

40. Matthew 18 – 20.

    18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.

    20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

    So, the same mandate as that given Peter, given to all the disciples or indeed all believers, depending on one’s interpretation.

    Of course, the obvious but unspoken corollary is that only by those of sufficient faith will such things be done; the power to do the works of faith is nowhere in life or in Scripture handed down or handed over like a deed or contract irrespective of the spiritual worth of the possessor.

    Reply

41. Updated link: http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/claims.htm

    Reply

42. I do not have any problem with the Roman Papacy ,nor the Catholic Church. When I was under-going my spiritual crisis in the summer of 1977 and gave up my Protestant faith I remembered that my mother. was Jewish.. If you want to see what the Catholic Church was like just read about Moses leading the Exodus. Have Christians forgotten that the Church under Pope Moses was the Catholic Church before the coming of Jesus Christ? As the narrative goes along Moses when he dies is succeeded by Joshua, who when he dies is succeeded by Judah. By the summer of1977 I had spent 19 years in a sect called, the Plymouth Brethren,which was started by John Nelson Darby and some other disgruntled English men in the 19th century,who were not happy with want was Church in their day. While sitting in church one Sunday it dawned on me that my church had elders and a pastor but nobody could explain why this was so. There had been no elections , nor appointments,so who were these people running the show? No answer was ever put forward. What really killed my Protestant faith was the reading of 2nd Tim 3:16. I read the phrase” All scripture is inspired of God” and immediately asked. Who decided what i was reading was Scripture and Why do i believe in God. Having no answer for any of those two questions I quit Christianity. Just think I am attending a church which I can not justify its existence, nor do I bother to attend any other church because they are just as bad ,as the one i am leaving? Question? If all Protestants are reading the same book, why are there so many different denominations/ Remember now Christ started one church, so why do they all not agree? Did I also not notice reading the Book of Revelation that in the beginning chapters John is writing letters to seven already existing churches. On what were seven churches existing ,but this mysterious thing called Tradition? Does not the New testament contain letters written by Saint Paul to already existing churches?Existing on what I ask? If you have no Pope, then you have religious anarchy. Protestantism is a scene of anarchy… I have no problem with the dogma of Papal infallability ,because in truth all humans think they are infallabile in defining their own faith and morals.. In my 74 years of life ,every endeavor of life,I ever participated in had one boss or leader. That is just the way we humans do things. In my youth served 3 years in the US army. I served under a Chain of Command, The President being the Commander -in Chief and Standerd Operating Proceedure. I worked at Canada Post for 34 years, under the same circumstances. Did not the founding Fathers of the US draw up a constitusion with an elected President, George Washington, who died and was replaced by another. The Us does not have 50 presidents. Protestantism trys to defy human nature.On ascension day Christ rose to heaven leaving behind His Church be lead by twelve disciples, Peter being the new Moses. The New Testament did not even exist at that time, Bibles were not even printed in the west until 1455. Before that everything was hand copied and very expensive. Oh yes! And please in response do not bring up the recent sex scandal in the Catholic Church. Read the Bible! It is full of sexual sandal committerd by believers. Does not the Gospel of John tell us that Pope Christ was rejected by his own. He made such preposturous claims about Himslf. John chapter 6 tells us that most of his disciples left Him after His ” I am the Bread come down from heaven sermon. I pray for our new Moses, Francis, every day.. God Bless!

    Reply

43. Jesus didn’t establish an ecclesiastical monarchy. He didn’t name Peter as the heir to the Kingdom of God. If that were his intent, then he would have simply dispensed with the other eleven Apostles and focused on Peter. In any group one person will likely be recognized as the natural leader of the group, and so it was with Peter. It was simply his personality, not a divine edict of authority.

    Peter was not infallible as the Roman Catholic Church claims for its popes. We see in Galatians 2 that Paul calls Peter out and argues him back to parade rest for his hypocrisy. This isn’t a condemnation of Peter, but an acknowledgement that all of us are flawed, even Peter.

    In the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15, James presided over the council, not Peter. Why did they even hold a council to resolve the issue, if Peter had the sort of authority you claim?

    Then there is the issue of ascendancy. By the Roman Catholic history, Peter conferred his authority to Linus, although there’s some question to that. The Liber Pontificalis suggests that Peter appointed Clement I as his successor. One of these men was the first Bishop of Rome after Peter, and is said to have thus derived Peter’s authority. But is that the end of it? Did not Peter also found the Church of Antioch, and appoint Ignatius as his successor in Antioch? Why does Rome ignore the authority of the Antiochian line of succession, if the title of the leader of Christendom pass from Peter to his successors?

    But let us look at Authority. From the ancient days of Christianity, a priest could only celebrate the divine liturgy by permission from his Bishop or Metropolitan. Bishops are appointed by a council of not less than three other Bishops when a vacancy exists. The Bishops and Metropolitan perform their functions by permission from their respective Patriarchs. End of story. There isn’t a single historical record that shows that any patriarch, or any Bishop from a diocese outside of Rome’s Patriarchy ever petitioned Rome for permission to do anything.

    The Bishop of Rome was always considered first among equals. This had nothing to do with his line of succession back to Peter but was due to his proximity to the seat of secular power and his subsequent ability to influence government action. As I’ve stated above, he had no authority over other patriarchies but Rome.

    Pope Gregory the Great himself denied the supposed authority of Rome, saying, “Whoever calls himself, or desires to be called, universal priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist.”

    No Pope ever even attended, much less presided over an ecumenical council. In fact, in 553 AD the 5th ecumenical council, 2nd council of Constantinople invited Pope Vigilius; but even though he was at this period resident in Constantinople, he declined to attend, and even issued a document forbidding the council from proceeding without him. The council proceeded without him, showing what the rest of Christendom thought about his authority. During the seventh session of the council, the bishops had Vigilius stricken from the diptychs for his refusal to appear at the council and approve its proceedings, effectively excommunicating him personally but not the rest of the Western Church. Vigilius was then imprisoned in Constantinople by the emperor and his advisors were exiled.

    Reply
44. Pingback: Em Defesa do Papado – Editora Sta Joana D'arc

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.