Posted on 07/23/2009 9:03:49 AM PDT by kevinrbranson
The papacy is among the most misunderstood and therefore wrongly hated institutions in all the world, much like the Catholic Church.
I typically cringe when a Protestant pastor or leader decides to step up and call out or denounce the Pope for no good reason, simply on Protestant principal, objecting to the office as they do more so than the man himself, or any sin on his part. Certainly the man who holds the office is not beyond sin, or legitimate criticism, but the criticisms of modern day Popes tend not to be made on the basis of his personal failures. Rather, the Pope, individually or more likely, the office, is condemned because it is not believed to be Biblical, and therefore contrary to “true” Christianity. That is a real shame, because to write him off and the authority of the office, to merely dismiss him on Protestant principal, or even to despise him out of Protestant zeal, is the ultimate example of ecclesiastical delusion and misdirected passion.
I am certain that Jesus is not pleased when a man condemns that Church which Christ has mandated, or the Petrine office and Apostolic ranks with which He has identified and legitimized her. It reminds me of a Jim Croce song about dangerous exploits…you know the one.
It is the equivalent of throwing stones at the caretaker of the vineyard, mistaking him for a trespasser, believing that you are doing a favor for the Master of the vineyard. In fact you are fighting against the Master, albeit the result of a sincere misunderstanding and a genuine love for the Master. Nevertheless, it is wrong, and it is therefore a thoroughly bad idea.
This from the Catholic Herald:
Two thirds of Christians in Britain do not think the Pope is a true Christian leader, according to a new poll. The poll, conducted by ComRes, found that only 38 per cent of Christians surveyed agreed that “Catholic popes are true ambassadors of the Christian faith”. The figure dropped to 16 per cent among Baptists.Several Protestant ministers – some of whom are involved in ecumenical work – said they were not surprised by the low level of support for the Pope. They said that even Protestants who work with Catholics at a grassroots level are still likely to find the idea of papal authority “particularly difficult”…
The Rev Jeremy Brooks, the director of ministry at the Protestant Truth Society, said: “All true Protestants believe the papacy to be unbiblical, unnecessary and unhelpful. Churches governed by scripture alone rather than the traditions of men or the fashions of the moment are what broken Britain so desperately needs.”
Authority can be “particularly difficult”, can’t it. A tough pill to swallow sometimes for all of us. But, like most needed medicine, it is better taken now rather than later.
And to Rev Brooks of the Protestant “Truth” Society: given your disdain for the Catholic Church, that very Church established by our Savior for the salvation of the world…fight against her and her earthly shepherd if you feel you must, for I believe you are a sincere man who loves the Lord. But brother, someday you and all of us in Christ’s flock will see the sad schism for what it is, and it will be a bittersweet day. That is a certain thing, for Christ is not a liar, and He does not operate a shell game, or sell us a bill of goods. He promised that His historic Church, recognized and authenticated by identification with Peter and the Apostles, would endure; that the Holy Spirit would lead her in all truth; and that He would never leave her. Your protestant pursuit of truth requires you to deny, at least implicitly, each of these promises of Christ. It really does.
“Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives me, receives the One who sent me.”
It’s Jesus calling: “Can you hear Me now?”
"HE WHO HEARS YOU,HEARS ME" - Luke 10:16
Is it legitimate to use these words of Jesus to support the teaching commission of the Church? Vatican II said yes strongly, in “Lumen gentium”P20: “This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ, and Him who sent Christ”. And in LG P 25 the Council even taught that the Bishops in unison with the successor of Peter and with each other can even teach infallibly. Pius XII in “Humani generis” (DS 3855) said the same thing about Lk 10:16: “Nor should we think that the things taught in Encyclical letters do not of themselves call for assent, on the plea that in them the Pontiffs do not exercise the Supreme power of their Magisterium. For these things are taught with the ordinary Magisterium, of which it is also correct to say: ‘He who hears you,hears me.’” Pius XII went on to explain that this does not apply to everything in Encyclicals: it applies only when the Popes in their “Acta” expressly make a judgement on something that was debated up to then among theologians. Then it is removed from debate, and falls under the promise of Christ.
An objector asserts: “The Scripture clearly states that Jesus said these words to the 72 Disciples, among whom were women, and there is no evidence that any of the 72 were from among the 12 Apostles – no evidence Peter was among them.” One will look in vain to see where the Scripture “clearly states” that there were women among that group. And while it does not mention the 12 or Peter specially, it is unthinkable that they would not be among the 72 since they were the chosen core of all the followers of Jesus. So our objector thinks it quite clear Jesus gave authority to women, but there is no evidence He gave it also to the Apostles!
In reply we note that according to Vatican II: “Since Sacred Scripture must be read and interpreted by the Same Spirit by whom it was written, to rightly draw out the sense of the sacred texts, one must look not less diligently at the content and unity of the whole of Scripture, taking into account the Tradition of the whole Church, and the analogy of faith.” So, if we look at the passage in question narrowly, ignoring what Vatican II calls for, we would say that Jesus indeed did speak to the 72. But there is much more.
We know that Jesus Himself wanted only a gradual revelation of Himself and of His Church and mission. He did not at once say: “Before Abraham was, I am.” Rather, He let the truths be seen gradually, a bit at a time. The fullness of this revelation was to come with the descent of the Holy Spirit, as He Himself said in John 16:13: “When He, the Spirit of Truth comes, He will lead you into all truth.” So here in this Lucan text Jesus begins, but does not complete His commission. He does, on a trial mission, give a teaching authority to the 72 so that he who hears them, hears Jesus. He completed that commission later to Peter and the Twelve, especially in the words recorded in Matthew 16:19:to Peter alone: “Whatever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed also in Heaven. Two fine Protestant scholars, W. F. Albright (in his day often called the Dean of American Scripture scholars) and C. S. Mann, in “Anchor Bible, Matthew,” p. 198, write: “Peter’s authority to ‘bind’ or ‘release’ will be a carrying out of decisions made in Heaven. His teaching and disciplinary activities will be similarly guided by the Spirit to carry out Heaven’s will.” For those words, binding and loosing,were well known in the teaching of the rabbis of the time. Their usual meaning was to impose or remove an obligation by an authoritative decision or teaching. These words of Mt 16:19 were repeated to all what seems to be the twelve in Matthew 18:18. That they were not meant for all disciples but just for the Apostles is confirmed by Mt 28:16-29, explicitly to the Twelve. Earlier, at the Last Supper, in John 13:20 Jesus said to the Twelve: “Amen, amen I say to you, he who receives the one I send, receives me; he who receives me, receives the One who sent me.”
More of the context of the whole of Scripture is this: at once after the ascension, the Apostles began their mission of teaching In Acts 1:15-26 a replacement for one of the Twelve is chosen, Matthias. Acts 2:42 reports that the people “devoted themselves to the teaching of the Apostles” and in Acts 5:13: “No one of the rest dared to join himself to them [the Apostles] but the people magnified them.” So all did understand from the start that it was the Apostles, and they alone who had the commission from Christ to teach. St. Paul constantly teaches with authority. Pope St. Clement I, in an Epistle to Corinth c. 95 AD, intervened with authority. He said: “Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife over the name of Bishop. As a result, having received full foreknowledge, they appointed those we have mentioned, and meanwhile added a provision that if these would fall asleep [die] other approved men should receive their ministry.”
St. Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, who had listened to St. Polycarp telling of the preaching of St. John the Apostle, wrote that since it was long to go through the succession of Bishops in all the churches, he would speak of Rome, “founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, which holds the tradition and faith announced by the Apostles, coming down by the succession of Bishops even to us…..It is necessary that every church…agree with this church because of its more important principality…in which the tradition coming from the Apostles has always been kept….”
At the early Council of Ephesus, in 431 A.D. even though it was an Eastern error in question, the Pope sent delegates, who asserted without being contradicted by anyone there: “There is no doubt, it has been known to all centuries, that the holy and blessed Apostle Peter, the prince and head and pillar of the faith and foundation of the Catholic church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ…. He [Peter] lives even to this time, and always in his successors gives judgment.” Twenty years later the Council of Chalcedon on hearing the letter of Pope Leo exclaimed: “This is the faith of the Fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. We all believe thus…. Peter has spoken through Leo.”
The General Council of Constantinople in 870 taught (DS 661): “Since we believe that the word of the Lord, which Christ said to the holy Apostles and his disciples, “He who receives you, receives me” and “he who spurns you, spurns me”was said to all those too who after them became Supreme Pontiffs and shepherds in the Catholic Church…we define that no one at all of the potentates of the world should dishonor or move them from their sees, but should judge them worthy of all reverence and honor….”
We conclude,that Vatican II, and Pius XII and the General Council of Constantinople were well justified in taking Luke 10:16 as the foundation of the teaching authority of the Apostles and their successors. It was part of His gradual revelation of self and of His Church, it was a start of the trajectory that was to be made clearer as time went on,as we have seen..
As for women, Scripture consistently forbids them to teach with authority. 1 Cor 14:34 says “the women must be silent in the Church”. First Timothy 2:12 insists: “I do not allow a woman to teach or to have authority over a man but to be in silence.” So, to suppose that of course women received the teaching authority in Lk 10:16 and to add that there is no sign it applied to Peter and the Apostles – this is merely completely biased special pleading.
ssss... ozone! Buh-bye!
I don’t imagine Jesus will be studying poll results when he Judges the World.
Marking thread for later review.
Why?
Now there's an expression worthy of someone's tagline.
I am not Catholic, therefore, I confess to some, usually small, differences with the authority of the Magisterium. Regardless, when I hear people absurdlly attacking the Catholic Church or the Pope, my first assumption is that they have succumbed to pharisaical tendencies common to those who hold a legalistic view of scripture above Christ's own law of love.
You are a smart person!
There’s a lot of “pharisaical tendencies” out there...
Ping
I am responding to only the headline. My response is it is stating the obvious.
Heck, my dad is in a “7th day adventist purist” group (They think the “official” 7th day adventists are apostate) and they think the Pope will be the “false prophet” referred to in Revelation.
Yeah, you're victims. :p
The problem is that Luke 10:16 applies to those identified in Luke 10:1 - seventy people sent in pairs.
In fact, in Luke 10:17 we see the 70 returning, and Christ addressing them for 5 verses - including recording their names in heaven - before he even mentions the disciples.
Luke 10:16 is the commission of Christ to laity. It does not address any power structure or “recognized leaders” of the church. It does not support commissioning of the disciples or their exclusive role in representing the church. This is Christ giving instruction to followers - laity - to go and preach the Word.
In fact, this verse implicitly EXCLUDES the disciples! Why do I say that? Look at Luke 10:23 - we find Jesus turning from the 70 and turning TO the disciples! They were NOT among the 70 commissioned.
In fact, the disciples are only in the entire chapter being told they are blessed because they see the works of Jesus! Nothing about preaching, or works, or actions, or even faith. Only that they are seeing things that prophets and kings wanted to see and hear, and did not get to see.
I would read that as more of a rebuke to the disciples, a foreshadowing of doubting Thomas; the 70 went out on faith. The disciples saw and heard daily the actions and words of Christ and still needed to be reminded of just what they were experiencing.
Luke 10 is a wonderful example of the power and commission of the laity and does not support the primacy of a church organization or the disciples at all.
Do not use potty language - or references to potty language - on the Religion Forum.
Maybe the question could have been phrased better.
How many Christians think the Pope is a force for good in the world?
How many nutters think the Pope is the anti-Christ?
I think there are a LOT more of the former than the latter.
P20: ?This sacred Council teaches that the Bishops, from divine institution, have taken the place of the Apostles, as the pastors of the Church: he who hears them, hears Christ; he who spurns them, spurns Christ, and Him who sent Christ.?
The Council teaches that - the Bible doesn’t teach that.
The pope is already falling in line with the world order. That proves that he is not a true Christian leader.
For a church that claims to be catholic, they seem to ignore historical facts or any fact that contradicts their beliefs.
So your Dad’s “Circle of Trust” is pretty small? Sounds like the Presbyterian crowd I used to run with. The headline was pulled verbatim from one of the Catholic news services, by the way. Yeah, kind of like saying “Sun rose in the East this morning”.
Do you believe that the Canon of Scripture fell out of heaven?
Now here is an example of really opening the text using exegesis rather than using traditions of men to construct doctrine. Thank you for the great post. The Vatican should repent for its continuous misuse of Scripture.
No one believes Scripture fell from heaven. It was written by Godly men who were led by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, preserved by God’s protection through the ages.
If the Bible just ‘appeared’, who would believe it ?
IB4TZ!
The reason why such gnostic Gospels are not in the Bible is because the Catholic Church rejected them - on the authority given it by Christ.
But if the Church did not have the authority to do this, then why don't self-confessed Bible-believing Christians believe in the clay birds?
Do you believe that it was inspired by God or the Catholic church? The scriptures were around long before the Catholic church - Jesus himself quoted them. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc. wrote the NT letters, not the Catholic church. The NT doesn’t teach that Catholic Bishops replaced the Apostles.
For what reason would this OP be zotted?
2 Timothy 3:14-17. The gnostic Gospels and writings coming after that time are not needed.
Could Christ have turned clay into birds? Did He do that? Haven’t a clue - no more of a stretch than water into wine or raising Lazarus! But it does not add to the message of Christ, and if it was written or started to be taught after the time of Timothy’s infancy, it’s not needed.
This is an “open” thread in the Religion Forum posted by a newbie. The article is not ZOT material and the poster has not behaved like a troll and therefore I have not ZOTTED him.
Thank you for your courteous response. I thought it was a good article.
Who decided what books were inspired, inerrant, and infallible and deemed them, therefore, the Word of God and worthy to be included in the Canon of Scripture?
I cringe too when a few men wearing robes and pointy hats get together and swing some smoke around, fondle a few beads and then decide they’ve had a revelation that some guy should be a Christian leader. :-)
No man is "another Christ." An "alter Christus."
The very definitions of priest and pope impugn the Triune God from which mysticism, tyranny and superstition follow.
"For what is more consonant with faith than to recognize that we are naked of all virtue, in order to be clothed by God? That we are empty of all good, to be filled by him? That we are slaves of sin, to be freed by him? Blind, to be illumined by him? Lame, to be made straight by him? Weak, to be sustained by him? To take away from us all occasion for glorying, that he alone may stand forth gloriously and we glory in him [cf. I Cor. 1:31; II Cor. 10:17]?" -- John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, "Prefatory Address to King Francis," p. 13.
No "other Christ" required.
Absolutely! And we may add, “Dead, to be made alive by Him.” Go John.
There are many Godly men responsible for the Scriptural Canon. Peter and Paul were 2 of the originators.
I’m interested in who you think decided Scriptural Canon.
Long time no see. Hope all is well for you. :)
Just as the Lord God Almighty inspired the words written, so also did he ensure the books that were eventually included in the Bible. Be not deceived or led astray by the authority claimed by any man. All authority on this Earth is granted by the Lord God Almighty to serve his purpose, which only he knows!
Did He ensure the errors made in their translation?
No that was man’s doing. The original Hebrew and Greek texts are inerrant.
Just a related note:
I understood that “books” themselves were not canonized, but rather authors deemed by consensus of the knowledgeable to have a spirit of prophecy (or Holy Spirit) had their writings included. Others, regardless of how edifying, were excluded.
Perhaps I have misunderstood?
Was it not man/men that wrote down the words written in the Hebrew and Greek?
” am certain that Jesus is not pleased when a man condemns that Church which Christ has mandated”
Jesus mandated a Roman church? He mandated a Pope?
How are things in Branson, Kevin R? Does Bobby Vinton still appear there?
What about the verses that weren’t in the originals, but were added later?
Once you've bought into the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture, you essentially become your own Pope and the successor of Peter therefore becomes irrelevant at best and at worst, an obstacle on the road to salvation who's doing Satan's work by trying to mislead you. The Church likewise then becomes a sinister conspiracy rather than our guide which is designed to light the path to salvation.
Go easy with the self-righteous indignation. The trolls love it when Catholics get bent out of shape.
Neither your post here nor your blog (which your link points to) provides any evdience to back up your statement that "Most believers say that the Pope is 'not a true Christian leader'".
I happen to be a Protestant.
I think the Pope is a Christian leader. (He is, after all, the Head of the Roman Catholic Church -- and is, I think, the leader of many, many people).
And I think the Pope is a Christian.
I (and, I would guess, most other Protestants) do not consider the Pope to be THE Christian leader.
I don’t want to lead this thread off topic, but since you mentioned errant translations I’d like to point out one verse that has significantly affected the modern church’s idea of whether or not one’s soul is present with God immediately after death.
Luke 23:43 I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise.
The placement of punctuation in this verse has led many to believe that Christ meant “absent from the body, present with God.” Punctuation is man’s doing. Consider the verse punctuated this way.
I tell you the truth today, you will be with me in Paradise.
Later verses in the Bible say the dead are asleep in Christ and that upon his return those asleep in Christ will rise first. Christ also said that he goes to prepare a place for us. If Christ went prepare, would he take those two thieves with him?
Man’s interpretation of the scriptures has caused much difference of opinion.
There wasn’t any capitalization either, and there was NO ‘J’ until around the 16th century. I’ll wait now for your reply to my #43.
Yes, men inspired by God wrote the Hebrew and Greek texts. Those texts are inerrant. It is man’s translation into other languages that is errant. See my comment above about Luke 23:43.
I asked: Do you believe that the Canon of Scripture fell out of heaven?
kingpins10 wrote: No one believes Scripture fell from heaven. It was written by Godly men who were led by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, preserved by God’s protection through the ages. If the Bible just ‘appeared’, who would believe it ?
I asked, relevant to both men's comments: Who decided what books were inspired, inerrant, and infallible and deemed them, therefore, the Word of God and worthy to be included in the Canon of Scripture?
kingpins10 answered: There are many Godly men responsible for the Scriptural Canon. Peter and Paul were 2 of the originators. I’m interested in who you think decided Scriptural Canon.
Okay. There is no thinking about who decided Scriptural Canon. It is a matter of historical record. Councils comprised of the Bishops of the Catholic Church established the Canon of Scripture. It is not a secret. Even Protestant theologians acknowledge this fact, although they are unwilling or unable to grasp the implications of the fact that Protestantism has to rely on the authority of the Catholic Church councils (and the Papacy) as regards what books comprise the Canon of Scripture.
Of course, at the time of the Reformation, Luther et al were compelled to throw out seven of the Old Testament Books. And if Luther had his way, the NT book of James would have been excluded as well, as Luther cared not for what James had to say about faith being dead apart from good works, and stated that "I almost feel like throwing Jimmy into the stove". He was overruled by others, however, so he begrudgingly had to put James back in "his Bible".
Here is an excerpt from Catholic.com:
"Look, the fact is, the only reason you and I have the New Testament canon is because of the trustworthy teaching authority of the Catholic Church. As Augustine put it, ‘I would not believe in the Gospels were it not for the authority of the Catholic Church’ (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 5:6). Any Christian accepting the authority of the New Testament does so, whether or not he admits it, because he has implicit trust that the Catholic Church made the right decision in determining the canon.""The fact is that the Holy Spirit guided the Catholic Church over time to recognize and determine the canon of the New and Old Testaments in the year 382 at the synod of Rome, under Pope Damasus I. This decision was ratified again at the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397 and 419). You, my friend, accept exactly the same books of the New Testament that Pope Damasus decreed were canonical, and no others."
"Furthermore, the reason you accept the books you do is that they were in the Bible someone gave you when you first became a Christian. You accept them because they were handed on to you. This means you accept the canon of the New Testament that you do because of tradition, because tradition is simply what is handed on to us from those who were in the faith before us. So your knowledge of the exact books that belong in the Bible, such as Philemon and 3 John, rests on tradition rather than on Scripture itself!"
One other question. From whence came the declared, authoritative and final doctrine on the Trinity?
Not bent out of shape at all. Not offended by the disdain that Protestantism has for the Catholic Church. Heck, I used to be one of 'em. And I hope I'm not self-righteous, even if I came across that way. Sorry about that. I didn't make this stuff up, so what is there to be self-righteous about. I didn't even believe the Catholic Church to be true for the first 47 years of my life, so again, nothing for me to be self-righteous about. I drag my sorry backside into the confessional on a regular basis...so definitely nothing for me to be self-righteous about. :)
But, the truth is what it is.
And, I just like to get all the Brothers talking, and thinking...well, maybe hoping for real thinking is a stretch. Most minds are made up. And that is why we are a fractured "body" of believers.
Oh well. I'll shut up now.
Blessings and Peace. KB
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.