Posted on 08/24/2014 3:18:46 AM PDT by markomalley
Msgr Pope ping
Oh I get it. It’s like saying, “If no one is God, then everyone is God.” If we deny that there’s no “Pope”, the supposed successor to the Apostle Peter, then everyone is “Pope”. Since that would be wrong and everyone can’t be “Pope” or “Papa”, then there must be legitimate a Pope in Rome. Hey, I have an idea. What if I deny the premise and refuse to accept that everyone must be “Pope” if I den that there’s to be a Pope in Christianity. Or better yet, What the only true “Papa” is the Father in Heaven and what if I don’t deny Him at all! Then I wouldn’t be making myself Pope and everyone wouldn’t be Pope. Folks, the article shows the convoluted thinking of the Catholic Church. It’s how they make Mary a perpetual virgin. It’s how they make Mary’s own conception a miracle to spare her the hereditary sin of her parents. It’s how they decide babies are sinners and for centuries taught babies who died without Catholic baptism were in “limbo”. It’s how they justify the need for a multitude of saints to pray to. Catholicism “jumped the shark” a long time ago when they got in bed with the Roman Caesars.
Msgr. Pope failed to make the obvious joke.
Have a little snark for breakfast this morning, didya?
Hmmmm...I must confess I never thought about what the word "pope" actually meant. Now that I know this verse sprang to mind:
Meaning a perpetual assuredly infallible (conditionally) papal office, to whom all the church looks to. But which is invisible in the NT church. While being the street-level leader among the 12 and exercising a general pastoral role, yet nowhere is the church corporate exhorted to look to Peter as its supreme infallible head, and as rendering the final decree on issues, much less in Rome, or referred to as such, not even in the church epistles where he is rarely mentioned, or in Peter's own epistles ("a servant," "an elder," "an apostle") or in the letters to the 7 churches.
Submission to the pope as supreme is not even set forth as a solution to church problems, and where he is shown conferring sanction then he is the second among others "who seemed to be pillars," and is publicly rebuked, (Gal. 2) while in Acts 15 it is James who provides the final decree on what should be done, confirmatory of Peter's proposal and the doctrine of Paul.
And instead of the pope being the more sure word, Peter sets for Scripture as being that. (2Pt. 1:19-21) While the RC magisterium effectively presumes to be the supreme authority, its words are not wholly inspired of God.
And in critical addition, the Holy Spirit nowhere shows or teaches successors to the foundational apostles, with the only one being for Judas in order to maintain the foundational number - that being 12, and only 12, contra Rome, and which was by the non-political OT method of casting lots, which Rome has never used.
In addition, even Catholic scholarship supplies evidence contrary to the myth of a perpetual infallible papacy to whom all the church looked to. Among others , Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] on Priesthood, Canon, and the Development of Doctrine in his work, “Papal Primacy”:
"The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative." “If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.” (page 3, top)
It is likely that the Roman church was governed by a group of presbyters from whom there very quickly emerged a presider or ‘first among equals’ whose name was remembered and who was subsequently described as ‘bishop’ after the mid-second century. (Schatz, 4). More :
Furthermore, the claimed apostolic successors of Rome are not actual apostles, as they fail of the requirements of personal discipleship, and degree of supernatural attestation, and of virtue, under which the unity of the NT church was realized, with manifest apostolic power, purity, passion and performance which supernaturally attested and established the apostles as being of God.
Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. (2 Corinthians 12:12)
But I will come to you shortly, if the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them which are puffed up, but the power. For the kingdom of God is not in word, but in power. What will ye? shall I come unto you with a rod, or in love, and in the spirit of meekness? (1 Corinthians 4:19-21)
But in all things approving ourselves as the ministers of God, in much patience, in afflictions, in necessities, in distresses, In stripes, in imprisonments, in tumults, in labours, in watchings, in fastings; By pureness, by knowledge, by longsuffering, by kindness, by the Holy Ghost, by love unfeigned, By the word of truth, by the power of God, by the armour of righteousness on the right hand and on the left, .... (2 Corinthians 6:4-7)
The deformation of the church was progressive , with a key pope even in the century employing a murderous mob to secure his seat, and politically expanding the papacy .
Increasingly errors were established as doctrine, with traditions of men being perpetuated, and faith becoming much institutionalized, and carnality in both rule and morals increasing. Reformation, if imperfect, was thus necessitated.
Yet the church never ceased to exist as the body of Christ, which is visibly manifest wherever by faith which worketh by love, as long as humble faith existed in Christ to save, as "The Lord is nigh unto them that are of a broken heart; and saveth such as be of a contrite spirit." (Psalms 34:18) However, the visible church is never perfect, and is not the bride of Christ, nor is the church of Rome even one church in reality, but exists in sects and schism.
For indeed, Catholicism's unity is largely on paper and merely organizational, but while overall Christianity exists as a divided kingdom, yet there is a blessed spiritual unity among born again believers due to a shared personal conversion an and relationship with Christ as per Jn. 17:21,23, and which is greater than their external divisions which is transcends.
The Protestant experiment tried to replace the Pope with Scripture and gave it sole authority.
As usual, RCs must resort to using a straw man to justify RC unScriptural presumptions. SS does not make Scripture the sole authority, and leaving every man to fend for himself what Truth is, but holds Scripture as the only supreme infallible authority as the wholly inspired and thus assured, word of God, and thus the transcendent supreme standard for obedience and testing and establishing truth claims. Which it is abundantly evidenced to be.
And which testifies (Lk. 24:27,44, etc.) to writings of God being recognized and established as being so (essentially due to their unique and enduring heavenly qualities and attestation), and thus they materially provide for a canon of Scripture (as well as for reason, the church, etc.)
In contrast, Rome cannot claim plenary inspiration for the supreme authority for RCs, while just what is infallible and its meaning and that of other magisterial teachings can require varying degrees of interpretation.
Nor does SS leave the believer to fend for himself, or the church without ecclesiastical authority, but as Westminster affirms,
"It belongs to synods and councils, ministerially to determine controversies of faith, and cases of conscience; to set down rules and directions for the better ordering of the public worship of God, and government of his Church; to receive complaints in cases of maladministration, and authoritatively to determine the same..." (http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/wcf.htm)
But not as enjoining unconditional obedience as to an assuredly infallible magisterium, which Rome presumes, and which is the Real Issue .
But Protestants cannot agree on what Scripture says and have no earthly way to resolve their conflicts. While they say that authority resides in Scripture alone, the fact is, in claiming the anointing of the Holy Spirit and thus the ability to properly interpret Scripture, they really place the locus of authority within themselves and become the very pope they denounce. Having denied that there is a pope they become pope. If no one is Pope, everyone is pope.
This also is a miscontruance, as to be a pope is to claim the anointing of infallibility, which is only what cults effectively claim, leaving the RC objection to be that of lay people correctly discerning what Truth is in contradiction to the magisterium. Which is what RCs argue is necessary.
For the RC polemic is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Would you not agree that this is your real argument?
I have read that some objectors think Catholics arrogant in asserting that we have a pope whom we trust to be anointed by God to teach us without error on faith and morals. But which is more arrogant: to claim there is a pope (not me), or to in fact act like one myself?
This is based upon the straw man that SS adherents are claiming assured personal infallibility, which is what makes the pope the RC pope (which even the EOs reject), or that SS rejects the teaching office, both of which are manifestly false.
The faithful believer is to seek to persuade souls by "manifestation of the Truth." (2Cor. 4:2) Thus the real objection objection remains that of Scripture being the transcendent supreme standard for obedience, and to the laity being able to correctly judge what is of God in contradiction to the magisterium. Therefore you need to justify the real RC argument as described above, rather than engaging in the use of straw men.
So here is God’s methodology when it comes to adequately revealing and guaranteeing the truths of the faith: He anoints Peter.
Out of which is extrapolated the perpetuated infallible Petrine papacy, but which is not taught or necessary, but is based upon the unScriptural premise that, as said, an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority.
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that Rome is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Moreover, as Steve Hays states ,
In order to get from Peter to the modern papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain [see link]. To my knowledge, I haven’t said anything here that a contemporary Catholic scholar or theologian would necessarily deny. They would simply fallback on a Newmanesque principle of dogmatic development to justify their position.
[Of which dogmatic development of doctrine see links.]
A direct appeal to Mt 16:18 greatly obscures the number of steps that have to be interpolated in order to get us from Peter to the papacy. Let’s jot down just a few of these intervening steps:
a) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to “Peter.”
b) The promise of Mt 16:18 has “exclusive” reference to Peter.
c) The promise of Mt 16:18 has reference to a Petrine “office.”
d) This office is “perpetual”
e) Peter resided in “Rome”
f) Peter was the “bishop” of Rome
g) Peter was the “first” bishop of Rome
h) There was only “one” bishop at a time
i) Peter was not a bishop “anywhere else.”
j) Peter “ordained” a successor
k) This ceremony “transferred” his official prerogatives to a successor.
l) The succession has remained “unbroken” up to the present day.
Lets go back and review each of these twelve separate steps: More .
The author gave a an argument for his assertions. What's the argument for yours? Your interpretation of Scripture? If so, why should I accept your authority on the matter? In fact, if you're basing you assertion on Scripture, which book? How do you know that book forms part of the authentic Scriptures Christ wants us to follow?
So, Francis strengthens and unites the Catholic Church.
Not a true statement. Something is clearly off.
It has failed? 100's of millions would disagree... Isn't their division within the Catholic Church as well...
The Church needs a visible head.
Isn't the living Christ head of the church or is he still hanging on the cross?
The Bible alone does not suffice, for there are endless disagreements on how to interpret it.
Even within the Catholic Church the Bible has different interpretations
Someone must exist to whom all turn and who all agree will resolve the differences after listening.
Why, our salvation is not dependent on consensus...
This is simply sophistry, as it is employed to refute what really is the position of Scripture being the sole supreme infallible standard on Truth as literally being the plenary inspired assured word of God - which cannot be said of the supreme standard for RCs - while using a definition of Protestant that is so wide you can drive a Unitarian Scientology Swedenborgian sodomite Episcopalian 747 thru it!
Such is the result of abandoning the position and esteem of Scripture which defined Protestantism.
However, those who most strongly hold to the supremacy of Scripture as the wholly inspired and assured word of God are much more unified i n basic key beliefs than the fruit of Rome, even surpassing weekly mass goers. Thus both Rome and liberals have treated such "fundamentalists" as their greatest ideological enemies.
And while this is far from comprehensive unity which has ever been a goal not realized, "unity" in Rome is largely on paper or merely organizational, while the greatest scope of unity is found in cults, which also basically operate out of the RC model of sola ecclesia, in which the church is the supreme authority.
And under which cultism the members are to ascertain the veracity of church teaching by searching the Scriptures, as assurance is based upon the premise of the anointed assured veracity of the magisterium, for if it was by Scripture then they would be as evangelicals.
However, what RCs can disagree on is extensive , from just how many infallible teachings there are, and what level each teaching falls under, and thus what level, of assent is required, to what the meaning of these are.
The real question remains, did the church begin under the premise of an anointed assured veracity of the magisterium as the steward of Divine revelation, or upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power.
Christ bases His rock upon what God the Father has revealed, not upon the flesh and blood of Peter. This is also why it is unshakeable.
This argument never ceases to amaze me. The scriptures says "Call no one father." I recite the command and state that we shouldn't call anyone father. Then someone says I'm "interpreting" it.
This isn't a dream or vision. Nor is it complicated. There isn't anything to interpret. I'm reciting a command. It's up to people to determine whether or not to follow it.
That is YOUR interpretation.
I thought you were giving me the typical Catholic answer that Peter is the holder of the keys. That is a flawed interpretation of scripture.
Christ is the Rock and cornerstone.
And if Athanasius were around today, he would (or would he)probably declare that all of the separate Catholic rites (not the right word, but I’m referring to Eastern Orthodox, Greek Orthodox; Russian Orthodox; Armenian; & etc as heresies, as he did those who followed Arius and other small Christian sects/groups in the 3rd & 4th Centuries.
And then we have the seeking for “one” church to be the official church of the renewed Roman Empire under Constantine and finally Theodosius.
But bottomline for me is all Christians are saved by the Grace of Salvation through Jesus, who was sent here by His Father to rescue us/our souls from perishing on this spec of galactic debris.
So are you saying that Peter was not the first leader of the Church after Christ? The first Pope?
So I guess you don’t call your dad “father”.
Just as Sheen before him, Pope proves that a brilliant mind can still be a bound one—i.e. bound to the traditions of men. One wonders how this supposed “Papa”, Peter, would later come to be publicly rebuked by the apostle Paul “because he stood condemned”. Perhaps because God (contra the Catholic Church) “shows no partiality”?
If the blind lead the blind, will they not both fall into a ditch? Pope takes a stab at Protestants and their “sola Scriptura”, but it is in fact Scripture which authoritatively counters the error of Rome.
“You are experts at setting aside the commandment of God in order to keep your tradition.”—Jesus!
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.