The Papacy
- Thread starter RayneBeau
- Start date
Nondenom40
Well-known member
Boniface the 8th said:
We state, we proclaim, we declare and we define that it is absolutely necessary for every human creature to be subject to the roman pontiff.
Sounds like that one is still in effect.
OH it is but let us be honest. Peter would not know these bishops or acknowledge them.
1 Peter 5
Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; 3 not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock. 4 And when the Chief Shepherd appears, you will receive the crown of glory that will never fade away.
They ignore Peter's written word and they certainly are not good shepherds.
No it is the general attitude of the leadership towards its flock. It occurs from the top down, it occurred when those abusive priests were moved from parish to parish. Your leaders did not look after the children who they knew would be abused. It happened when they supported the priests to court and not the victims. This is just two examples of their lack of care. Over the centuries the leadership has failed to be good shepherds. The evidence is in the actions.
It shows in the fact these priests are not ex communicated, yet a woman who has an abortion would be. Double standards.
I feel your love with your ad hominem.
RayneBeau
Well-known member
True enough! The RCC's teaching is false Matt. 16 does not, nor in fact does it even imply papal primacy. The passage says absolutely nothing about successors to Peter, and the unanimous consent of the Fathers actually opposes the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matt. 16. The Fathers generally interpret the 'rock' in Matt. 16 to be Christ or Peter's confession of faith in Christ.
If they followed the rock which is Peter's statement:
Matt 16:16
Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God
They might have followed the teachings of the gospel message, of repentance, of the requirements for leaders etc. But no they went after power, control money, riches etc. That is what has landed them in the position where they are today.
They ignore the statement and ignore scriptures.
Well, when the system — which declares itself to be the pillar and foundation of truth, and the only bona-fide interpreter of Scripture — declares what a scripture truly means, how dare anyone disagree?
[/SARCASM] 🙄
--Rich
BTW, my house is wood. However, the foundation is cinder block. That is, nothing says the foundation must be the same substance as what it supports.
pilgrim
Well-known member
Cyprian of Carthage
“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).
shepherds of THEIR flocks, not His. shepherds of catholicism to catholics. that's it.
catholics don't like to hear the truth. If they did they'd be reading His word, not the ccc.
It's an interesting debate, and one I never get tired of. The Protestants claim that "petros" refers to a stone while "petra" refers to an immovable rock or boulder. The Catholic church responds by pointing out that this is quite true of Attic Greek, but no longer the case by the time the gospel writers were composing their narratives in Koine Greek. This is probably one of the best points I've ever heard from the Catholic side of the issue.
The Protestants then point out that "taute te petra" is masculine while "petros" is feminine, therefore it cannot possibly be referring to Peter. The Catholics again seem to point out the obvious by stating that the gospel writer couldn't very well refer to Peter as "Petrina" or "Patricia" now could he? Seems like they've got this debate wrapped up, don't it?
They also top that off by pointing out that the original conversation undoubtedly took place in Aramaic which is a gender neutral language so each of these respective rocks would have looked identical, much as it does to this day in English which is also a gender neutral language.
It would seem that the Protestants are on the ropes at this point, but there's one serious problem, and that is the fact that the gospel writer isn't writing in Hebrew or Aramaic. He's writing in Koine Greek, and Greek grammar dictates that a masculine noun or name cannot refer to a feminine noun or name.
Moreover, given that the aforementioned distinction between stones and rocks no longer existed, he could just as easily have written "tautw tw petrw" which would have seamlessly agreed with Peter's name rendering it effectively just as neutered as the original Aramaic. He didn't do that though, did he? Nope.
So what do the Catholic apologists have as their explanation? The writer made a mistake. He goofed. The guy comes up with a flawless narrative, but gets to this central feature of Christianity, and blows it? That's their explanation? Well, not exactly. It's just a mystery that we're not supposed to understand yet.
Yeah, right.
So we have the fact that it was written in Koine Greek and the Greek word for rock is feminine. Interesting if they are then referring to the statement made by Peter what pronoun is used for the statement.
If we do research into the use of the word rock in other passages, who does it refer to?
Paul refers to the rock that followed the people in the desert in 1 cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Matt 7: 24 It is referring to the words Jesus speaks.
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
1 Peter 2 Jesus is the living stone and we are little stones.
As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
eph 2:20
Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Ps 18:31
For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?—
Scripture is to be read as a whole other passages can help clear up problems with understanding. Jesus is referred to as the rock or a stone and His words are a rock.
There is no passage that I could find where Peter is that rock or stone. I mean I went through heaps of passage and I couldn't find one. Other than all believers are living stones. But the foundation rock and stone, the cornerstone is Jesus.
Just trying to put another way of looking at the petros/petra debate.
By the way ex RCC and not a protestant.
If we do research into the use of the word rock in other passages, who does it refer to?
Paul refers to the rock that followed the people in the desert in 1 cor 10:4
And all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank from the spiritual Rock that followed them, and the Rock was Christ.
Matt 7: 24 It is referring to the words Jesus speaks.
“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock.
1 Peter 2 Jesus is the living stone and we are little stones.
As you come to him, the living Stone—rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him— 5 you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house[a] to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. 6 For in Scripture it says:
“See, I lay a stone in Zion,
a chosen and precious cornerstone,
and the one who trusts in him
will never be put to shame.”
7 Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe,
“The stone the builders rejected
has become the cornerstone,”
8 and,
“A stone that causes people to stumble
and a rock that makes them fall.”
They stumble because they disobey the message—which is also what they were destined for.
eph 2:20
Built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone,
Ps 18:31
For who is God, but the Lord? And who is a rock, except our God?—
Scripture is to be read as a whole other passages can help clear up problems with understanding. Jesus is referred to as the rock or a stone and His words are a rock.
There is no passage that I could find where Peter is that rock or stone. I mean I went through heaps of passage and I couldn't find one. Other than all believers are living stones. But the foundation rock and stone, the cornerstone is Jesus.
Just trying to put another way of looking at the petros/petra debate.
By the way ex RCC and not a protestant.
RayneBeau
Well-known member
Some of the Fathers do refer to Peter as the rock but only in the sense that he is the first to confess Christ to be the Son of God and is therefore representative of the entire Church. The "Church" is therefore not built on Peter, or subsequently upon the bishops of Rome, but on his confession of faith in the person of Christ. On the other hand the 'Roman Catholic' Church may be built upon Peter, but Peter would want nothing to do with it today.
Exactly. What Christian would not want to be in the church Jesus started? Here we have in the 3rd century evidence of the Catholic, or Universal Christian Church. It wasn't a Baptist church, it wasn't a "Temple of the Lord " church, and it wasn't Lutheran or Episcopalian. It was the good old Catholic Church with it's head Bishop based in Rome.
I hope so. Otherwise, what would be the point of Jesus creating the Papacy?
He didn't.
Your institution has proved over and over again by its fruit it was never founded by Jesus. Jesus would not condone any of its actions, or its false teachings or claims. Actions speak and we are to discern the fruit. Your institution fails this test. Only a handful of bishop went to the Roman Nicaea Council. Most did not bother bowing to the Emperor.
Nondenom40
Well-known member
Where did your cut and paste come from? Yours looks nothing like mine. Mine come straight from my copy of the ecfs. Here is the chapter in total. The title of the treatise is On the Unity of the Church...not the 'catholic church.' And you'll see the word 'chair' occurs nowhere and further what i bolded isn't in my copy either. Mine says 'unity of the church.' I've seen catholics rewrite ecfs before but this one takes the cake!
You should be ashamed of yourself for even thinking about posting your nonsense. And you wonder why we don't trust catholics when they blather on about ecfs? Link us to where you found your chop job.
Nondenom40
Well-known member
He didn't. Even catholic apologists agree there is no explicit verses about the papacy in the bible.
He didn't. man did that.
pilgrim
Well-known member
The Unity of the Catholic Church [251/256 A.D.]
555-556
[4]"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' He says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven'" (Matt 16: 18-19).
[There are two editions of what follows, the second of which tones down the first in view of Cyprian's argument with the papacy. Papal primacy is clear in the first edition written about 251 A.D., but merely implicit in the second effort written about 255 or 256 A.D.]
First Edition:"And again He says to him [Peter] after His resurrection: 'Feed my sheep' (John 21:17). On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all our shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that his is in the Church?"
Second Edition: "It is on the one man that He builds the Church; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles after His resurrection, when He says, 'As the Father has sent me, so also do I send you; receive the Holy Spirit: If you forgive any man his sins, they shall be forgiven; and if you retain any man's sins, they shall be retained" (John 20: 21-23) Nevertheless, in order that unity might be clearly shown, He established by His own authority a source for that unity, which takes its beginning from one man alone. Indeed, the other Apostles were that also which Peter was, being endowed with an equal portion of dignity and power; but the origin is grounded in unity, so that it may be made clear that there is but one Church of Christ. Indeed this oneness of the Church is indicated in the Song of Songs, when the Holy Spirit, speaking in the Lord's name, says, 'One is my dove, my perfect one, to her mother the only one, the chosen of her that bore her." If someone does not hold fast to this unity of the Church, can he imagine that he holds the faith? If he resists and withstands the Church, can he still be confident that he is in the Church, when the blessed Apostle Paul teaches this very thing and displays the sacred sign of unity when he says: 'One body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one God' (Eph 4:4-6). [5] Let no one mislead the brotherhood with a lie, let no one corrupt the faith by a faithless perversion of the truth. The episcopate is one, of which each bishop holds his part within the undivided structure. The Church also is one, however widely she has spread among the multitude through her fruitful increase. . . . The Church is bathed in the light of the Lord , and pours her rays over the whole world; but it is one light that is spread everywhrere , and the unity of her structure is undivided." https://www.catholicfaithandreason.org/st-cyprian-of-carthage-200-253-ad.html