Papacy not scriptural


#1

Please help, a protestant has me cornered…

**

[font=Tahoma] “What does the Bible say about the pope / papacy?”

**Answer: **The Roman Catholic Church’s teaching about the Pope (“pope” means “father”) is built upon and involves the following Roman Catholic teachings:

  1. Christ made Peter the leader of the apostles and of the church (Matthew 16:18-19), and in giving him the “keys of the kingdom,” Christ not only made him leader but also made him infallible when he acted or spoke as Christ’s representative on earth (speaking from the seat of authority or ex cathedra). This ability to act on behalf of the church in an infallible way when speaking ex cathedra was passed on to Peter’s successors, thus giving the Church an infallible guide on earth to lead the Church unerringly.

  2. Peter later became the first Bishop of Rome. As Bishop of Rome, he exercised authority over all other bishops and church leaders. The teaching that the Bishop of Rome is above all other bishops in authority is referred to as the “primacy” of the Roman Bishop.

  3. Peter passed on his apostolic authority to the next Bishop of Rome, along with the other apostles who passed on their apostolic authority to the bishops that they ordained. These new bishops, in turn, passed on that apostolic authority to those bishops that they later ordained and so on. This “passing on of apostolic authority” is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

  4. Based upon what they claim is an unbroken chain of Roman bishops (along with other support), they teach that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church and that all churches that do not accept the primacy of the Pope have broken away from them, the original and one true church.

Having briefly reviewed some of the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church concerning the papacy, the question is whether those teachings are in agreement with Scripture. The Roman Catholic Church sees the Papacy and the infallible teaching authority of “mother Church” as being necessary to guide the Church and use that as logical reasoning for God’s provision of it. But in examining Scripture, you find the following:

  1. While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, no where declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (having primacy) (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13; primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20) and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

[/font]**


#2

[quote=Valtiel]Please help, a protestant has me cornered…

[/quote]

[font=Tahoma]2) Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops, having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”, but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace…” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. And while the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel than what had already been given in New Testament times (Galatians 1:8-9).

  1. While the Roman Catholic Church sees apostolic succession as logically necessary in order for God to unerringly guide the Church, Scripture states that God has provided for His church through:

(a) infallible Scripture, (Acts 20:32; 2 Timothy 3:15-17; Matthew 5:18; John 10:35; Acts 17:10-12; Isaiah 8:20; 40:8; etc.) Note: Peter speaks of Paul’s writings in the same category as other Scripture (2 Peter 3:16),

(b) Christ’s unending high-priesthood in heaven (Hebrews 7:22-28),

© the provision of the Holy Spirit Who guided the apostles into truth after Christ’s death (John 16:12-14), Who gifts believers for the work of the ministry, including teaching (Romans 12:3-8; Ephesians 4:11-16), and Who uses the written word as His chief tool (Hebrews 4:12; Ephesians 6:17).

While there have been good and godly men who have served as Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, including Pope John Paul II, the Roman Catholic Church teaching about the office of the Pope should be rejected because it is not “in continuity” with the teachings of the original church, that related to us in the New Testament. This comparison of any church’s teaching is essential, lest we miss the New Testament’s teaching concerning the gospel and not only miss eternal life in heaven ourselves but unwittingly lead others down the wrong path as well (Galatians 1:8-9).

[/font]


#3

Ask him how we got the Bible. Post his reply here, we’ll take it from there.


#4

ARGH!!! See, what bugs me about these people is that they think the Church contradicts scripture. Ask him also to tell you where it says by the Bible ALONE …and ONLY ALONE is the way to go. Ask him. Oh! That the scales may fall from his eyes!!!


#5

Also ask your friend if there was no succesion of the Apostles why was Judas replaced?


#6

Not in continuity with the original Church? Funny, that’s not what the original Christians had to say (also funny since we ARE the original Church):

catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp
catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp
catholic.com/library/Peter_Primacy.asp

The Father’s always know best:thumbsup: .


#7

[quote=adstrinity]Ask him how we got the Bible. Post his reply here, we’ll take it from there.
[/quote]

I think this really is the best idea. Valtiel’s friend really must learn to read Scripture in context. I just quickly glanced at a few of the verses they cited and found them taken out of context. The whole process of basing the Church on Scripture is preposterous. It must be approached with the “what came first” attitude (chicken or the egg). If that person knew anything about the Canon and history, they would know which came first and then they could read Scripture in light of tradition.

DU


#8

ALSO!!! If the Papacy isn’t scriptural, then how come Peter was replaced? Did the Church go apostate so quickly? While St. Paul and St. John was still alive? We were led into error right away? The Popes can be traced back to Christ. There was always a successor.


#9

At first read the argument seems to be well founded, but it is essentially vague and too long-winded for its own good.

I. **[font=Tahoma]Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5 simply speak of times when Peter spoke in communion with the other apostles and teachers. SO? The Pontiff often does that today, in fact when he is nto speaking Ex Cathedra, he is speaking in communion with the other bishops.

There is a good apology in the library about wether or not peter was in Rome, I suggest you read that.

[/font]****[font=Tahoma]Ephesians 2:19-20 speaks nothing of the apostles, but of the power of God in all those who believe. This, to me, is not a problem as we as believers are to be witnesses to God’s power and grace.

[/font]****[font=Tahoma]Matthew 18:15-19 is troubling at first to the papacy[/font]**, but is easy to understand **when we see that the church is binding and loosing. Well of course the church would hold this power as it is the pillar of truth on Earth, as well, Peter is the head of this church and he would have conferred its doctrine.

****[font=Tahoma]1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11. These simply show the apostles and church leaders exercising their power, nothing troubling here.

  1. Doesn’t make much sense to me. He says no where is apostolic succession mentioned yet he cites the verses we use to prove it. Of course we “read into” it, just as he is “reading into” his disproof of the papacy. Church leaders are fellow strugglers in Christ, but he [Paul] would not call on just anyone to instruct furure generations. It is apparent Timothy is considered well learned in the faith and a leader of the church; therefore, Paul instructs him to teach the next generation. He says that fallacies will arise in church leaders and briefly mentions Ephesians but cites nothing to prove this so I must deem it unfounded. He continues to, as best I can find, misquote the Bible. Acts 20: 28-32 says nothing about apostles except that they are “overseers of the flock.” It does say that from among you some will teach false things, but that is all. I will also add that your protestant friend says nothing the apostles wrote aside form Scripture is infalliable, but he forgets that Paul had no concept of “The Bible” as we know it.

Next, in Galation 1:8-9 Paul is obviously using hyperbolae or extreme exaggeration to make a point. He and an angel of the Lord would not preach a flase Gospel. As well Paul says we should nt listen to those who preach from other gospels, but Protestants and catholics use the same gospels; we just have different interpretations. The passaeg does not mention “New Testament Times” but rather that other Gospels must be in accord with Scripture, as the Church Fathers and other writings of the apostles clearly are. As well, since the Catholic Church believes itself to be the one true church of God, it would follow that if one blatantly disagrees with a teaching of the Holy Father/Church when he is speaking Ex Cathedra he disagrees with the scripture.

(a) This is a case for the Sola Scriptura argument. There is a very detailed case against that in the library here at catholic answers. I will briefly summarize the problem with these scripture verses. The all say that readign and using scripture is good, but never do they say it is sufficent.

(b)Christ does supply for his Church as the High-Priest in Heaven. This is called the Eucharist. Once again, this si never mentioned as the only way God helps his people and his Church or as sufficent.
[/font]****[font=Tahoma]
©This just proves the Catholic point. YES! The Holy Spirit is in the apostles, Peter being their leader as we have proved (see apology in library for more detailed response). Also, the scriptures he cites as written word being the chief tool do nto say that, but rather say that the Word of God is a holy tool of the Lord. Again, he forgets the Word of God may not be limited to the covers of the Bible. Christ was the Word, let us not forget (cf. John 1)

This is yet another series of rehashed arguments that fail to stand up to the test of study and context association. I am ashamed at the ammount of misquotation that was expressed in this short disproof.
[/font]**


#10

Ask your friend if their was an early Christian community in Rome, like those in Ephesia, Corinth, Alexandria, Jeruselum, et al. Ask him if Christ vowed not to leave them “orphans.”

Jim


#11

Tell Him you have some questions yourself, if he doesnt mind

Ask why he puts the Bible before God

Here is an interesting one

" It was just a matter of God convincing the church which books should be included in the Bible.


#12

[quote=Catholic Dude]Tell Him you have some questions yourself, if he doesnt mind
[/quote]

This link doesn’t work.

BTW, to all of this…YES!!!


#13

Most Protestants have no regard or perception for reality or history. When they pull out the “Its not in the Bible…” shtick, I usually ask them what Protestant denomination they belong to and then ask them to show me the validity of their denomination in the bible.

Thal59


#14

And I know some will disagree with this, but many Protestants just don’t have enough faith in God. God can lead an individual to all Truth but He simply is not big enough for those promises to apply to a whole Church. They lack faith in the size and scope of God’s promises. Personal relationship is just that, personal because the promises ONLY apply to a person, not the visible Church.

When I talk to some like this, I bring this up as a matter of faith. God promised that the church will be a pillar and foundation of truth 1Tim 3:15. When did God break His promise? God promised He will lead us to all Truth John 16:13. When did this cease?

Place this as a matter of faith in God and in His promises. You may not change his mind, but you will plant seeds to allow God to be big enough to encompass all the promises of the Bible.

I hope this may help.

God Bless,
Maria


#15

[quote=MariaG]And I know some will disagree with this, but many Protestants just don’t have enough faith in God. God can lead an individual to all Truth but He simply is not big enough for those promises to apply to a whole Church. They lack faith in the size and scope of God’s promises. Personal relationship is just that, personal because the promises ONLY apply to a person, not the visible Church.

When I talk to some like this, I bring this up as a matter of faith. God promised that the church will be a pillar and foundation of truth 1Tim 3:15. When did God break His promise? God promised He will lead us to all Truth John 16:13. When did this cease?

Place this as a matter of faith in God and in His promises. You may not change his mind, but you will plant seeds to allow God to be big enough to encompass all the promises of the Bible.

I hope this may help.

God Bless,
Maria
[/quote]

Good points there, Maria. I’ve never thought of it that way. Thanks again.


#16

[quote=adstrinity]This link doesn’t work.

BTW, to all of this…YES!!!
[/quote]

When I first posted it didnt work. I think it does now.
anyway here is the original link:
gotquestions.org/pope-papacy.html


#17

[quote=Catholic Dude]When I first posted it didnt work. I think it does now.
anyway here is the original link:
gotquestions.org/pope-papacy.html
[/quote]

Forgive me for asking the obvious, but, why are you posting these anti-Catholic sites? :confused: Obvious rhetoric?

checks out the site & the original post Oh. Sorry:o :rolleyes: I get it now. I’m a doofus. duhr-hurh! sorry.:o


#18

Okay I’m now further in the hole, here is his rebuttal…

I’m serious here, I need some serious help, I’m beging you, either point me to a book or books or help me rebutt it, please, I cannot beg you enough!!!

[font=Tahoma]The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). They believe that He later became the first bishop of Rome and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. They then believe that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishops of Rome, thus the teaching of apostolic succession. They also claim that all other churches broke away from them, the original and one true church. But nowhere in Scripture did Jesus, the apostles, or any New Testament writer set forth the idea of “apostolic succession.” Never is it anything like it mentioned in Scripture, and because of that fact, never is it seen as the qualification of the “true church.” What is mentioned in Scripture is the idea that the word of God was to be the guide that the church was to follow (Acts 20:32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not some infallible leader. It is the Scriptures that teachings are to be compared with (Acts 17:10-12).

According to the Roman Catholic Church, it is not sufficient that a denomination be able to merely cite an unbroken list of church leaders leading back to Peter (such as the Anglican Church does), but rather a church must also follow the same doctrinal and social foundation as the original church if it is to be considered the “true church.” If one uses this latter measuring stick and compares the Roman Catholic Church’s teachings and practices with those of the original church as recorded in the New Testament, one must come away with the understanding that while they may claim an unbroken line of Roman bishops from the time of Peter, many of their core teachings certainly do not belong to the same church that Peter belonged to…as described by the New Testament. For in the New Testament we find nothing of any of the following: a dispensing of grace through the receiving of the sacraments, the Catholic priesthood which alone is able to transform the bread and wine of the communion service into the actual body and blood of Christ, the offering of the Eucharist as a continuing sacrifice in order to gain grace for those living and those who in purgatory, the adoration of Mary and prayer to her and the saints along with the falling down before statues of the same, confession to a priest, purgatory, and so on.

[/font]


#19

[font=Tahoma]In short, apostolic succession is never found in Scripture and is thus never seen as the basis for determining the “true church.” What is found in Scripture is that the true church will teach what the Scriptures teach and will compare all doctrines and practices to Scripture in order to determine what is true and right and what is not. It is an unfortunate truth (that the apostles acknowledged) that false teachers would arise. And often their heresies are based upon different interpretations of some passages; but in important matters, the truth can be determined by comparing Scripture with Scripture, i.e., taking verses in their context. Alignment with Scriptural teaching, not apostolic succession, is the determining factor of the trueness of a church.

The debate rages over whether “the rock” on which Christ will build His church is Peter or Peter’s confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the Living God” (Matthew 16:16). In all honesty, there is no way for us to be 100% sure which view is correct. The grammatical construction allows for either view. In my study and analysis of the text, I feel that Peter is the “rock” on which Christ will build His church. Jesus appears to be using a play on words. “You are Peter (petros) and on this rock (petra) I will build my church.” Since Peter’s name means rock, and Jesus is going to build is church on a rock – it appears that Christ is linking the two together. God used Peter greatly in the foundation of the church. It was Peter who first proclaimed the Gospel on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14-47). Peter was also the first to take the Gospel to the Gentiles (Acts 10:1-48). In a sense, Peter was the rock “foundation” of the church.

[font=Tahoma]This interpretation of “upon this rock” is often used by the Roman Catholic Church as proof that it is the true church of God since it was founded by Peter. This is not the case. Peter being the rock in Matthew 16:18 is meaningless in giving the Roman Catholic Church any authority. Peter was not the first pope and Peter did not start the Roman Catholic Church. If Peter truly was the founder of the Roman Catholic Church, they would be in agreement with what Peter taught (Acts 2, 1 Peter, 2 Peter).

[/font]

[/font]


#20

The Early Church Fathers would disagree with the poster’s claims.

catholic.com/library/church_papacy.asp

Who would you trust: a modern day protestant, or someone who actually walked with the first Apostles?


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.