Tell me, is the Pope a thief?

[Fargo]

OK, let's run with the assumption that Peter was chosen. Now explain all the rest that is this giant inverted pyramid of Papal dogma (succession, infallibility, etc.) that's teetering on these two verses.

I must say I kinda get a kick out of this one. Where does the proposition that if Christ's words don't span more than 2 verses, they are somehow suspect or discountable come from? (Especially since "verses" are the invention of German printers...)

 

[rambone]

Thank you for your thoughtful replies, Mark. While I do not agree, I appreciate your faith and your effort to explain.

The simple answer is yes, but only under very specific conditions. The infallibility of the Pope simply means that in his official teachings or definitions, provided he speaks as supreme head of the Church in questions of faith or morals and with the intention of binding all the faithful, God would not allow him to define erroneous doctrine. The Pope, as successor of St Peter, is Vicar of Christ, and the final court of appeal in the Church. But all these conditions must be present for an infallible teaching. The Pope's word is not infallible whenever he speaks, though his decisions are always to be received with respect. But if he speaks merely as a private theologian, expressing his own views his opinions could be mistaken. Infallibility attaches to his decisions only when he speaks in his supreme and official capacity as supreme teacher of all the faithful.

Does it give you pause that popes have declared -- in official capacity -- that Christians like myself are condemned to hell? In spite of all biblical teaching on salvation, the Vatican has long held that those who do not submit to Catholicism are accursed.

4. What other Biblical references can you provide that indicate that Peter was the first pope, other than the single controversial line that is followed by Jesus comparing Peter to Satan?

I will provide some biblical references as well as quotes from the early fathers of the church.

I don't think there is any dispute that there is a long history of Catholics accepting that interpretation of the verse. But, I don't think the truth comes from consensus of the majority. We need to analyze the rest of scripture to see if that interpretation is consistent. I specified a number of inconsistencies earlier. Most glaringly, the fact that Jesus Christ is already the cornerstone of the church, as declared by God in Isaiah, by Jesus, by Peter, and by Paul. Jesus calling Peter "Satan" doesn't help the argument either.

Finally, if St. Paul did not recognize St. Peter's teaching authority, then why did he spend fifteen days with Peter (Cephas) during his early ministry (Gal. 1:18)?

Paul could simply be visiting Peter, as the verse states. They were two Christian brothers; both given special authority in the underground, infant church. Paul is emphatic that his knowledge of God comes from God, not man.

"For I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ." (Galatians 1:12)

 

[steveh_131]

As for the rebuke of Peter by Paul, Paul was not contradicting any set doctrine, nor was Peter exercising infallibility, far from it. A common objection against Peter's primacy is based on Gal. 2:11-14 where St. Paul rebukes St. Peter (Cephas) for acting insincerely. This rebuke from St. Paul does not undermine St. Peter's teaching authority, since St. Paul did not rebuke him for false teaching but for setting a bad example. (As an aside, St. Paul also set a bad example in Acts 16:3.) It must be remembered that St. Peter was a sinner like the rest of us (Luke 5:8,10). Likewise Nathan's condemnation of King David in 2 Sam. 12 did not undermine David's ruling authority but brought him to repentance. Finally, if St. Paul did not recognize St. Peter's teaching authority, then why did he spend fifteen days with Peter (Cephas) during his early ministry (Gal. 1:18)? Paul sees Peter as not living out in his teaching in his actions. Paul rebukes Peter for the bad example he is giving. Popes are not perfect in everything they do. Infallibility does not cover who they eat dinner with! James may have spoken last but Peter announced the decision. This is what we (the Church) and the Holy Spirit have decided. It is a tribute to Peter's humility and thus his leadership that he accepted the rebuke.

So... what about when Jesus rebuked him, shortly after being declared the infallible 'Rock'. Insisting that Jesus would never be killed was certainly a false teaching, was it not?

On matters of faith and morals, yes I believe that his teachings from the chair of Peter are infallible. Mathew 16:19 is one of many biblical cites.

Fargo, I appreciate your arguments but you keep saying there are 'many' cites. I haven't seen any that demonstrate that the teachings of Peter were infallible, including Matthew 16:19. Can you provide any other cites?

He has all the powers delegated to him by Christ. Among those is the power to forgive sins via the sacrament of Confession. This power is also enjoyed by bishops and priests etc.

Ok, time out on this one. So now the 'keys' are being passed on to every bishop and priest as well? So every priest and bishop has essentially the same 'powers' that were given to the apostles by Christ?

As to who may be forgiven and of what sins, that gets into the issue of "faculties" through the local ordinary as well certain sins which carry the penalty of excommunication. Priests must have the consent of their local ordinary in order to perform a valid absolution as well as there are certain sins which the absolution of is reserved to the local ordinary. I do not know of any which absolution is reserved solely to the pope but there may be a historical precedent. Some excommunications have historically only been able to be lifted by the pope, but isn't really an issue of forgiveness.

To be perfectly clear, you're saying that they are able to decide who may be reinstated into the church, NOT who may be forgiven by Christ's sacrifice? That makes sense to me.

Well, Matthew 16:18 is followed by 16:19.... It is only controversial because people don't like it. Kinda like the alot of disciples in this passage

It's also controversial because it's extremely vague and metaphorical, unlike the various other exact directions given to New Testament churches throughout scripture. And yet this point seems critical; do you have any explanation for why none of the letters to these churches ever seem to mention anything about this later on in the Bible?

John 21:15-17 is one of many other examples of Christ making it clear that Peter is not just another Apostle.

I'm not sure that Jesus command to Peter to feed his sheep is adding any clarity to this discussion. Peter goofed up.

I must say I kinda get a kick out of this one. Where does the proposition that if Christ's words don't span more than 2 verses, they are somehow suspect or discountable come from? (Especially since "verses" are the invention of German printers...)

It's not just that it should be more than 2 verses. It comes down to exegesis. When we reach a confusing portion of the bible (and these 2 verses certainly are) the best way to interpret it is to compare it to the rest of scripture. And the rest of scripture seems to hold no mention of any pope or centralized leader figure. In fact, the tone of the rest of the New Testament suggests to me that there is only one central leader of the church: Jesus Christ himself. So when I take this verse in the context of the rest of the bible, I have a very difficult time concluding what the Catholics have concluded.

 

[Alpo]

Is it fair to ask Fargo for cites when you provide no references? You had one to Ephesians, but deleted it. And Ephesians is a disputed attribution, as you are probably aware.

The "tone" is Paul and Acts, written pseudoephigraphically by Luke, a disciple of Paul.

 

[steveh_131]

Is it fair to ask Fargo for cites when you provide no references? You had one to Ephesians, but deleted it. And Ephesians is a disputed attribution, as you are probably aware.

The "tone" is Paul and Acts, written pseudoephigraphically by Luke, a disciple of Paul.

Yes, when someone says there are many cites, it is fair to ask for them.

 

[Alpo]

It seems the we are reliving the Reformation! Since the RC church and the protestants haven't reconciled in 400+ years, I doubt it will be solved here.

 

[Fargo]

So... what about when Jesus rebuked him, shortly after being declared the infallible 'Rock'. Insisting that Jesus would never be killed was certainly a false teaching, was it not?

It was neither a "teaching" nor was it a matter of faith or morals so that one fails on multiple levels.

Fargo, I appreciate your arguments but you keep saying there are 'many' cites. I haven't seen any that demonstrate that the teachings of Peter were infallible, including Matthew 16:19. Can you provide any other cites?

How is the ability to bind in heaven not a cite for infallibility? If you won't recognize that one, why bother with things like Luke 22:32?

But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

Ok, time out on this one. So now the 'keys' are being passed on to every bishop and priest as well? So every priest and bishop has essentially the same 'powers' that were given to the apostles by Christ?

Every bishop is a successor of the apostles with the same authority. Priests share that authority in a more limited way.

To be perfectly clear, you're saying that they are able to decide who may be reinstated into the church, NOT who may be forgiven by Christ's sacrifice? That makes sense to me.

It is an oversimplification, but basically yes. The Church puts no limits on the infinite mercy of Christ. Without going too far afield, perfect contrition is sufficient for forgiveness of grave sin even if formal confession is not possible. It is possible for an excommunicate to be forgiven his sin without achieving the lifting of the excommunication although that is kind of a tricky proposition.

It's also controversial because it's extremely vague and metaphorical, unlike the various other exact directions given to New Testament churches throughout scripture. And yet this point seems critical; do you have any explanation for why none of the letters to these churches ever seem to mention anything about this later on in the Bible?

Your and my definitions of "extremely vague and metaphorical" must be fairly far apart. As to the epistles, keep in mind that we are talking about a rapidly growing church in very hostile conditions where Peter is repeatedly incarcerated and finally crucified. This is all before the advent of any sort of quick or wide communictation. This wasn't exactly like setting up the board of a closely held corporation! Look also at Peter's authority in Acts as regards circumcision.

I'm not sure that Jesus command to Peter to feed his sheep is adding any clarity to this discussion. Peter goofed up.

It is just one of more than a few examples where Christ holds Peter apart. Walking on water, you are rock, who do the people say that I am, etc. Taken in their entirety, the Gospels make it clear that there is something different here. Matthew 16:18-19 specifies what.

It's not just that it should be more than 2 verses. It comes down to exegesis. When we reach a confusing portion of the bible (and these 2 verses certainly are) the best way to interpret it is to compare it to the rest of scripture. And the rest of scripture seems to hold no mention of any pope or centralized leader figure. In fact, the tone of the rest of the New Testament suggests to me that there is only one central leader of the church: Jesus Christ himself. So when I take this verse in the context of the rest of the bible, I have a very difficult time concluding what the Catholics have concluded

See directly above. Look, I have no illusions that I am "winning" this discussion or anything like that. I simply enjoy discussing this respectfully. I generally don't do it on the internet because so much nuance and personality are lost so you will have to forgive me if I don't go hog wild on this.

Best regards,

Joe

 

[Mark 1911]

So... what about when Jesus rebuked him, shortly after being declared the infallible 'Rock'. Insisting that Jesus would never be killed was certainly a false teaching, was it not?

If it had been a teaching, it would have been wrong, but it wasn't a teaching, no more than you trying to protect a loved one from danger could be considered a "teaching". Naturally, like any of us, Peter loved Jesus in a very human albeit imperfect way. Peter was reacting perhaps somewhat impetuously, suddenly, rashly, emotionally, but also very understandably to the thought of losing whom he loved so much, and to the thought of Jesus enduring such terrible suffering and death. Such a thought would be shocking to any of us. Under such circumstances, any of us would have trouble remaining calm and seeing things in a more supernatural light. Peter's love for Christ could not bear the thought that his Master should have to endure such things. Our Lord certainly appreciated the sympathy which prompted Peter's protest, but insisted strongly that such things must be. In no way did he withdraw any official standing from Peter. If you think he did simply because these words are subsequent to the promise, then I draw your attention to Luke 22:32, also subsequent to Jesus' rebuke of Peter, "but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

 

[steveh_131]

How is the ability to bind in heaven not a cite for infallibility?

How is it a cite for infallibility? How does it have anything at all to do with infallibility?

Priests share that authority in a more limited way.

Got a cite for this one?

Your and my definitions of "extremely vague and metaphorical" must be fairly far apart.

Are they really? Let's back up a little bit and let me ask you this. If you were studying the Bible on its own, and had no influence from tradition or extra-biblical sources... Would you ever come up with this as what the New Testament church leader should look like:

In your reading, would you come up with things such as 'confessional booths', when the majority of the new testament centers around Christ being our only intercessor? Would you read the words of Christ and decide that Mary should be involved in your prayers?

Or is it a lot of extra-biblical sources and church traditions that bring you to this belief? And I don't ask this to denigrate those sources or those traditions, I just want a genuine answer to that question because it changes the basis of this discussion quite a bit - and would make a lot more sense to me.

 

[Alpo]

Another rehash of Sola Scriptura. You are aware that it is not a catholic tenet?

 

[steveh_131]

Another rehash of Sola Scriptura. You are aware that it is not a catholic tenet?

Yes, I am aware, but the participants in this discussion have been adamant that these doctrines are scriptural. I just don't see it.

 

[Alpo]

They are part of the canon, which interprets scripture. The first council at Niceae was interpretive, was it not?

I can see their position within Matthew 16:19 pretty clearly, but in a limited context. For example, excommunication based on rejection of Aristotelean philosophy was in error, if that was the basis. Perhaps the limitation is so severe as to negate 16:19 completely and perhaps what Matthew wrote was based on something other than what was actually said?

 

[venenoindy]

Not Catholic, but I feel like he's a pretty big hypocrite.

Not religious, but high a lot high ranking members of various religious organizations are highly hypocritical.

 

[Vigilant]

Not religious, but high a lot high ranking members of various religious organizations are highly hypocritical.

Not religious either, but a LOT of Catholics/Christians/Protestants are incessantly whining over dribble, when the followers of Allah, "the one true G-d" are taking over everywhere they land!

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Here's the Pope's miracle

 

[Dead Duck]

^^^What the hell was that??

 

[T.Lex]

^^^What the hell was that??

Yeah - no kidding.

I've known guys that can do amazing things with real videos and embedded "fake" 3d models, but that is incredible.

ETA:
1) Dammit, GPiahnhnuhnet, you tricked me into posting in this thread!

2) From the reddit feed, pure win:

checkmate athiests

LOL

 

[steveh_131]

That's a real Catholic ceremony. It represents the sin being yanked out from under you by the Pope.

 

[Dead Duck]

That's a real Catholic ceremony. It represents the sin being yanked out from under you by the Pope.

This makes sense because most my sins were made under the covers.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

This makes sense because most my sins were made under the covers.