Is the Papacy a Legitimate Teaching of Scripture?

[francisdesales]

The Roman Catholic Church adds to Jesus Christ's work on the cross, and teaches:

• If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. - The Council of Trent - Seventh Session - Canon IV

• 
  
  
  The Catholic Church (both Orthodox and Latin churches - thus, Trent merely clarifies) teaches that the sacraments are BASED on the work of Christ and are outward signs of Chist's application of the merits He earned on the cross and throughout His life. Why again the false dichotomy? The Church is the result of the New Covenant, it is the fulfillment of the OT People of God that now reaches out to the world (catholic), not just the Jewish nature by the flesh. Thus, one must either participate or would have desired to participate if they were aware of the sacraments, since they are participation in the Work of Christ. Are you then saying you refuse to participate in Christ? Because that is what the Eucharist is - a participation in Christ.
  
  "Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him." John 6:54-56
  
  "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed [it], and brake [it], and gave [it] to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave [it] to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the new testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Mat 26:26-28
  
  

  Salvation according to the Roman Catholic Church adds to the Word of God, and if any add to or subtract from the Word:
  
  "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book" Revelation 22:18-19

  
  This is a serious misuse of the Word of God as written in the Book of Revelation. John is naturally writing about the book of Revelation - not about a future book to be compiled 2 centuries later...! This application to attempt to condemn Rome is terrible eigesis.
  
  And secondly, Rome doesn't "add" anything to the Word of God, since the Word is written AND spoken:
  
  "Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle." 2 Thes 2:15
  
  Can you show me, from the Scriptures, where your tradition of men is verified in the bible, namely, that all oral traditions are abrogated or included within the confines of the bible? No, you TAKE AWAY from the Word of God...
  
  

  There is plenty more that the Roman Catholic Church requires for salvation, but this taste will put to rest that the faith taught by the Roman Catholic Church includes a lifelong habitual reconciliation of sacramental sacrifice added to the work of Jesus Christ. In other words, the work of Jesus Christ is not enough to save a Roman Catholic from sin. They must commit to the Roman Catholic Church's rituals in order to be saved. The sad part is, that the majority of the Roman Catholic laity are doomed to hell because of the false doctrines perpetrated upon the laity.

  
  Salvation is a journey, as the Scriptures indicate. The word "saved" is placed next to a past, present, and future tense verb. Thus, salvation is something of the past, something that continues, and something that will come to be. All in the Bible and all taught by the Catholic Church. You appear to teach only part of the Word of God. First, you take out part of the Word of God - the oral teachings... Now, you take out part of the WRITTEN Word of God...
  
  And you apply to the Catholic Church the Scriptural verses of Revelation? Such hypocrisy is duly noted.
  
  Regards

 

[Solo]

Those that do not partake of the Roman Catholic sacraments cannot be saved according to the council of Trent's canons, and anyone teaching that they can are cursed by the Roman Catholic Church. When the Roman Catholic Church cursed folks in the past (up to the 1880's in Spain) they were murdered by the Roman Catholic Church as heretics. This is not the church of Jesus Christ.

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. - The Council of Trent - Seventh Session - Canon IV

 

[francisdesales]

Those that do not partake of the Roman Catholic sacraments cannot be saved according to the council of Trent's canons, and anyone teaching that they can are cursed by the Roman Catholic Church. When the Roman Catholic Church cursed folks in the past (up to the 1880's in Spain) they were murdered by the Roman Catholic Church as heretics. This is not the church of Jesus Christ.

If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification;-though all (the sacraments) are not ineed necessary for every individual; let him be anathema. - The Council of Trent - Seventh Session - Canon IV

Let's look at the Council of Trent's quote more closely...

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification..."

As I said before - even a pagan Indian in North America in 1560 conceivably fall under the auspice of the above, dependent upon that person's individual acceptance of the Natural Law that God's Spirit imprints on each and every one of us... The underlined words clearly tell us that it is NOT ABSOLUTELY necessary to receive the sacraments - it is NORMATIVE (if we know about them and refuse to receive, then we are rejecting Christ and community with His people.)

By the way, "anathema" means that a person is removed from the community. If a person dies in such a state, refusing to repent, they are in trouble (see 1 Cor 5). It doesn't mean someone is condemned to hell by the Church! Man condemns himself for being obstinate and disobedient to God. It is intended to awaken in someone the urge to return to the community, since outside of it, there is no salvation.

Regards

 

[Solo]

Let's look at the Council of Trent's quote more closely...

"If any one saith, that the sacraments of the New Law are not necessary unto salvation, but superfluous; and that, without them, or without the desire thereof, men obtain of God, through faith alone, the grace of justification..."

As I said before - even a pagan Indian in North America in 1560 conceivably fall under the auspice of the above, dependent upon that person's individual acceptance of the Natural Law that God's Spirit imprints on each and every one of us... The underlined words clearly tell us that it is NOT ABSOLUTELY necessary to receive the sacraments - it is NORMATIVE (if we know about them and refuse to receive, then we are rejecting Christ and community with His people.)

By the way, "anathema" means that a person is removed from the community. If a person dies in such a state, refusing to repent, they are in trouble (see 1 Cor 5). It doesn't mean someone is condemned to hell by the Church! Man condemns himself for being obstinate and disobedient to God. It is intended to awaken in someone the urge to return to the community, since outside of it, there is no salvation.

Regards

The Roman Catholic Church has no say in whether one is a member of the body of Jesus Christ or not. Jesus is the head of the Church, not the pope. Jesus does not need for some flamboyant "vicar" to stand in for him while the Holy Spirit indwells each member of the body of Christ.

 

[stovebolts]

The Roman Catholic Church has no say in whether one is a member of the body of Jesus Christ or not. Jesus is the head of the Church, not the pope. Jesus does not need for some flamboyant "vicar" to stand in for him while the Holy Spirit indwells each member of the body of Christ.

That's right! It's the baptist! :-D

Ok ok, sorry

 

[francisdesales]

The Roman Catholic Church has no say in whether one is a member of the body of Jesus Christ or not. Jesus is the head of the Church, not the pope. Jesus does not need for some flamboyant "vicar" to stand in for him while the Holy Spirit indwells each member of the body of Christ.

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to have it. I won't be condemning you to hell anytime soon for having it... However, the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition DO support a visible head on earth to "support the faith of the brothers", to "feed the sheep", to "bind and loosen" infallibly, "given the keys", and so forth. The fact of the matter remains that the Church is on a journey through this world - and as long as it is partly human, it will have a visible human authority guided by God.

By the way, I like your newest picture...

Regards

 

[Solo]

That's your opinion, and you are entitled to have it. I won't be condemning you to hell anytime soon for having it... However, the Scriptures and Apostolic Tradition DO support a visible head on earth to "support the faith of the brothers", to "feed the sheep", to "bind and loosen" infallibly, "given the keys", and so forth. The fact of the matter remains that the Church is on a journey through this world - and as long as it is partly human, it will have a visible human authority guided by God.

By the way, I like your newest picture...

Regards

I am a visable head on this earth in the body of Christ, I also support the faith of the brothers in Christ Jesus, I also feed the sheep, and I bind and loose with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me. I also have the keys of heaven to preach the gospel to the lost so that they may be saved, and I do not have to rely on paganistic, worldly garbage to promote Jesus Christ. No where does the scriptures say that anyone but Jesus Christ will be the head of the Church, and the pope is not the head of the church.

Thanks for the compliment on my newest picture.

 

[Fulton Sheen's Warrior]

+JMJ+

I am a visable head on this earth in the body of Christ, I also support the faith of the brothers in Christ Jesus, I also feed the sheep, and I bind and loose with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me.

The problem with this is that our Blessed Lord never asked you or me, or francesdesailes. He only asked one man on this earth to feed his sheep.

I also have the keys of heaven to preach the gospel to the lost so that they may be saved,

Did he give them to all the apostles? Or just to Peter?

and I do not have to rely on paganistic, worldly garbage to promote Jesus Christ.

We agree on this.

No where does the scriptures say that anyone but Jesus Christ will be the head of the Church, and the pope is not the head of the church.

Jesus is the head of the Church. Do you notice how our Blessed Lord never says to Peter, "Feed your sheep"? He says "Feed my sheep?". Why would Jesus pull Peter aside and ask Him to feed his sheep?

Delegation?

Oh....and I like your picture too. :wink:



[/i]

 

[francisdesales]

I am a visable head on this earth in the body of Christ, I also support the faith of the brothers in Christ Jesus, I also feed the sheep, and I bind and loose with the infallibility of the Holy Spirit who dwells within me. I also have the keys of heaven to preach the gospel to the lost so that they may be saved, and I do not have to rely on paganistic, worldly garbage to promote Jesus Christ. No where does the scriptures say that anyone but Jesus Christ will be the head of the Church, and the pope is not the head of the church.

Thanks for the compliment on my newest picture.

Solo,

As I have said before, Scripture can and DOES have multiple meanings. Even in the Old Testament, we find that God communicates on several levels. Do you agree? Thus, we can spiritualize much of what the Scriptures tell us and apply it even to ourselves. Much of the commands and precepts and gifts given to the first disciples of Christ can also be applied to us in a spiritual sense. CERTAINLY, we are all told we are the light of the world, the city on the hill. In the literal sense, Jesus is refering to those first disciples, not us.

However, as you know, Scripture is meant for ALL generations. Thus, we can read it and take something out of it for US! Scripture is not JUST a history book that relays information on what a person called Jesus of Nazareth did 2000 years ago. If so, it would be an interesting story, perhaps a good example to follow (by the way, there are many liberals who understand the Bible in that sense ALONE - that Jesus wasn't God... direct your ire in that direction!), but nothing more...

However, because Scripture is God's Word meant for ALL generations, we CAN interpret commands given to actual people and see them as God speaking to us directly to do the SAME THINGS! Yes, Solo, we are 'commanded' to spread the Gospel. Yes, Solo, we are 'commanded' to pick up our cross and follow our Savior. Although these words were NEVER spoken to us by Jesus Christ, we understand that they ARE for us and indeed, we believe that God IS speaking to us through these Words written 2000 years ago... These words are given to the Disciples of Christ, and 2000 years later, WE ARE the disciples of Christ. WE ARE the continuation of the Community established by Christ, and these perogatives apply to us as well.

With that all said, however, this does NOT, absolutely does NOT eliminate the original intent of those Words of Christ given to the actual men present. It was to Peter SPECIFICALLY that the command was given to feed the sheep, the keeper of the keys, given the power to bind and loosen, and to strengthen the brothers. LITERALLY. And thus, we have the literal AND spiritual sense of the Sacred Scriptures. It reveals to us God's Word to mankind, both 2000 years ago and today. Amazingly, the same words are applicable, in DIFFERENT ways, to ALL disciples. Thus, your interpretations are only partially correct. Your spiritual interpretation does NOT delete the literal sense in that God established a visible Church with a heirarchy to teach and preach the Gospel and to allow Christ to draw all things to Himself. We have a visible community on earth that the "world" can see and point to, a body of teachings that can be known and a point of unity that can be seen - the Pope. Thus, as many instances, the Scriptures, from God Himself, have multiple meanings that do NOT cancel each other out.

Yes, I like your picture. I tried to post an icon of "Extreme Humility", which is an Eastern icon of Jesus Christ with hands tied, crown of thorns on the head standing in front of the cross - done in the Eastern manner (rather than the more "realistic" Western manner), but it didn't work out.

Regards

 

[Solo]

James Cardinal Gibbons, a Catholic Archbishop said, "Jesus our Lord, founded but one Church, which He was pleased to build on Peter. Therefore, any church that does not recognize Peter as its foundation stone is not the Church of Christ, and therefore cannot stand, for it is not the work of God." (The Faith of Our Fathers, p. 82). The apostle Paul said, "For other foundation no one can lay, but that which has been laid, which is Christ Jesus" (1 Cor. 3:11). There is no other foundation but Christ! Therefore, any church which does not recognize Christ alone as the foundation stone cannot be the church of Christ.

Catholic writers often speak of "the primacy of Peter" and "the primacy of the Pope." However, Col. 1:18, speaking of Christ, says, "And he is the head of the body, the church, who is the beginning, the first-born from the dead; that in all things he may hold the primacy..." Thus, with reference to the authority in the church, the Lord Jesus Christ holds the primacy in all things. This leaves nothing for the Pope!

Catholics claim that the Pope is the visible head of the church. Please notice the following from Catholic sources:

• "The pope, therefore, as vicar of Christ, is the visible head of Christ's kingdom on earth, the Church, of which Christ Himself is the invisible head." (Answer Wisely, by Martin J. Scott, p. 49).
  
  "According to the will of Christ, all its members profess the same faith, have the same worship and Sacraments, and are united under the one and same visible head, the Pope." (Father Smith Instructs Jackson, by John F. Noll and Lester J. Fallon, p. 42)

Catholic officials always use the word "visible" no doubt thinking that it removes the thought of the Pope standing in opposition to the headship of Christ, and removes the apparent problem of having a church with two heads. Nonetheless, the Scriptures nowhere teach the idea of a visible and invisible head. Jesus said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matt. 28:18; Emp. mine D.R.).

 

[Solo]

Question: "Was Saint Peter the first Pope?"

Answer: The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. It maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter 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. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.â€Â

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18 Christ built His church upon Peter. It also claims that if some people (such as the Reformers of the 1500’s) reject the pope’s authority, they are rejecting his God-appointed apostolic authority and thus they are rejecting the true church.

But 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, nowhere 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).

Also, 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 as infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). 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 authorityâ€Â, but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...†(Acts 20:28-32). 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 by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (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.

Recommended Resource: The Gospel According to Rome: Comparing Catholic Tradition and The Word of God by James McCarthy.

Retrieved from http://www.gotquestions.org/Peter-first-pope.html