• Amused
  • Angry
  • Annoyed
  • Awesome
  • Bemused
  • Cool
  • Crazy
  • Crying
  • Depressed
  • Down
  • Embarrassed
  • Enraged
  • Friendly
  • Geeky
  • Grumpy
  • Happy
  • Hungry
  • Innocent
  • Meh
  • Piratey
  • Poorly
  • Sad
  • Secret
  • Shy
  • Sneaky
  • Tired
  • Results 1 to 7 of 7
    1. #1
      DHoffmann's Avatar
      DHoffmann is offline Veteran Member
      34
      Mood:
      Amused
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2017
      Posts
      2,125
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      10,674
      CH Challenge
      159
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      10,811
      Level
      30
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      82.44%
      Rep Power
      328

      Refuting Catholic Church bogus claim of succession...

      "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
      Matthew 18:18-20

      What if two or three are gathered in the name of Christ but they happen to not agree with a separate group that contradicts the word of God?

      Before I continue I wish to assure everyone here at CH that I absolutely respect a strict Catholic... Why? Because I view Catholicism as a means to the masses for them to read the Word for themselves to relieve their burden if they wish to actually read the word, regardless they are still gathered believers in Christ. I believe the whole of Catholic dogma relies on the supposed succession of the popes -Peter being the first Pope. Peter believed and thus was a foundation or "rock" of Christ church just as all believers ARE. WE believers ARE the succession or better -continuance of the Church IMO.

      In the Vatican's defense all I can say is... again, 2 or more believers hold the church and each holds the key, thus if they two or three agree that penance is required than so it is for them but not necessarily for all believers.
      We all have our role in the church and there are many important divisions and functions but when one part of the body demands all must work the same function as them, it is not scriptural.
      In conclusion I denounce many Catholic beliefs to be exclusive to all masses of believers-because it just does not apply to Scripture -and to call themselves THE one and only Church of God is not an argument to defend, believing such is a complete contradiction to Scripture.
      Last edited by DHoffmann; 08-16-2018 at 07:06 PM.

    2. Likes psalms 91 liked this post
    3. #2
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,555
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,026
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,882
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.11%
      Rep Power
      540
      Quote Originally Posted by DHoffmann View Post
      I believe the whole of Catholic dogma relies on the supposed succession of the popes-Peter being the first Pope.
      That is really a shaky claim. However, I agree with you that the claims made concerning a "one true church" by the RCC or any other denomination are dead wrong.





      .
      Last edited by Albion; 08-17-2018 at 07:50 AM.

    4. Likes psalms 91 liked this post
    5. #3
      Josiah's Avatar
      Josiah is offline Bronze Member
      Supporting Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Posts
      6,772
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      117,193
      CH Challenge
      270
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      69,586
      Level
      64
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      66.35%
      Rep Power
      905
      The following comes from my Greek Orthodox friend, I simply share...






      Thoughts about Matthew 16:18


      The Roman Church directs us to Matthew 16:18 as "evidence" for its foundational claim. Let's consider what needs to be proven for this to have any credibility...


      1) The promise of Matthew 16:18 has reference to "Peter."


      Response: Matthew 16:18 may not even refer to Peter. We can see that 'Petros' is not the "petra' on which Jesus will build his church. In 7:24, the 'petra' consists of Jesus' teaching, i.e., the law of Christ. 'This rock' no longer poses the problem that 'this' is ill suits an address to Peter in which he is the rock. For that meaning the text would have read more naturally 'on you.' Instead, the demonstrative echoes 7:24; i.e., 'this rock' echoes 'these my words.' Only Matthew put the demonstrative with Jesus words, which the rock stood for in the following parable (7:24-27). His reusing it in 16:18 points away from Peter to those same words as the foundation of the church. Matthew's Jesus will build only on the firm bedrock of his teaching and truth (5:19-20; 28:19), not on the loose rubble of Peter. Also, we no longer need to explain away the association of the church's foundation with Christ rather than Peter in Mt 21:42.


      2) The promise of Mt 16:18 has "exclusive" reference to Peter.

      Response: There a the power-sharing arrangement in Matthew 18:17-18 and John 20:23.



      3) The promise of Matthew 16:18 has reference to a Petrine "office."

      Response: The conception of a Petrine office is borrowed from Roman bureaucratic categories (officium) and read back into this verse via eisegesis. The original promise is indexed to the person of Peter, says the Roman Church. There is no textual assertion or implication whatsoever to the effect that the promise is separable from the person of Peter. If the keys were given to PETER, they are still Peters; imposing the Roman idea of officium is entirely baseless.



      4) This Roman "offficium" is "perpetual"

      Response: In 16:18, perpetuity is attributed to the church, not to a "officium" or a given Apostle.



      5) Peter resided in "Rome"


      Response: there is some evidence that Peter paid a visit to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). There is some evidence that Peter also paid a visit to Corinth (1 Cor 1:12; 9:5). He surely did not found the church in Rome. Paul served in MANY cities. There is no evidence that Paul had any official ministry in Rome.



      6) Peter was the "bishop" of Rome

      Response: Even if Peter ever was in Rome, an Apostle is not a bishop. Apostleship is a vocation, not an office, analogous to the prophetic calling. Or, if you prefer, it's an extraordinary rather than ordinary office. There is no evidence that Paul was ever a bishop - in Rome or anywhere else; He was an Apostle.



      7) Peter was the "first" bishop of Rome


      Response: The original Church of Rome was probably organized by Messianic Jews like Priscilla and Aquilla (Acts 18:2; Romans 16:3). It wasn't founded by Peter. When Paul is in Rome, he makes no mention of Peter at all - as an Apostle there, as a bishop there, as a pastor there, as the Pope, or as "there" at all. In any capacity. Nor does he indicate that Peter founded the congregation there. The lack of Peter in the Book of Romans is quite stunning.



      8) There was only "one" bishop at a time

      Response: The claim is entirely baseless.



      9) Peter was not a bishop "anywhere else."

      Response: Peter presided over the Diocese of Pontus-Bithynia (1 Peter 1:1), but there's no evidence he was a BISHOP there, either.




      10) Peter "ordained" a successor


      Response: There is no support for the proposition that Peter ordained any successors. Apostles, bishops, priests or otherwise. There's no contemporary historical support for this, either. He appointed pastors in churches, but not as "successors" and none of these were in Rome.



      11) This ceremony "transferred" his official prerogatives to a successor.

      Response: The Roman popes are elected to papal office, they are not ordained to papal office. There is no separate or special sacrament of papal orders as over against priestly orders. If Peter ordained a candidate, that would just make him a pastor, not an Apostle or Pope.




      12) The succession has remained "unbroken" up to the present day.


      Response: There is no straight-line deduction from Matthew 16:18 to the papacy of the Roman Church. What we have is, at best, a long chain of possible inferences, a loy of "connecting the dots of assumptions." It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument and the whole "house of cards" to come tumbling down. Also, the "list" of the bishops in Rome is retroactively created long after the fact and simply is a list of bishops, except for the first name on the list (see all the points above).



      These are not petty objections. In order to get from Peter to the modern Roman papacy you have to establish every exegetical and historical link in the chain. 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. But other issues aside, this admits that there is no straight-line deduction from Matthew 16:18 to the Roman papacy. What we have is, at best, a chain of possible inferences. all unsubstantiated. It only takes one broken link anywhere up or down the line to destroy the argument. Moreover, only the very first link has any apparent hook in Matthew 16:18. The entire house of cards depends on Roman tradition and dogma. Their traditional support is thin and equivocal while the dogmatic appeal is self-serving.



      .



      .

      .
      Last edited by Josiah; 10-23-2018 at 10:27 AM.
      We are justified by works - just not our own.

    6. Likes Arsenios liked this post
    7. #4
      psalms 91's Avatar
      psalms 91 is offline Silver Member
      Moderator
      Supporting Member
      69
      Mood:
      Happy
       
      Join Date
      Jun 2015
      Location
      Pa
      Posts
      12,834
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      2,155
      CH Challenge
      89
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (3,643,050 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      56,185
      Level
      59
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      72.95%
      Rep Power
      591
      Yup, thye are dead wrong or else lead many astray on this issue
      Isaiah 40:31

    8. #5
      MennoSota is offline Expert Member
      Mood:
      ----
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      4,055
      CH Cash
      17,079
      CH Challenge
      232
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      16,538
      Level
      36
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      81.31%
      Rep Power
      424
      Quote Originally Posted by DHoffmann View Post
      "Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them."
      Matthew 18:18-20

      What if two or three are gathered in the name of Christ but they happen to not agree with a separate group that contradicts the word of God?

      Before I continue I wish to assure everyone here at CH that I absolutely respect a strict Catholic... Why? Because I view Catholicism as a means to the masses for them to read the Word for themselves to relieve their burden if they wish to actually read the word, regardless they are still gathered believers in Christ. I believe the whole of Catholic dogma relies on the supposed succession of the popes -Peter being the first Pope. Peter believed and thus was a foundation or "rock" of Christ church just as all believers ARE. WE believers ARE the succession or better -continuance of the Church IMO.

      In the Vatican's defense all I can say is... again, 2 or more believers hold the church and each holds the key, thus if they two or three agree that penance is required than so it is for them but not necessarily for all believers.
      We all have our role in the church and there are many important divisions and functions but when one part of the body demands all must work the same function as them, it is not scriptural.
      In conclusion I denounce many Catholic beliefs to be exclusive to all masses of believers-because it just does not apply to Scripture -and to call themselves THE one and only Church of God is not an argument to defend, believing such is a complete contradiction to Scripture.
      Matthew 18 is in reference to church discipline and the order in which a person is to confront his brother or sister when they are in sin.
      You have taken the passage out of context, therefore your assertion is faulty.

    9. #6
      DHoffmann's Avatar
      DHoffmann is offline Veteran Member
      34
      Mood:
      Amused
       
      Join Date
      Aug 2017
      Posts
      2,125
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      10,674
      CH Challenge
      159
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      10,811
      Level
      30
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      82.44%
      Rep Power
      328
      Quote Originally Posted by MennoSota View Post
      Matthew 18 is in reference to church discipline and the order in which a person is to confront his brother or sister when they are in sin.
      You have taken the passage out of context, therefore your assertion is faulty.
      I am merely citing the RCC claim that Jesus ordained a kingship/ order of priesthood/succession in his name for sake of The Church.
      I believe we are agreeing... this is an older thread btw

    10. #7
      Albion's Avatar
      Albion is offline Expert Member
      Married
      Mood:
      Friendly
       
      Join Date
      Sep 2017
      Posts
      2,555
      Country
      United States
      CH Cash
      13,026
      CH Challenge
      298
      Post Thanks / Like
      CH Cash
      (0 Banked)
      vBActivity - Stats
      Points
      17,882
      Level
      38
      vBActivity - Bars
      Lv. Percent
      2.11%
      Rep Power
      540
      I may have missed an important point made in the OP, but the early church as we know it from both Scripture and ordinary history certainly did have some order, and leaders or officers, appointed clergy we would now call them.

      It is not the case that whatever a couple of believers got together to do in the name of the Lord was accepted as valid. The issue, then, can be about the proper set-up versus an incorrect one, but not that there doesn't need to be one (unless all we are talking about is Bible study or simple fellowship).

    Bookmarks

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •