Refuting Catholic Church bogus claim of succession...

[Andrew]

"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.

 

[Albion]

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.





.

 

[Josiah]

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.


.

.

.

 

[psalms 91]

Yup, thye are dead wrong or else lead many astray on this issue

 

[MennoSota]

"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.

 

[Andrew]

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

 

[Albion]

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).

 

[Albion]

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

It may be that this point needs a little bit more clarification, DH. The idea of a Pope figure is repulsive and wasn't even invented as a notion until centuries after Christ. And the idea that he is infallible(!)--or that all the bishops taken together are infallible, which developed later--only adds to it. None of that is either Scriptural OR, for that matter, true according to the Tradition that the opponents of Sola Scriptura talk about all the time.

However, governance by bishops is true by Scripture and was part of the church from the earliest days.

So the issue with them seems to be mainly whether they are to be chosen by or with the agreement of the congregants...or just by some Pope or other bishops.

Would you agree, or not?

 

[Andrew]

It may be that this point needs a little bit more clarification, DH. The idea of a Pope figure is repulsive and wasn't even invented as a notion until centuries after Christ. And the idea that he is infallible(!)--or that all the bishops taken together are infallible, which developed later--only adds to it. None of that is either Scriptural OR, for that matter, true according to the Tradition that the opponents of Sola Scriptura talk about all the time.

However, governance by bishops is true by Scripture and was part of the church from the earliest days.

So the issue with them seems to be mainly whether they are to be chosen by or with the agreement of the congregants...or just by some Pope or other bishops.

Would you agree, or not?

I do remember a scripture that said something about allowing the purist of men to lead the congregations/churches.
That makes sense and I agree with that, but we well know that Christ is the fullness of the Godhead, not a "vicar" who's name ('Pope') means "father"...
I do consider the possibilty that the Pope may be a Holy man... I mean I really wouldn't know because I don't know him, but I imagine he means well to go through such a vigorous process and be selected for that 'specific congregation'.
The Vatican is overflowing with controversy but it hardly reflects the average Catholic IMO, at least in the US.

I guess I can look at him as just another pastor of a church and nothing more.

 

[Albion]

What you are interested in is the Papacy in particular, then. OK. The main issue would seem to me whether or not the position is genuine, Scriptural or not, and whether it is something Christ intended rather than just a power play on the part of the bishop of Rome.

There is no way that any of those could be answered in the affirmative.

But as for the quality of the Popes, some have been holy men, and some have been just the opposite. The current one was more of a politician than a clergyman before he was elected Pope, and he continues to use his office to push for atheistic Socialism much more than he cares about religion.

As you may have noticed, just recently he has tried to brush the pedophile priests scandal under the rug (to the great discomfort of many honorable clergy), and just today he came out demanding that governments take better care of the poor--not that that is wrong in itself, but he lives in the lap of luxury himself while he makes his hypocritical pronouncements.

To be fair, however, he did invite a gathering of poor people to a free lunch on him in order to illustrate his commitment to the poor.

 

[Andrew]

What you are interested in is the Papacy in particular, then. OK. The main issue would seem to me whether or not the position is genuine, Scriptural or not, and whether it is something Christ intended rather than just a power play on the part of the bishop of Rome.

There is no way that any of those could be answered in the affirmative.

But as for the quality of the Popes, some have been holy men, and some have been just the opposite. The current one was more of a politician than a clergyman before he was elected Pope, and he continues to use his office to push for atheistic Socialism much more than he cares about religion.

As you may have noticed, just recently he has tried to brush the pedophile priests scandal under the rug (to the great discomfort of many honorable clergy), and just today he came out demanding that governments take better care of the poor--not that that is wrong in itself, but he lives in the lap of luxury himself while he makes his hypocritical pronouncements.

To be fair, however, he did invite a gathering of poor people to a free lunch on him in order to illustrate his commitment to the poor.

It bothers me that if you go the official Vatican website and look up past popes, the first one is Peter.... hmmmm, why not have 14 popes at a time for each of the Apostles? Oh that's because Peter is the rock and therefore.... nevermind.
The Pope sits on a chair that has an inverted cross engraved into it, that's because Peter was apparently hung upside down on a cross.. I like to point that out to satanist who claim inverted crosses as their symbol, not to imply that they are Catholics or that Catholics are satanic or that the Pope is, I just find it amusing is all.
Im going to leave this here
https://youtu.be/OPHRIjI3hXs

 

[Albion]

That video does a really good job of explaining what Vatican City is all about IMHO. But that is all it deals with, not the history of the Papacy or the theological side of things, unfortunately. I guess you cant expect everything in one installment.

 

[Andrew]

That video does a really good job of explaining what Vatican City is all about IMHO. But that is all it deals with, not the history of the Papacy or the theological side of things, unfortunately. I guess you cant expect everything in one installment.

Yeah this fellow has another video explaining the papacy in great detail but he totally leaves out the theology of it all -although he makes it perfectly clear that the Pope of Vatican city is also the king of the country... which is also Vatican city :/
https://youtu.be/kF8I_r9XT7A

 

[Andrew]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]
here is a more theological video explaining the succession. It doesn't really bother me to be honest... I'll take it because like all churches do, they build it upon a particular 'mention' (im just going to call it that for the sake of "Pete's sake") -in scripture that -fast forward- relates to the church today somehow... (like the 7 letters to the 7 separate personalities of individual churches)... did I lose anyone? lol

https://youtu.be/2GNMxBM7Sr4

 

[MennoSota]

[MENTION=389]Albion[/MENTION]
here is a more theological video explaining the succession. It doesn't really bother me to be honest... I'll take it because like all churches do, they build it upon a particular 'mention' (im just going to call it that for the sake of "Pete's sake") -in scripture that -fast forward- relates to the church today somehow... (like the 7 letters to the 7 separate personalities of individual churches)... did I lose anyone? lol

https://youtu.be/2GNMxBM7Sr4

LOL, shop for Peter's items at...
This video made me laugh.
Hoff, you may have meant it to be serious, but when the narrator started hawking little Peter relics I just started laughing. At least she didn't go all Tetzel and start selling indulgences.

 

[Andrew]

LOL, shop for Peter's items at...
This video made me laugh.
Hoff, you may have meant it to be serious, but when the narrator started hawking little Peter relics I just started laughing. At least she didn't go all Tetzel and start selling indulgences.

Well many denominations do seem to be rather silly am I right?

 

[Arsenios]

LOL, shop for Peter's items at...
This video made me laugh.
Hoff, you may have meant it to be serious, but when the narrator started hawking little Peter relics I just started laughing.

Relics are a pan-Christian feature of the Historic Church of Christ, where one's witness was martyrdom, and the bodies of the martyrs that result are holy... Having a physical connection with the Faith of Christ is something the faithful do... The stone that the Myrrh bearing women found rolled away at Christ's Tomb no longer exists - The faithful kept taking little pieces from it to have in their homes where they did their daily rule of prayer... Until it was all gone...

The Latin Church does tend to sell its relics - And for awhile, they had so many they were just going to get rid of a bunch of the older ones, and the Orthodox begged them to be given their custody, and many were retrieved in this manner... I know that in my limited experience, you cannot buy a relic, but if you want one, a donation to the monastery that is giving it to you is expected, but not required... They are never, to my knowledge, "advertised"... You have to ask around if you want a relic for some Saint... My Saint, Arsenios the Great, died in 450AD, and finding a relic of his has so far proved impossible... Indeed, I would travel some distance to where one might be simply to venerate it... But so far, stateside, no luck... Later Arsenioses, yes, but not the first one...

We humanly do much the same, burying the dead, visiting their graves, keeping their pictures and mementos... For the Christians, because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, the martyred bodies of our Saints are a treasury of Holy Relics... Every Orthodox Christian Altar has a Martyr's Relic sewn into the Cloth of the Altar where the Gifts are consecrated... Without such a cloth provided by the Bishop, no Services of Consecration of the Gifts can be done... The human bodies of the Saints are Holy, and Salvation is of soul and body, because man was created first body then soul...

Christ became a human person, body and soul, for the Salvation of the human person, body and soul... And the human body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit... The Gnostics and other neo-Platonists tend to see the human body as evil, but Christians purge evils from their bodies that the Holy Spirit should abide there... Doing evils results in the departure of God's Grace from the body of the evil-doer... Repenting from evils invites the Holy Spirit to return and abide... Christians do not see the human body as evil, but as the Temple of the Holy Spirit to be maintained purged of evil in repentance and vigil... Sanctification is the process of consecration of the body and soul unto God in separation from the world - And this entails overcoming the world... Holy means not-worldly, and used only for the not-worldly sake of the Creator of all creation...

Enough for now...


Arsenios

 

[MennoSota]

Relics are a pan-Christian feature of the Historic Church of Christ, where one's witness was martyrdom, and the bodies of the martyrs that result are holy... Having a physical connection with the Faith of Christ is something the faithful do... The stone that the Myrrh bearing women found rolled away at Christ's Tomb no longer exists - The faithful kept taking little pieces from it to have in their homes where they did their daily rule of prayer... Until it was all gone...

The Latin Church does tend to sell its relics - And for awhile, they had so many they were just going to get rid of a bunch of the older ones, and the Orthodox begged them to be given their custody, and many were retrieved in this manner... I know that in my limited experience, you cannot buy a relic, but if you want one, a donation to the monastery that is giving it to you is expected, but not required... They are never, to my knowledge, "advertised"... You have to ask around if you want a relic for some Saint... My Saint, Arsenios the Great, died in 450AD, and finding a relic of his has so far proved impossible... Indeed, I would travel some distance to where one might be simply to venerate it... But so far, stateside, no luck... Later Arsenioses, yes, but not the first one...

We humanly do much the same, burying the dead, visiting their graves, keeping their pictures and mementos... For the Christians, because the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, the martyred bodies of our Saints are a treasury of Holy Relics... Every Orthodox Christian Altar has a Martyr's Relic sewn into the Cloth of the Altar where the Gifts are consecrated... Without such a cloth provided by the Bishop, no Services of Consecration of the Gifts can be done... The human bodies of the Saints are Holy, and Salvation is of soul and body, because man was created first body then soul...

Christ became a human person, body and soul, for the Salvation of the human person, body and soul... And the human body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit... The Gnostics and other neo-Platonists tend to see the human body as evil, but Christians purge evils from their bodies that the Holy Spirit should abide there... Doing evils results in the departure of God's Grace from the body of the evil-doer... Repenting from evils invites the Holy Spirit to return and abide... Christians do not see the human body as evil, but as the Temple of the Holy Spirit to be maintained purged of evil in repentance and vigil... Sanctification is the process of consecration of the body and soul unto God in separation from the world - And this entails overcoming the world... Holy means not-worldly, and used only for the not-worldly sake of the Creator of all creation...

Enough for now...


Arsenios

Enough for...ever. The whole relic schpeel is all gimmick and no substance. It goes entirely contrary to scripture while turning into a blatant form of idolatry. It must be summarily condemned by Christianity.

 

[Albion]

Saving pieces of someone's bones or clothing, etc. is one thing. It is not admirable, but it may be understandable as something that impressed peasant followers of the church in a bygone era. But what really is unforgivable is for the church to actually teach that miracles will occur or have occurred because of such items. And yet there are several denominations that do promote such superstition.

 

[Arsenios]

Enough for...ever. The whole relic schpeel is all gimmick and no substance. It goes entirely contrary to scripture while turning into a blatant form of idolatry. It must be summarily condemned by Christianity.

It has been embraced, and not comdemned, by Christianity, for 2000 years now and counting...


Arsenios