The Biblical Basis for Catholic Distinctives

[Enoch111]

Bercsuse YOU have decisded that since Pau doesn't mention Peter explicitly in his Epistle to the Romans - this somehow "proves" that Peter wasn't there as Bishop??

Since the Catholic Church has made the papacy its key doctrine, then logic and commonsense demand that Peter be shown to be "THE bishop" of Rome in the Bible. The church at Rome was a leading Christian church in apostolic times, and Paul has a whole list of people that he commends in that church. But nary a whisper about Peter. On the other hand Peter calls all of Paul's epistles "Scripture". All of which means that the church of Rome under a papacy is a TOTAL FRAUD.

 

[Berserk]

Enoch111: "Since the Catholic Church has made the papacy its key doctrine,"

Nope!

Enoch: "...then logic and commonsense demand that Peter be shown to be "THE bishop" of Rome in the Bible."
"Bishop" just means 'overseer and obviously Peter would have been the highest authority in the Roman church while he was ministering there.
The "overseer" of Rome isn't called bishop until centuries later in the time of Leo.

Enoch: "The church at Rome was a leading Christian church in apostolic times,"

In apostolic times? You have no evidence for that claim--or for anything else you claim.

Enoch: "and Paul has a whole list of people that he commends in that church. But nary a whisper about Peter."

Duh, that's because Paul writes Romans before Peter arrives there.

Enoch: "On the other hand Peter calls all of Paul's epistles "Scripture".

All? The number of Pauline epistles available to Peter is unknown. "Graphe" in 2 Peter 3:15-16 means "writings" since no NT canon had yet been created. Peter was far more eminent than Paul. Paul needed Peter's approval for his brand of Gospel (Gal. 1:18-2:10) an even Barnabas later sided with Peter against Paul in their dispute (Gal. 2:11-13).

Enoch: "All of which means that the church of Rome under a papacy is a TOTAL FRAUD."

"All of which means" you know almost nothing about early church history. We know from Papias, Clement, and other ancient sources that Peter ministered in Rome around 64 AD after which he was martyred there. But before he was martyred, he appointed Linus as his successor in Rome and apostolic succession took off from there.

So your silence on the current topic (praying to saints) suggests your compliance or at least your inability to mount a biblical objectionl. On which other Catholic distinctive would you like biblical instruction?

 

[BreadOfLife]

Since the Catholic Church has made the papacy its key doctrine, then logic and commonsense demand that Peter be shown to be "THE bishop" of Rome in the Bible. The church at Rome was a leading Christian church in apostolic times, and Paul has a whole list of people that he commends in that church. But nary a whisper about Peter. On the other hand Peter calls all of Paul's epistles "Scripture". All of which means that the church of Rome under a papacy is a TOTAL FRAUD.

What's interesting is that when a Catholic points an honest Protestant to the Early Church and shows what THEY believed in and taught - he is taken aback and made to think.
However, when a Catholic shows this to dishonest anti-Catholics with an ax to grind - they usually blow it off and claim that the Early Church abandoned "real" Christianty. The REASON for this is because you rely on your man-made, 16th century invention of Sola Scriptura - and historuu gpoes right out the window.

Unfortunately for YOU - it was 300 uears AFTER the Apostles walked the earth that the Church declared the Canon of Scripture (382 AD). You see - contrary to what YOU were taught - the Bible didn't just fall out of the sky into Martun KLither's hands.
Before this - nobody was walking arounbd with a Bible under theitr arm because there was NO such thing.
Meanwhile, ALL of the ECFs that you anti-Catholics love to quote in vaiin attempts to refute Catholic theology UNSNIMOUSLY taught that not only was Peter in Rome with Paul - but that he was its first Bishop.

Some of the other things they taught were -
- Infant Baptism/Baptismal Regeneration
- The Real Presence/Eucharist
- Apostolic Succession
- Purgatory
- Church Hierarchy - Bishops, Priests, Deacpns
. . . and many more.

And they taught that ALL of this was handed down to them by the Apostles - and quoted the Scripture verses to substantiate it all. In fat - some of them, like Ignatius of Antioch and Polycarp actually knew the Apostles personally and were students of theirs.

But YOU keep rejecting the facts and keep clinging to your false doctrine which didn't see the olight of day until 1500 years AFTER the Jesus ascended to the Father . . .

 

[Mink57]

Except that there is one little anomaly that Catholics love to ignore. If Peter had indeed been "THE bishop" of Rome (which would never have happened since all apostolic churches had a plurality of elder/bishops) then Paul would have at least mentioned him ONCE in his epistle to the Romans. The fact that Peter is missing from that epistle means that the Catholic church has MANUFACTURED their doctrine of the pope. But they did resort to the pagan popery of Pontifex Maximus to come up with "Il Papa".

1. Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.
2. Just a reminder:

"Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of his disciples that are not written in this book. But these are written that you may come to believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God and that through this belief you may have life in his name." John 20:30-31. (emphasis added by me)

And...

"There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written." John 21:25.

Both of these verses remind me that just because "something" isn't written in the bible, the lack of the written word IN THE BIBLE is NOT EVIDENCE that "something" didn't happen at all. Ever.

Taking the stance of speculation and assumption is dangerous, at best.

 

[Enoch111]

Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

In this case there must be clear BIBILICAL evidence since the churches at Jerusalem and Rome were contemporaneous. We know that Peter was at the church of Jerusalem (as the apostle to the "circumcision"). So if indeed God changed His plans and made him "THE bishop of Rome" (and apostle to the Gentiles), then Scripture would have brought this to light.

So what do we see in Paul's epistle to the Romans?

1. THE CHURCH AT ROME WAS A GENTILE CHURCH
Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let [prevented] hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. (Rom 1:13)

2. PAUL AS THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES WOULD GO TO THEM
Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. (Rom 15:24)

3. PAUL SENT GREETINGS TO MORE THAN 29 CHRISTIANS, BUT PETER IS NOT MENTIONED -- AND THAT IS NOT ODD?.
The following Christians are commended or greeted in this epistle: Phebe, Priscilla and Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis,
Rufus and his mother, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philologus, Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas.

 

[Illuminator]

Yes, yes... "scholars." :) We can all find plenty of people, even "scholars," who say what we like to hear concerning just about anything. I can name just as many "scholars" who will refute those "scholars." Where are we then? Right back where we started, right?

You haven't named any, and refuse to accept that educated Protestants have backed away from 16th century prejudices where the grammar doesn't make sense.

Just because they may or may not be many does not make them right. Right? And again, I can find just as many "scholars," if not more, that constitute a very different consensus.

Truth is objective, not subjective.

Beyond all that, God is His own arbiter. Most of the time, scriptural passages can be made clearer by other scriptural passages. And this is what I showed in the scriptures I pointed out. I can go further, but I believe what I said to be quite sufficient.

For the third time, Catholics agree that God is the rock of the Church, but this does not mean He cannot confer this distinction upon Peter as well, to facilitate the unity He desires for the Church.

Not necessarily, no; it depends on the context, as I'm sure you will agree. And the fact is that your "scholars" do just that concerning Jesus's statements in Matthew 16, they take it out of context...

Quote from posts 232, 231 instead of blanket pontifications that don't prove anything.

along with making a grammatical error in assigning a different antecedent (Peter) to 'this' than what the true antecedent (Peter's confession, and the subject and object of that confession is God Himself (the triune Jehovah) is in that passage.

That's your OUTDATED opinion. Furthermore, in quoting “on this rock,” the Scriptures use the Greek construction “tautee tee” which means on “this” rock; on “this same” rock; or on “this very” rock. “Tautee tee” is a demonstrative construction in Greek, pointing to Peter, the subject of the sentence (and not his confession of faith as some non-Catholics argue) as the very rock on which Jesus builds His Church. The demonstrative (“tautee”) generally refers to its closest antecedent (“Petros”). Also, there is no place in Scripture where “faith” is equated with “rock.”

 

[BreadOfLife]

In this case there must be clear BIBILICAL evidence since the churches at Jerusalem and Rome were contemporaneous. We know that Peter was at the church of Jerusalem (as the apostle to the "circumcision"). So if indeed God changed His plans and made him "THE bishop of Rome" (and apostle to the Gentiles), then Scripture would have brought this to light.

So what do we see in Paul's epistle to the Romans?

1. THE CHURCH AT ROME WAS A GENTILE CHURCH
Now I would not have you ignorant, brethren, that oftentimes I purposed to come unto you, (but was let [prevented] hitherto,) that I might have some fruit among you also, even as among other Gentiles. (Rom 1:13)

2. PAUL AS THE APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES WOULD GO TO THEM
Whensoever I take my journey into Spain, I will come to you: for I trust to see you in my journey, and to be brought on my way thitherward by you, if first I be somewhat filled with your company. (Rom 15:24)

3. PAUL SENT GREETINGS TO MORE THAN 29 CHRISTIANS, BUT PETER IS NOT MENTIONED -- AND THAT IS NOT ODD?.
The following Christians are commended or greeted in this epistle: Phebe, Priscilla and Aquila, Epaenetus, Mary, Andronicus and Junia, Amplias, Urbane, Stachys, Apelles, Aristobulus, Herodion, Narcissus, Tryphena and Tryphosa, Persis,
Rufus and his mother, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes, Philologus, Julia, Nereus, and his sister, and Olympas.

And, as I stated in post #306 - it was the UNANIMOUS testimony of the Early Church that not only was Peter IN Rome - but that he was its first Bishop. I have posted SOME of them below.

So - are YOU prepared to make the claim that ALL of the ECFs were "lying" and simply part of a giant conspiracy to to make the work think that Peter was in Rome with Paul?

And IF they were indeed nothing more than a dishonest conspiracy - like EVERY OTHER conspiracy, you will need to show contrary testimony from that period which makes different claijms about Peter.
There is not a SINGLE controversial period or event in history that does NOT have some evodence for BOTH arguments.

I'm not asking to you "prove" that Peter wasn't in Rome. I am simply asking you for some historical EVIDENCE to the contrary.
Unlike YOU - I qould NEVER be so quick to accept something about an historical figureas as absolute truth unless I heard BOTH sides.

So - please pressent some sort of hiatorical evidence that Peter NEVER went to Rome - NOR was he the Bishop of Rome.
This should be very EASY for you . . .
Dionysius of Corinth
You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time (Letter to Soter of Rome [inter A.D. 166 -174] as recorded by Eusebius).

Irenaeus
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter (Against Heresies 3:1:1 [A.D. 189]).

Tertullian
Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the Gospel and even sealed it with their blood (Against Marcion 4:5:1 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Eusebius
The Apostle Peter, after he has established the Church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains bishop of that city, preaching the Gospel for twenty-five years (The Chronicle, Ad An. Dom. 42 [A.D. 303]).
When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed. Having composed the Gospel, he gave it to those who had requested it (Ecclesiastical History 6:14:1 [A.D. 325]).

Peter of Alexandria
Peter, the first chosen of the Apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome (Canonical Letter, canon 9 [A.D. 306]).

Lactantius
When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero, he noticed that not only at Rome but everywhere great multitudes were daily abandoning the worship of idols, and, condemning their old ways, were going over to the new religion. Being that he was a detestable and pernicious tyrant, he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter, he fixed to a cross; and Paul, he slew (The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5 [inter A.D. 316-320]).

Cyril of Jerusalem
[Simon Magus] so deceived the City of Rome that Claudius erected a statue of him, and wrote beneath it in the language of the Romans Simoni Deo Sancto, which is translated To the Holy God Simon. While the error was extending itself Peter and Paul arrived, a noble pair and the rulers of the Church; and they set the error aright… for Peter was there, he that carries about the keys of heaven (Catechetical Lectures 6:14 [A.D. 350]).

Damasus
The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the Apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it. The second see, however, is that at Alexandria, consecrated in behalf of blessed Peter by Mark, his disciple and an evangelist, who was sent to Egypt by the Apostle Peter, where he preached the word of truth and finished his glorious martyrdom. The third honorable see, indeed, is that at Antioch, which belonged to the most blessed Apostle Peter, where first he dwelt before he came to Rome, and where the name Christians was first applied, as to a new people (The Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

Like I said - Mortal sin which involves grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.
Grabe matter can involve any violation of the Commandments - depending on the severity.

For example - stealing a pencil from work wouldn't be grave matter.
However, embezzling large sums pof money would probaby be grave matter. Murder, adultery, fornication - even gossip, depemnding on the severuty.

There is no difference between someone who steals a pencil and someone who embezzles large sums of money. The perps in both circumstances are committing the same act. That's what God concerns Himself with, not the value of the objects being stolen.

As James taught, stealing is just as evil as murdering someone because all sin stems from someone putting themselves in the place of God. The Catholic view of sin is 100% wrong, and it's clearly not based on what the Bible teaches. There is no such thing as a "minor" sin because all sin separates people from God, and all sin leads the people who practice it to the same destination.

On what grounds? Bible truth or Catholic beliefs? Big difference.

The fact that Protestantism inherited a lot of Catholic dogma and traditions is proof that the Reformers were all entrenched in heresy. Aside from a few tenets and traditions, there is no discernible difference between Protestantism and Catholicism.

It wasn't that long after the Reformation that Martin started to war against other Reformers. They believed it was necessary to fully break from Catholic beliefs and practices in order to truly practice what the Bible taught, but he fought them hard on it. That is a historic fact, but Protestants romanticize the Reformation because they're ignorant of the fact that Martin Luther's only problem was with the papal authority, not the religion itself. I can post a quote from Martin Luther himself where he attempted to defend his practicing Mass and the Eucharist against the attacks of another Reformer.

When it's all said and done, the Reformers were nothing more than Catholic theologians who split off from the RCC and started Catholic splinter groups that were based on rejecting centralized authority of any kind. It is for that reason Protestants don't like to be shown Paul's very clear writings about God's true Church having a hierarchy where there is one man at the top.

@Illuminator

Just to add a little to your eloquent post, even JESUS didn't SOLELY rely on scripture for his teaching.

Jesus Himself said He only spoke whatever the Father commanded Him to speak, and the Father would not have Jesus use extra-biblical sources as the basis of Christian doctrine. That's the whole point behind Jesus quoting Deut. 8:3 where it says man is supposed to live by what God says and only what He says. If the Bible doesn't support a doctrine or practice, it isn't Christian. It's really that simple.

 

[BreadOfLife]

There is no difference between someone who steals a pencil and someone who embezzles large sums of money. The perps in both circumstances are committing the same act. That's what God concerns Himself with, not the value of the objects being stolen.

As James taught, stealing is just as evil as murdering someone because all sin stems from someone putting themselves in the place of God. The Catholic view of sin is 100% wrong, and it's clearly not based on what the Bible teaches. There is no such thing as a "minor" sin because all sin separates people from God, and all sin leads the people who practice it to the same destination.
The fact that Protestantism inherited a lot of Catholic dogma and traditions is proof that the Reformers were all entrenched in heresy. Aside from a few tenets and traditions, there is no discernible difference between Protestantism and Catholicism..

And this is precisely the type of NONSENSE that is indiccative of a beginner’s understanding of Scripture.
Perhaps another Bible Lesson is needed here . . .

First of all – James NEVER says that ALL sin is the same – or as YOU pu it, “stealing is just as evil as murdering someone”.

James was making the point that according to the LAW (Mosaic Law) if you break ANY of it – you have violated the Law. NOWHERE does he say that every aspect of the Law is that same – because some violations require DEATH, while others don’t.

He states:
James 2:11
For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” said also, “Do not kill.” If you do not commit adultery but do kill, you have become a transgressor of the law.

James was writing to JEWISH Christians, so context is key.
Remember what Jesus said about sin:

Matt. 5:19:
Whoever then relaxes (breaks) one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Jesus is teaching that are indeed “least commandments” that someone can break - and even teach others to do so – and STILL remain in the kingdom of heaven.

HOWEVER, as few verses later, He teaches that there are other sins that will make us “liable to the hell of fire” (Matt. 5: 22). In Matt. 5:28-28, Jesus states that the sin of adultery can land you in hell.
Matt. 12:32 is about the “unforgiveable sin" against the Holy Spirit which is a damnable offense.

In I John 5:16-18, John ALSO differentiates between lesser sins (venial) and sin that causes death (mortal).

So, YOUR claim that ALL sin is the “same” is just another 16th century man-made invention – similar to the unbiblical doctrines of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fide from the same period.

 

[Marymog]

You try to express Spiritual things with a Carnal minded understanding, and it’s a fail. Your recourse is to call names and make snarky remarks.

Lol...Hold on kiddo...HOLD ON!

YOU are the one with your carnal mind that determined "the Catholic institution has some things right and some things wrong. The protestant institutions have some things right and some things wrong" and you accuse ME of it? F A S C I N A T I N G......

 

[Taken]

Lol...Hold on kiddo...HOLD ON!

YOU are the one with your carnal mind that determined "the Catholic institution has some things right and some things wrong. The protestant institutions have some things right and some things wrong" and you accuse ME of it? F A S C I N A T I N G......

LOL moggy....

 

[Taken]

Strike 3+...you're out.
So be it.

 

[Taken]

anti-Catholics . . .

 

[Marymog]

LOL moggy....

You crack me up Taken....When you get called out on your non-sensical way of thinking you revert to snarky responses that mean nothing. I have proven you wrong time and time again. Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong? I'm not tired of proving you wrong......

 

[Marymog]

Since the Catholic Church has made the papacy its key doctrine, then logic and commonsense demand that Peter be shown to be "THE bishop" of Rome in the Bible. The church at Rome was a leading Christian church in apostolic times, and Paul has a whole list of people that he commends in that church. But nary a whisper about Peter. On the other hand Peter calls all of Paul's epistles "Scripture". All of which means that the church of Rome under a papacy is a TOTAL FRAUD.

Hey Enoch,

Are you saying that Peter was NEVER in Rome? OR are you saying Peter was in Rome but never Bishop of Rome?

Curious Mary

 

[Taken]

You crack me up Taken....When you get called out on your non-sensical way of thinking you revert to snarky responses that mean nothing. I have proven you wrong time and time again. Do you ever get tired of being proven wrong? I'm not tired of proving you wrong......

LOL....peewee claims

 

[Taken]

@Enoch111 ~ Have you found any Scriptural testament of Peter in Rome?

 

[Marymog]

Strike 3+...you're out.

This will be my last comment [to you] on this. You have made your position clear, and it is obvious that Jesus has already appointed you your portion with the hypocrites and cut you your chosen piece. You now will have to wait until you see Him coming with the clouds of heaven.

Above, with "Scriptural acrobatic in order to arrive at your absurd conclusions" you are projecting. But you do not know that being presented with "flesh and blood" verses what comes from "the Father"-- the only correct response is to choose God, to "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness." Nor do you all even know that this is what you have done. Even so, your portion has been allotted to you according to your own will and measure. And anyone who has an ear to hear what the Spirit says, knows that these are not my words, but His.

As for Peter, he did receive the keys to the kingdom-- the error falls to the church fathers. If they too had chosen the Father over flesh and blood, as it is written: "all these things shall be added to you." But they did not, but did evil in the sight of the Lord.

As for your SIXTY-FIVE collaborators, they are your fellows, not mine.

So be it.

Hey Scott,

In regard to your "SIXTY-FIVE collaborators" comment: When 65 Protestants agrees with The Church they are "collaborators"! What are they if they agree with YOU?

@BreadOfLife provided "65 collaborators" to back up what he was saying. How many did you provide?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

LOL....peewee claims

You crack me up....it is very hard to take you serious on ANYTHING.

I hope you have a great Tuesday.....Mary

 

[Taken]

You crack me up....it is very hard to take you serious on ANYTHING.

I hope you have a great Tuesday.....Mary

Very few Catholics can have a serious discussion about Spiritual things...