anti-papacy arguments

[dairygirl4u2c]

I have another simple request. I would like people here to give the arguments against the validity of the papacy.

Even if it's illogical, you can still give it. You can still give your own if you want, but I'm not here to see that. If I were grading you, I'd give more points to how well you explained the arguments against he papacy.

[goldenchild17]

Can't help ya there. Instead I'll give me humble attempt at the VALIDITY of the Papacy
____________________________________________________________________

In discussing Peter's role as pope, the earthly representative of Christ in this world, I like to start in Matthew 16. Starting in verse 13,

[color=blue] "When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, 'Who do people say that the Son of Man is?' They replied, 'Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.' He said to them, 'But who do you say that I am?' Simon Peter said in reply, 'You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.' Jesus said to him in reply, 'Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.'" [/color]

In the first part of this passage Jesus poses a question to all of His disciples. He asks them who they think He is. It is Simon Peter that speaks up and answers for all of them [color=blue]"You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God." [/color] This is one of many times that Peter is seen speaking for all of the disciples(see Matt. 19:27, Mark 10:28 and Mark 11:21).

Jesus then praises Peter's answer saying that it was the Father who had revealed this to him. But even more interesting is that Jesus calls Simon 'son of Jonah.' We read in John 1:42 [color=blue]"Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, "You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas" (which is translated Peter)." [/color] Jonah is a variation of the name "John". But why does Jesus say this? Why does He use this variation when at other times He calls Peter the "son of John"? Well, first we look to Matthew 12:40[color=blue] "Just as Jonah was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights, so will the Son of Man be in the heart of the earth three days and three nights." [/color]Here Scripture is showing that Jonah was a symbol of Jesus. Jonah is a type of Jesus. Why is this significant? Jesus called Simon Peter the "Son of Jonah". Essentially what Jesus is doing is calling Peter His son. Here Jesus shows the unique relationship between Himself and Peter, almost that of a father and son. Secondly, in Hebrew, Jonah means "Dove". There is a special connection here between Peter who is the son of the "Dove". Peter is in a spiritual sense the son of Jesus, the son of God, and also the son of the Holy Spirit.

This is important because of another connection: David and his son Solomon. David is another type, another symbol of Jesus. It was David's plan to build this temple, 1 Chronicles 28:2, [color=blue] "King David rose to his feet and said: 'Hear me, my brethren and my people. It was my purpose to build a house of repose myself for the ark of the covenant of the LORD, the footstool for the feet of our God; and I was preparing to build it." [/color]But David did not finish this task. He left it to his son Solomon, 1 Chronicles 28:20, [color=blue] "Then David said to his son Solomon: 'Be firm and steadfast; go to work without fear or discouragement, for the LORD God, my God, is with you. He will not fail you or abandon you before you have completed all the work for the service of the house of the LORD.'" [/color] All throughout 1 Chronicles 28 we see David giving out every little detail about how he wanted this temple to be built. The temple was eventually finished by Solomon, built up in Jerusalem upon rock, as we see in 2 Chronicles 3:1 [color=blue] "Then Solomon began to build the house of the Lord in Jerusalem on Mount Moriah, which had been pointed out to his father David, on the spot which David had selected, the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite." [/color]

What does this have to do with Peter? We know that David is a type of Christ. We know that Jonah is a type of Christ, this was discussed a bit earlier. Jesus called Simon, [color=blue] "son of Jonah". [/color] So, in a symbolic sense we see that Simon Peter is the son of Christ. King David got everything started in the building of the temple, collected funds and materials, gave out directions, but left the completion to his son. So did Jesus get everything rolling for the building of the Church, but left it's completion to His spiritual son, Peter. The Church doesn't get onto it's feet until the book of Acts. It wasn't until after Christ ascended that the Holy Spirit descended onto the disciples and they started their preaching and having councils.

Next, from our first passage Matthew 16:13-19, we look at this line. [color=blue] "And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." [/color] What Jesus is doing is calling Peter the "Rock" on which the Church is going to be built. Many opponents of Catholicism like to look at the original Greek of this sentence. In the original Greek Christ calls Peter "Petros" which means "little rock", and calls the "rock" upon which the Church is to be built "Petra" or "large rock". Some people believe this means that Jesus is contrasting Peter and the "rock" that the Church will be built upon. There are three major flaws to this argument. 1. "Petros" is a masculine word, while "Petra" is a feminine word. It would very silly for Jesus to use a feminine word in regards to Peter. 2. If Jesus was truly trying to call Peter a "small rock, or pebble" then He would undoubtedly have used the Greek word "lithos", which also means "small rock or pebble" but is not gender specific. 3. Jesus did not speak Greek on a daily basis with His local companions. He, as did all the Palestinian Jews at the time, spoke Aramaic. This discourse that took place between Jesus and Peter in Matthew 16 is in Aramaic. In Aramaic the name Jesus gives Peter is "Kephas". "Kephas" means rock, so the passage should read "you are 'rock' and upon this 'rock' I will build my Church" No contrast here. How do we know that this is the word Jesus meant to use? John 1:42 says [color=blue] "Then he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, 'You are Simon the son of John; you will be called Kephas'" (which is translated Peter)." [/color] (see also 1 Corinthians 1:12, 1 Corinthians 3:22, 1 Corinthians 9:5, 1 Corinthians 15:5, Galatians 2:9, 11, 14). Clearly Peter's name was "Kephas" and therefore, is the "rock" upon which Jesus meant to build the Church.

The next part of Matt. 16 says [color=blue] "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." [/color] Here is where Jesus promises to give Peter the earthly authority to guide the Church. The keys that Jesus gives Peter are very important. This part of the passage is drawn from Isaiah 22:22 [color=blue] "I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family". [/color] These keys are a symbol of authority. The one who held these keys was the Prime Minister, so to speak, of the kingdom. This position existed all throughout the kingdom of David. It was passed on from one man to another, as is seen in Isaiah 22:19-21 [color=blue] "I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah." [/color] Jesus parallels this passage from Isaiah, He gives the keys of authority to Peter. Jesus means for this office to be passed on from one man to another just as the position in Isaiah was. This significance of the keys is shown again in Revelation 3:7.

This discourse with Peter is a promise, Jesus promises to give this authority to Peter at some other time. We remember that Peter denied Jesus three times, this is recorded in John 18:16-17, 25-27, [color=blue] "But Peter stood at the gate outside. So the other disciple, the acquaintance of the high priest, went out and spoke to the gatekeeper and brought Peter in. Then the maid who was the gatekeeper said to Peter, 'You are not one of this man's disciples, are you?' He said, 'I am not.' Now the slaves and the guards were standing around a charcoal fire that they had made, because it was cold, and were warming themselves. Peter was also standing there keeping warm. . . . Now Simon Peter was standing there keeping warm. And they said to him, 'You are not one of his disciples, are you?' He denied it and said, 'I am not.' One of the slaves of the high priest, a relative of the one whose ear Peter had cut off, said, 'Didn't I see you in the garden with him?' Again Peter denied it. And immediately the pickle crowed." [/color] Keep this in mind.

Now we go to John 21:15-17 where the actual delegation of power takes place. [color=blue] "'When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Feed my lambs.' He then said to him a second time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' He said to him, 'Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.' He said to him, 'Tend my sheep.' He said to him the third time, 'Simon, son of John, do you love me?' Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, 'Do you love me?' and he said to him, 'Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.' (Jesus) said to him, 'Feed my sheep.'" [/color] Here they are surrounding a fire, just as Peter did in the courtyard(see John 18:18). In this passage Jesus asks Peter three times the same question, [color=blue] "do you love me". [/color] Jesus asks Peter this question three times just as Peter denied Jesus three times. Jesus is forgiving Peter for each time he denied Jesus. After each question, [color=blue] "do you love me" [/color] , Jesus gives Peter a task, [color=blue] "Feed my lambs . . . Tend my sheep . . . Feed my sheep" [/color] . This is where Jesus fulfills His promise to make Peter the leader of the Church on earth. He's not giving the Church to Peter, but simply telling him to feed her, to nourish her, to tend to her while He is away.
Now we go to the book of Acts where the real action takes place. It is here that we see Peter take on his role and play it out to it's fullest. First, in Acts 1:15-26 Peter oversees the election of the apostle who would replace Judas(who is dead at this point from suicide), gives the first sermon after Pentecost inActs 2:14, receives the first converts to Christianity in Acts 2:41, performs the first miracle in Acts 3:6-7, inflicts the first punishment in Acts 5:1-11 and excommunicates the first person Simon the magician in Acts 8:21. He is also the first to bring a person back to life in Acts 9:36-41. Clearly, Peter has taken on the role of leader in the early Church.

But one event that I really want to talk about is in Acts 10:9-16, [color=blue] "The next day, while they were on their way and nearing the city, Peter went up to the roof terrace to pray at about noontime. He was hungry and wished to eat, and while they were making preparations he fell into a trance. He saw heaven opened and something resembling a large sheet coming down, lowered to the ground by its four corners. In it were all the earth's four-legged animals and reptiles and the birds of the sky. A voice said to him, 'Get up, Peter. Slaughter and eat.' But Peter said, 'Certainly not, sir. For never have I eaten anything profane and unclean.' The voice spoke to him again, a second time, 'What God has made clean, you are not to call profane.' This happened three times, and then the object was taken up into the sky." [/color] Here Peter receives a dream. In this dream Peter is asked to eat what is considered to be "unclean" to the Jewish faith. So, Peter says that he would not eat it as it is unclean. The vision tells him [color=blue] "what God has made clean, you are not to call profane". [/color] This happens three times and Peter does not know what it means. After this dream Peter meets and talks with a gentile man named Cornelius. In Acts 10:27-28 it says [color=blue] "While he conversed with him, he went in and found many people gathered together and said to them, 'You know that it is unlawful for a Jewish man to associate with, or visit, a Gentile, but God has shown me that I should not call any person profane or unclean." [/color] In this passage Peter makes known what was revealed to him in his dream. In his dream, Peter was given a revelation that know one else was given. Peter was told that we are not to call any person "unclean". He goes on in Acts 10:34-35 to proclaim aloud the revelation that was given to him, [color=blue] "Then Peter proceeded to speak and said, 'In truth, I see that God shows no partiality. Rather, in every nation whoever fears him and acts uprightly is acceptable to him." [/color] Then in verses 46-48 he enforces this by inviting all, not only the Jewish people, to be baptized, [color=blue] "Then Peter responded, 'Can anyone withhold the water for baptizing these people, who have received the holy Spirit even as we have?' He ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." [/color]

What takes place in all this is the same thing that happens with the Pope. The Holy Spirit reveals some truth to the Pope and the Pope declares it to all the Church.

The last thing I want to talk about is Acts 15. In this chapter there is much disagreement over whether or not the gentile Christians are required to follow the Mosaic law just as the Jews had to. Some people said that they had to be circumcised, [color=blue] "But some from the party of the Pharisees who had become believers stood up and said, 'It is necessary to circumcise them and direct them to observe the Mosaic law.'" [/color] (Acts 15:5). Others disagreed. So the leaders of the Church got together and discussed this issue, [color=blue] "The apostles and the presbyters met together to see about this matter." [/color] (Verse 6). There was much debate among them until Peter spoke. When he spoke all fell silent and listened, [color=blue] "After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe. And God, who knows the heart, bore witness by granting them the holy Spirit just as he did us. He made no distinction between us and them, for by faith he purified their hearts. Why, then, are you now putting God to the test by placing on the shoulders of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we are saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, in the same way as they.' The whole assembly fell silent, and they listened while Paul and Barnabas described the signs and wonders God had worked among the Gentiles through them.'" [/color] (verses 7-12). Then James delivered the closing statement. But it was when Peter spoke that the people gathered there fell silent. Before he spoke, there was much debate, this ended when he spoke up. This was the first Church council, the Council of Jerusalem and it was presided over by the first Pope, St. Peter. It is evident from Scripture Jesus intended for their to be this office of the Papacy. It's also clear that Peter, from the very birth of the Church, exercised his authority to it's fullest extent.

Here are a couple more things I would like to add as I finish up this discussion. Peter is always listed at the head of the apostles(Matthew 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) while Judas is listed last. I don't think that's a coincidence. The apostles are sometimes referred to as "Peter and his companions" or "Peter and the other apostles"(Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37). This shows that Peter is clearly the head of the apostles. Next, Peter's name is mentioned 191 times in Scripture. This is more than all the other apostles combined. Again, no coincidence.

[crusader1234]

An illogical suggestion eh?

The Pope is a hologram.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='crusader1234' date='Dec 31 2004, 06:28 PM'] An illogical suggestion eh?

The Pope is a hologram. [/quote]
:crackup:





Please defend your position...





:rotfl:

[Benedict]

The Pope is the antiChrist.

Below follows all the evidence presented to me after I requested it the three dozen or so times I have seen the assertion:

































Yeah.

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Benedict' date='Dec 31 2004, 07:23 PM']

































[/quote]
Wow, that's deep. Never looked at it that way before...





























umm, yeah.

[homeschoolmom]

Yeah, when you put it that way...

[Phatmasser777]

There is nothing (historically) invalid about the papacy, there are accounts of Popes to Clement I, however the amount of power they gained in Europe was nothing Christ had in mind, for example Pope Adrian IV, giving Ireland to England..WTH!! Oh btw he was an English Pope.. Traitor to his own people (Catholics).

[conservativecatholic]

How was Adrian IV a traitor to his fellow Englishmen? At that time, there were
only two Christian faiths, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Catholicism in the West and Orthodoxy in the East.

By the way, there are records going back to Peter as the first Pope, not only Clement I. In fact, if you read your Bible, Peter was declared the rock of the Church, the leader, the Supreme Pontiff if you may.

May God Bless!

-conservativecatholic

Edited January 1, 2005 by conservativecatholic

[james]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Dec 31 2004, 05:26 PM'] I have another simple request. I would like people here to give the arguments against the validity of the papacy.

[/quote]

Here's one of the best resources I am aware of documenting the legitimacy of the papacy.

[url="http://www.ancientpapacy.com/"]http://www.ancientpapacy.com/[/url]

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='james' date='Jan 1 2005, 01:32 AM']
Here's one of the best resources I am aware of documenting the legitimacy of the papacy.

[url="http://www.ancientpapacy.com/"]http://www.ancientpapacy.com/[/url] [/quote]
i dunno, i wasn't impressed w/ that site. his writing style is not very scholarly. also, w/ a topic like the ancient papacy, there could be much more content.

[Phatmasser777]

[quote name='conservativecatholic' date='Dec 31 2004, 10:12 PM'] How was Adrian IV a traitor to his fellow Englishmen? At that time, there were only two Christian faiths, Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Catholicism in the West and Orthodoxy in the East.

By the way, there are records going back to Peter as the first Pope, not only Clement I. In fact, if you read your Bible, Peter was declared the rock of the Church, the leader, the Supreme Pontiff if you may.

May God Bless!

-conservativecatholic [/quote]
Check the ()'s. I didnt say English.

[quote]By the way, there are records going back to Peter as the first Pope, not only Clement I.  In fact, if you read your Bible, Peter was declared the rock of the Church, the leader, the Supreme Pontiff if you may.[/quote]

No. There are later beliefs from the 2nd and 3rd century, but no 1st century evidence at all. Also just becoz it says 'upon this rock' doesnt mean he is a pope! Peter was only the head of ONE community, not every single one. And as for his infallibility, he believed like most of his community that Christ would return in that century, preaching a false belief, would a infallible Pope do that?

Also Supreme Pontiff was a later title. Not first century.

[robbie]

[quote]Also just becoz it says 'upon this rock' doesnt mean he is a pope![/quote]

Hasn't it already been (very well by the way) argued that for many many scriptural reasons Peter [i]was[/i] the first pope? And not [i]just[/i] because of "upon this rock."?

[quote]Peter was only the head of ONE community, not every single one.[/quote]

What evidence do you have to support that (I'm not saying you're wrong I'm just curious as to why you said this).

[quote]And as for his infallibility, he believed like most of his community that Christ would return in that century, preaching a false belief, would a infallible Pope do that?[/quote]

How do you know he taught this? (again, I;m just curious).

[spathariossa]

Anti-papal arguments? Well, gee. Lemme pull out my Orthodox theology books from my former days as a catechumen there...

Ummm....


Should be in here somewhere...


Oh yeah that's why I decided not to convert - they completely IGNORE it. And have no basis for their ignoring it. *sigh* They had such pretty icons too...and incense at every service...

[james]

[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 2 2005, 03:42 AM'] i dunno, i wasn't impressed w/ that site. his writing style is not very scholarly.[/quote]

Scholarly, like in the sense of using terms like "dunno" and failing to use capitals where appropriate?


[quote name='phatcatholic' date='Jan 2 2005, 03:42 AM']also, w/ a topic like the ancient papacy, there could be much more content. [/quote]

It focuses on the first 8 centuries of the church, hence "Ancient Papacy."

The site is still in development and much more will be added.

[url="http://www.ancientpapacy.com/"]http://www.ancientpapacy.com/[/url]

Edited January 4, 2005 by james