THERE IS A VICAR OF CHRIST

Why even bother??

G.I. = G.O.

Brother Ed

 

MATTHEW 16:16-19

And Jesus answered him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven. And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

WHAT A CALVINIST BIBLICAL EXEGETE HAS TO SAY

It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church ... Attempts to interpret the 'rock' as something other than Peter in person (e.g. his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew {Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972}, 261)

CHRIST'S WORDS RING TRUE IN HISTORY

Number the priests even from that seat of Peter. And in that order of fathers see to whom succeeded: that is the rock which the proud gates of hades do not conquer. (Augustine in Psalmus contr Partem Donati)

VIVA IL PAPA!

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson Weber

 

Wrong, Carson.
The rock is Christ, the object and subject of the confession.

And the Vicar is the Holy Spirit, not corrupt, sinful, imperfect man.

If it were Peter, then why was it the Holy Spirit that slew Ananias and Sapphira, or warned Paul through Agabus that he will be bound if he continued on to Jerusalem, or that gave utterance to preachers and prophets of the first church ?
And it sure would be insubordinate of Paul to withstand Peter to his face and accuse him of hypocrisy for refusing to continue eating with the gentiles in the presence of Jews. And why was it James and not Peter who led the first Jerusalem church and who issued the instruction that Gentiles need to refrain from idolatry and the eating of blood and fornication ?
And don't tell me because Peter was elsewhere because if Peter held such an important task, then
they will have to defer any decision until Peter has his say on the matter.
Your "holy father" is no more a representative of Christ on earth as Bill Gates is the original conceptualizer of windows.

 

Lessee...

Matthew 16 doesn't mention a succession at all, let alone one that goes through Peter alone and has jursidiction ove rthe whole church.

The Biblcuial exeget confirms this. In all that he says (and there are many who agree that Peter is the Rock) he never mentions succesiona and all the other things that MUST be there for anyone to claim tha Matthew 16 supports a Papacy.

And history.. Let's see, the apostolic fathers don't mentiona papacy. Seems they were unaware of it. The disciples certainly didn't act liek Pete was a Pope, and the actions of people like Polycarp and Cyprian don't suppiort the claim to authority that Rome makes. No non-christian historian fromthe first centuries AD mentions a papacy, and those ECFs that do interpret the so-called "papl" texts do so in ways that are, at best, non papl, and often anti-papal. origen said that Matthw 16 doesn't apply only to Peter and Cyrpian went so far as to say that ALL bishops are descended of Peter!

I could go on, but it is clear that history supports (as do many RC scholars) the idea that the Papcy developed over time but was not extant in the time of Christ or the Apostolic period.

3 strikes and yer out kid!

 

Hi pinoybaptist,

You wrote, "Wrong, Carson. The rock is Christ, the object and subject of the confession."

I enjoy your opinion, but the weight of it must be sized up to various Protestant Biblical scholars.

Protestant scholar Oscar Cullman, writing in the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, writes, "The Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between p tra [petra] and P tros; P tros = p tra. . . . The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable . . . for there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of "thou art Rock" and "on this rock I will build" shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first . It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom he has given the name Rock. . . . To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected." (Oscar Cullman, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. by Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich, {Grand Rapids, MI: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 1968}, 6:98, 108.)

Protestant Greek scholar Marvin Vincent writes, "The word refers neither to Christ as a rock, distinguished from Simon, a stone, nor to Peter's confession, but to Peter himself, . . . The reference of petra to Christ is forced and unnatural. The obvious reference of the word is to Peter. The emphatic this naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here, not as the foundation, but as the architect: "On this rock will I build." Again, Christ is the great foundation, the chief cornerstone, but the New Testament writers recognize no impropriety in applying to the members of Christ's church certain terms which are applied to him. For instance, Peter himself (1 Peter 2:4), calls Christ a living stone, and in ver. 5, addresses the church as living stones." (Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, {Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1946, orig. 1887}, 4 vols., vol. 1, 91-92.)

Protestant scholar W.F. Albright writes, "This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. . . . Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community. Jesus, not quoting the Old Testament, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19, one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. The interest in Peter's failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cp. Gal 2:11 ff.)." (W. F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Garden City, NY: Doubleday & Co., 1971), 195.)

May God bless you,

Carson

 

Matthew 16 doesn't mention a succession at all, let alone one that goes through Peter alone and has jursidiction ove rthe whole church.

If Matthew 16 is read in light of Isaiah 22, then succession is a necessary consequence. The Prime Ministers in the royal cabinet of the Davidic Kingdom followed one another in succession. When the Old Testament type and background is considered, succession is overwhelmingly implied.

the apostolic fathers don't mention a papacy.

Documents illustrating the jurisdictional primacy of the Bishop of Rome through both the Western and Eastern Fathers:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/primacy.htm

Documents illustrating the self-claimed authority of the Bishop of Rome. Rome has always considered herself as the head of Christendom and the primary expositor of the Apostolic heritage:

http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/pope.htm

Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam,

Carson

 

"If Matthew 16 is read in light of Isaiah 22, then succession is a necessary consequence. The Prime Ministers in the royal cabinet of the Davidic Kingdom followed one another in succession. When the Old Testament type and background is considered, succession is overwhelmingly implied."

1) Who says that we HAVE to readit with Is 22 as a background? You? That's just begging the question! Just because there is a possible parallel (and interestingly the ECFs don't make it) that doesn't mean we make The OT the key for interpteting the NT. It doesnt even mean that we have to press the details. We can see that the PM forshadows Peter without a succession as well. What you are arguing fro is not typology but allegory.

2) There is no typology here. None. Unles you want to say there is. But that isgeggin the question. No NT writer alludes to such a typology.

"Documents illustrating the jurisdictional primacy of the Bishop of Rome through both the Western and Eastern Fathers:"

Interesting readng I am sure. But historians (you know, people who actually KNOW what they are talking about?) disagree. Same with yor other quotes. I can provide a set which disproves yor noinsense. You want to keep pulling quotes out of context, go ahead. It just makes you look foolish.

And please stop quotig protestants who hold that Peter is the Rock unless youy are willing to also mention:

a) Ther are many who disagree with that view

b) of those protestants who do see Peter as the Rock NONE agree with you about succession.

To fail to mention these things is mileading and dishonest. Keep studying boy, you may learn something!

 

Carson:
Well, I am not Protestant but if you're going to quote those guys you quoted all I can say is "what can I say" ? They're after all, spawns of Rome.
We have a folk saying in the Philippines (which by the way, is Asia's South America [heavily Roman Catholic]), and it goes like this:

So, Protestants may huff and puff, but they sure smell, talk, and think a lot like their mama church and to mama church's breasts they will eventually suck again.

I'm just a Baptist, and Primitive at that, God be praised !
Since you like reading secular writers, I suggest you go read Foxe's Book of Martyrs for beginners
and if you ever get to Hamburg, Germany visit the public library there and look up both pro- and anti-inquisition writers.
Never been there myself.
But I had a friend, Timothy Timmermann I think his name was, a retired German city fiscal in Hamburg who told me it was there he went as a law student to read Latin as a requirement of his law courses.
He left the Catholic church after that.

 

Obviously the same kind of turncoat and apostate who would have left Israel after David's little dalliance with his neighbor's wife.

Or if not that, something else. If you really don't have faith, you will use anything as an excuse. And if you do have faith, you will realize that the sins of the people are not the same thing as the ontology of the Church.

And BTW -- there are only two classes of people in the Christian world -- Catholic and Protestant.
There are those who are in the Catholic and universal Church, and those who are outside of Her. Since you are outside of Her, I assume it is because you PROTEST (and rather loudly most of the time) against some teaching of the Church. There is something YOU don't agree with, therefore, your refusal to enter the Church and submit to Her makes you one of the protestors.

You ARE a Protestant. Just one who happens to be Anabaptist.

Carson -- you are a better man than I for putting up with this mindless nonsense. These people do not wish to be educated or learn, they just have an agenda -- TRASH THE CHURCH. DO IT AS OFTEN AND AS NASTILY AS YOU CAN.

They ain't listening, bro!! (But I commend you for spreading the seeds of truth anyway)

Brother Ed

 

"And BTW -- there are only two classes of people in the Christian world -- Catholic and Protestant."

Wrong. Thereis only one church, the catholic (universal) church.

Within that church are many varieties. Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox Catholic, Reformed Catholic, Coptic Catholic...

I do not grant the specifically Roman branch the monopoly on the name or the right to define it simply because it includes the term as part of its name. Such begs the question (whether the Roman church is truly part of the catholic (uiversal) church), a question which is far from clear in its answer...

 

Before I left the Roman Catholic Institution for good I had many struggles, one of which was the papacy. I had long been an admirer of Pope John Paul II, and I really wrestled with myself over the issue of the Pope and whether he was truly the Vicar of Christ.

I finally had to confront all of the issues in front of me, and I came to my very firm conclusions. I had to ask:

Would the Vicar of Christ had declared himself above reproach and absolutely necessary for salvation, as Boniface VIII had? NO!

Would the Vicar of Christ have declared war, had his own military, and been able to topple governments at his whim? NO!

Would the Vicar of Christ have tolerated the Inquisition? NO!

Would the Vicar of Christ have approved of the massacre of Hugenots, and actually commissioned a coin to be made commemorating this event? NO!

Would the Vicar of Christ have stood by and not excommunicated Hitler for his crimes? NO!

Would the Vicar of Christ have dug up a previous Vicar of Christ and put his corpse on trial for heresy? NO!

Would the Vicar of Christ have had many illegitimate children while demanding his "priests" to be celibate? NO!

Would the Vicar of Christ have allowed the Crusades, the killing of Anabaptists and placing their heads on stakes, or the condemnation of Martin Luther even though his concerns were legit? NO!

And in our own time, would the Vicar of Christ compromise the gospel with his false ecumenism that allows him to allow statues of Buddha on a tabernacle, kiss the Quran, or be blessed by Hindus? NO!

Contrary to my tone up to now, I do not say these things with spite or contempt. No, I say it with sorrow, for I once was a very, very devout Roman Catholic. But when I accepted Jesus, I realized that I could not be in what I became convinced was the Great Whore of Babylon (Rev. 17). I had to heed God's Warning of His who think they can still stay in the Roman Catholic Institution: "Come out of Her, my people." And so I did.

The true Vicar of Christ is indeed the Holy Spirit. God's Word says that I have him in my life as a Christian, and do not need sacraments, indulgences, or a papal blessing in order to have Him. I rejoice to the Father every day for this reality, and give thanks that he lead me away from that False Christ in the Vatican.

mozier

 

Catholic Convert said:

Baptists have been in existence and have been persecuted by the Roman Empire/Roman Church before Luther's mama and papa were even born.

Cardinal Hosius (Catholic, 1524), President of the Council of Trent:
Cardinal Hosius, President of the Council of Trent
wrote in 1524" (footnotes from the Trail of Blood).

You don't know much about the history of Baptists,
CC.
If I were a Menonite or an Amish, maybe I would not mind being called Anabaptist.
I went out of the Catholic Church not in protest but because even as a little child I used to wonder why, oh, why do my folks walk on their knees from the church door to the altar ?
Why do they rub and kiss the foot of those wooden or plaster statues ?
Why must I confess my sins to another human being ?
Why do we at given times of the year take out that statue of "Jesus" and parade it around the streets ?
When I came to adolescence I wondered:
Why do the cops, robbers, prostitutes, gangsters,
corrupt politicians, my own father, uncles, aunts,
grandparents, act so holy and penitent during "holy week" and then go back to their old ways for the rest of the year's weeks ?
Why do I still feel condemned and hell-bound after
confessing my sins ?
And then as an adult I concluded all these religions are as Karl Marx put it: opiates for the soul, to keep the masses in stupor while the ruling class exploited them.
Well, this is not a testimony thread, so here I stop.

 

Re 1:20 The mystery of the seven stars which thou sawest in my right hand, and the seven golden candlesticks. The seven stars are the angels of the seven churches: and the seven candlesticks which thou sawest are the seven churches.

I guess God didn't like John using these symbols in his writings either, right? The only problem is that John was reporting what he saw was in Heaven.

Candlesticks in Heaven.

Well, there it is, John. We are just lightin' dem candles and following our Lord.

Brother Ed

 

Lookie!! And yet another AntiCatholic thread on the Baptist Board. I was getting worried. They were getting so hard to find.

 

"In all liturgical celebrations, candles are required to express reverence and to indicate various degrees of solemnity" (GENERAL INSTRUCTION ON ROMAN MISSAL, Vatican II,3/70).

Where is the above teaching found the the Bible?

Boy, talk about taking something out of context. This is an excerpt from a missal, or guidebook for conducting a Catholic mass. The RCC requires that candles are present at the site of a Catholic mass as a symbol of reverence. It has nothing to do with salvation.

If you want to be literal, the Bible does not say that one must read from the Bible or even have a bible to conduct a service. So let's push to remove Bibles from our church services, since it is unbiblical for our Baptist churches to require readings from the Bible.

Why do they rub and kiss the foot of those wooden or plaster statues? Uh, why do you shake hands with the person you meet? It's a sign of respect.

Why must I confess my sins to another human being? The Bible says we are to confess our sins. The RCC takes confessing of sins seriously. You must truly confess your sins, openly and out loud. And you must truly openly ask for forgiveness. We all know that openly admitting our shortcomings is quite liberating. I see nothing wrong or unbiblical about the practice.

Why do we at given times of the year take out that statue of "Jesus" and parade it around the streets ? You've been watching too manu "Godfather" movies. None of the Catholic Churches in my area do this. But I've seen religious congregations do this via the media, and not just Catholic congregations. I don't understand why this is unbiblical.

[ September 17, 2002, 02:46 AM: Message edited by: Johnv ]

 

Do you expect me to believe that bowing down and kissing a statue's feet is the same thing as shaking a person's hand ?

As far as I know, a statue feels no disrespect.