13 Things you didn't know about the Papacy over at Triablogue:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2015/05/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-papacy.html
https://apologeticsandagape.wordpress.com/2015/05/29/13-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-papacy/
John Bugay over at Triablogue, has an excellent summary here of the Papacy issues.
Because of space, and the purpose to keep to a one page sheet evangelistic tract, it may be hard to include these other issues:
I would add: (this is not a criticism of John's article, just some other points that came to mind after I read through his summary.)
14. that Peter himself calls himself "fellow-elder" in 1 Peter 5:1. no heirachy of mono-episcopate or papacy idea.
15. Also, if Peter had a successor, a bishop of Rome as infallible successor, he would have said, "listen to him, who will be able to remind you of these things (spiritual truths)" or "he is the living voice, who will be able to stir up your sincere minds", etc. in 2 Peter 1:12-18; but instead, Peter points them to his letter/scripture - 3:1 - this is the second letter by which I am writing to you in order to stir up your sincere minds" - same idea in 2 Peter 1:12-18 - knowing that he is about to die, he is diligent to put forth effort to stir up their sincere minds - (diligent by writing the letter from prison before his death.)
16. I would distinquish between the RC idea of infallible succession of person and office (bishop/ mono-episcopate) to Peter vs. the biblical idea of appointing qualified elders - as in Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5 and 1 Timothy 3. ( maybe need more details on # 5 - the quote by Oscar Cullman about the principle of succession. Does Cullman explain the difference between the Roman Catholic claim of infallible apostolic succession in the successors of Peter and other church bishops vs. the Biblical idea of appointing qualified elders in each local church? - Acts 14:23 and Titus 1:5; I Timothy 3:1 ff, ?)
17. Some kind of an explanation of "papa" (father) and acknowledge 1 Cor. 4:15-17 and 1 Timothy 1:2 as something that existed - calling someone a spiritual father - one who led a person to Christ and /or taught them the gospel and discipled them in the Scriptures as a young Christian, etc. And that existed in the early church in all the churches as all ministers/elders/ later development into "priest" were considered and called "papa"/father (spiritual father), so bishops and elders of other areas were called "papa", such as Cyprian in Carthage and Athanasius in Alexandria - even today, the leader of the Coptic Church in Egypt is called "Pope". The point is, "Pope" was never an exclusive term only for the bishop of Rome, but was used for all ministers in all churches. (until centuries later)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
6 comments:
Martin Luther beat Triablogue to the punch in his 1536 Smalcald Articles, Part II, Article IV: Of the Papacy. Philip Melanchthon followed it up in 1537 with the Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.
The Early Church Fathers spoke about the successors to Peter. For example St. Irenaeus who knew the Apostle John explained:
"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Hi Gabriel,
Why doesn't Peter mention him (Linus) in 2 Peter 1:12-19?
Why doesn't Peter write, "Look to Linus, my successor, he will be able to guide you and be your living voice and he will be able to stir up your sincere minds to be reminded of the truth" ??
The evidence that Irenaeus gives us of a mono-episcopacy seems to contradict earlier writings of 1 Clement (Clement says elders and episcopas are the same and plurality for each church), Ignatius (Ignatius does not address a single bishop in his letter to Rome), the Shepherd of Hermas (uses plurality of elders for the Roman Church), and the Didache (only 2 offices, not three).
Ignatius starts mentioning the mono-episcopate in other churches, but not in Rome.
So it seems Irenaeus, by the time of 180-220 AD, is trying to guess who the "bishop" was, based on Hegessipus, and because by that time, the mono-episcopate had become custom, but it is not consistent with the earlier writings, nor the NT.
The New Testament laid down principles for a plurality of elders for each church.
Acts 14:23
Titus 1:5 ff
Acts 20:17, 28
Also, if Peter was a mono-bishop or even bishop in Rome, why doesn't Paul address him in his letter to the Romans, around 57-58 AD?
Peter was an apostle, evangelist and probably not there much - he was traveling back and forth, etc.
I Peter 5:1-6 indicates that there was a plurality of elders in the churches. Peter calls himself "fellow-elder" in 1 Peter 5:1. (no evidence of any heirarchy or mono-episcopate or "bishop over bishops", etc.
Every time I read in Acts where the man bowed down to Peter, and Peter told him to get up that he was a man just like him is a reminder to me of how Roman Catholicism has bewitched the gullible world. One thing we know, a man in a diamond tiara hat who calls himself Holy Father is as far from Peter as anyone could ever be. K
Post a Comment