(see comment from "lunes Linkage, 8/27") - the request was to address the "Top Ten Bible Verses Which Protestants Cannot Adequately Explain?"
The website that was referenced is "Scripture Catholic" - "my top ten"
The first passage(s) are Matthew 16:18-19 and Isaiah 22:22
And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell 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."
And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David. He shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.
There are a couple of issues here:
1 - What did Jesus mean by these Words?
2 - What did Jesus mean by these Words?
Yes - it's the same issue, but two different twists.
1 - what did Jesus mean by these Words? - What was He saying to Peter at this time?
2 - what did Jesus mean by these Words? - Do these words that Jesus was saying to Peter at this time necessarily mean that He was giving the current pope in Rome and the Magisterium the sole authority to rule over Scripture?
Taking the consequences first, a person (or church) must prove that these words meant Rome and the Magisterium, not the entirety of the body of Christ, or not the Orthodox Church.
In an interesting article by Alex Anatole, on Rome's split from the Orthodox Church, that the church was in unity until after the first 400 years or so, at which time the bishops in Rome began lusting for more and more political power.
The Bishops of Rome (Popes) started lusting after more and more political power. Unhappy with being recognized as "first among equals" by their fellow Bishops in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople (and also Ephesus,) the Bishops of Rome began to demand that we recognize them as the "supreme Bishop" of the whole Church.
Toward the end of the 6th century, a council of Western Bishops (under Rome) changed the Nicene Creed to read that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father AND THE SON ("Filioque" in Latin.)
We objected that this destroyed the doctrine of the Trinity by undermining the Personhood of the Holy Spirit. It made the Holy Spirit merely a force generated by the interaction of the Father and the Son.
Rome would not listen.
Their faith in the Holy Spirit began to erode, and it showed in their doctrine.
Unsure of the Holy Spirit's ability to guide the Church, Rome continued to falsely boost the centralized power of the Papacy. In time they came to believe the Pope to be infallible in matters of doctrine.
Unsure of the Holy Spirit's ability to pray with us and for us, they elevated Mary and the Saints to almost be a means of "getting around Jesus."
We objected.
Rome would not listen.
In 1054 the crisis came to a head. A Papal legate, in a fit of anger over our "refusal" to acknowledge the Pope's inflated claims and warped doctrine, excommunicated the Patriarch of Constantinople. The Patriarch then excommunicated the Pope.
Efforts were made to reconcile. But the Pope would not give up his claims to power, and we would not compromise our doctrine.
Rome went independent.
Unchecked by any kind of "peer review" by the Eastern Patriarchs, Rome's theological innovations proceeded unchecked.
Within 500 years after the Great Schism, they had become so warped that they incited a revolution - the Protestant Reformation.
*************
What happened to the other centers of Christian activity, Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople?
We're still here, and still united in faith and doctrine.
These days we go by the name "Orthodox."
**************
Rome still retains some external customs which identify them as a former member of the Orthodox community.
But at their core, they departed from us long ago.
Taking the consequences first, it cannot be proven from Scripture that Jesus' Words to Peter meant that it was Rome (given her exit from the unity of Orthdox) that would be given authority over Scripture.
Kelly
Hey, you're really going to address them? Great!
Interestingly, the current Pope used the Orthodox form of the Nicene Creed, including the filoque clause in his document Dominius Iesus. Some felt this was a gesture of saying that they were right on that issue.
It is also worth pointing out that the Orthodox aren't really united in faith and doctrine. Because they lack any sort of authority, many priests and congregations differ on issues such as birth control.
But why do you think the Pope has authority over Scripture? He has authority over the Church, but he can't contradict Scripture.
Ellen
It's also worth noting that in the essentials, there is unity. Since the total ban on birth control isn't in Scripture, I'd say that's a non-essential.
But why do you think the Pope has authority over Scripture?
Seriously...that's a no-brainer. He who interprets can make up anything he wants to. Witness our "constitutional right" to abortion.
Tony
Seriously…that’s a no-brainer. He who interprets can make up anything he wants to. Witness our “constitutional right” to abortion.
"Everyone has a pope in his belly" -- Martin Luther.
Kelly
He who interprets can make up anything he wants to.
But that seems to be more relevant to the various protestant denominations than Catholicism. Isn't a hallmark of protestantism (for lack of a better term here) every man being able to interpret for himself?
The Pope is bound by Scripture and Tradition. He can't contradict a predecessor, or interpret Scripture in a radically new way.
I guess what I really want to ask, is if Peter was only to be leader for the first generation of Christians, what was supposed to happen after that? From my perspective, churches without a leader just seem to multiply into more divisions. I don't see how the consequences of lack of authority are any better than what you have pointed out in Rome.
And all the protestant reformers seemed to find the ban on birth control perfectly biblical. All the protestant denominations banned it until the 1930's.
Ellen
How many verses (actual Bible verses) has the Magisterium infallibly interpreted?
The Pope is bound by Scripture and Tradition. He can’t contradict a predecessor, or interpret Scripture in a radically new way.
Please show me Peter (in Scripture) bowing to a statue. Please show me Peter receiving his salvation through Mary.
On birth control. Show me in the Bible. Period.
Ellen
As far as Peter, I'll refer to a man who wrote prior to Rome's exit from unity:
He, then, who before was silent, to teach us that we ought not to repeat the words of the impious, this one, I say, when he heard, ‘But who do you say I am,’ immediately, not unmindful of his station, exercised his primacy, that is, the primacy of confession, not of honor; the primacy of belief, not of rank. This, then, is Peter, who has replied for the rest of the Apostles; rather, before the rest of men. And so he is called the foundation, because he knows how to preserve not only his own but the common foundation...Faith, then, is the foundation of the Church, for it was not said of Peter’s flesh, but of his faith, that ‘the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.’ But his confession of faith conquered hell. And this confession did not shut out one heresy, for, since the Church like a good ship is often buffeted by many waves, the foundation of the Church should prevail against all heresies (The Fathers of the Church (Washington D.C., Catholic University, 1963), Saint Ambrose, Theological and Dogmatic Works, The Sacrament of the Incarnation of Our Lord IV.32-V.34, pp. 230-231).
Kelly
How many verses (actual Bible verses) has the Magisterium infallibly interpreted?
Well, if you ask me, quite a few! 😉
Please show me Peter (in Scripture) bowing to a statue.
I've never seen any Catholic bow to a statue. My experience is limited to a particular geographic area in America, so it may be a practice elsewhere.
I have seen Catholic kneel in prayer before a statue, but they aren't praying to the statue. The statue is similar to a photograph. It helps you to get a mental image as you pray. Usually Catholics have their eyes closed as they pray before a statue.
Do protestants ever kneel in prayer at a cemetary? I think it is similar. You aren't praying to the dead person, but thinking of them as you pray.
On birth control. Show me in the Bible. Period.
Charles Proven has written an excellent book called The Bible and Birth Control which covers scriptural arguments. I'm not really trying to debate birth control, though, so I'll bow out of the discussion here.
I'll keep stopping in to see if you cover the others on the list. I like reading your opinions. 🙂
Kelly
Oh wait, I just realized you didn't answer my question. In case you missed it . . .
I guess what I really want to ask, is if Peter was only to be leader for the first generation of Christians, what was supposed to happen after that? From my perspective, churches without a leader just seem to multiply into more divisions. I don’t see how the consequences of lack of authority are any better than what you have pointed out in Rome.
Moonshadow
they departed from us long ago
Why did they let us go?
What I mean is, in comparison, I feel remorse and sadness at the divisions within Western Christianity.
I was taught to think that the Church bungled the Reformation, long before JPII apologized for that bungling.
I don't say, "That was then, it's not my fault." No, I feel responsible and I lament the Reformation ... in ways that I don't feel about - for instance - American slavery or the Holocaust (God forgive me, but I don't feel responsible for those two things).
My question - and I doubt anyone here can answer it - is whether the Orthodox feel responsible for our departure, for letting us go.
Are they seeking after us, like Christ, leaving the 99 and seeking after the lost one?
Ellen
I guess what I really want to ask, is if Peter was only to be leader for the first generation of Christians, what was supposed to happen after that?
Kelly, you didn't put in a definite article for your question. Was Peter only to be a? leader? Was Peter only to the the leader?
If, as the write I quoted (Ambrose) said, Christ's words spoke of the primacy of belief, not of rank, then Peter was not the first pope, he was of equal rank of the other apostles.
Kelly
Boy, the typing errors always show up at the wrong place, don't they?
Actually, I re-read your first post, and I think it is a mute point. I thought you were saying that Jesus may have intended Peter to be the leader at that time, but it didn't necessarily follow that he was beginning a string of popes. My question was, what do you feel should follow as far as the leadership of the church.
However, as I said, I think I was wrong in my initial reading, especially given your last post. 🙂