Validity of Apostolic Succession, and RCC as the One Holy Catholic Church

[Arch Stanton]

He was not a Pope

he was the leader of Christ's Church on earth when Christ ascended

and there was NO Roman catholic Church as Rome defines itself

how does Rome define it?

 

[makesends]

The “called out” were the early church Christians, with Peter as the leader—the universal or catholic church.

The [Roman] Catholic Church established 2,000 years ago by Christ has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

You have not proven that the early Church wasn't Catholic.

The New Testament was written by Catholics and the Bible was bound by the Catholic Church....all 73 books. …

The early church fathers were Catholic and, as Catholics, they did not believe in scripture alone.

Notice that all these arguments —and particularly it is obvious in this last one above— are circular. They assume the RCC is the one and only valid church, in order to prove that it is the one and only valid church. @Arch Stanton believes the fact that they did not believe in Sola Scriptura proves (among many other proofs) that the RCC is the one and only valid church. And how does he know that they did not believe in Sola Scriptura? Because they were good Roman Catholics!

The same circular reasoning continues below.

False. The church established by Christ has no expiration date. Do you need scriptures for that?

Do you need me to supply ECF's that speak of tradition as well?

Even on this site you have multiple 'truths' ... who is correct? which 'ecclesial community' is correct?

In the Old Testament, there were THREE levels of Priests:

1. High Priest (Aaron)
2. Levitical Priesthood (Ex 30:30; Lev 5:5-6; Num 15:27-28)
3. General priesthood of the rest of the believers (Ex 19:6)

 

[makesends]

Arch Stanton said:
Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Church existed in the first 3 centuries that did not brake off from Christ and His Apostles?

makesends said:
Those of us that hold to Sola Scriptura all still hold (as best we can, conscientiously) to Christ and to His Apostle's writings/teachings. And our confessions and creeds do the same —we do NOT hold to the authority of men: Not to creeds, confessions nor traditions, as authoritative over Scripture itself. UNLIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which subjects Scripture (including particularly in this context, Christ's apostle's writings/teachings —the Word of God—) to the authority of mere men of self-designation.

Not sure you answered the question...

If I did not, you meant your question necessarily to refer to [supposed] apostolic succession or RCC continuance since 2000 years ago by "[break] off from Christ and His Apostles", and not, following the written word of God. Thus, you still employ a circular argument.

 

[Arch Stanton]

If I did not, you meant your question necessarily to refer to [supposed] apostolic succession or RCC continuance since 2000 years ago by "[break] off from Christ and His Apostles", and not, following the written word of God. Thus, you still employ a circular argument.

Who decides if one's church is not following the written word of God?

 

[Arch Stanton]

Notice that all these arguments —and particularly it is obvious in this last one above— are circular. They assume the RCC is the one and only valid church, in order to prove that it is the one and only valid church. @Arch Stanton believes the fact that they did not believe in Sola Scriptura proves (among many other proofs) that the RCC is the one and only valid church. And how does he know that they did not believe in Sola Scriptura? Because they were good Roman Catholics!

Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Church existed in the first 3 centuries that did not brake off from Christ and His Apostles?

 

[makesends]

Arch Stanton said:
Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Church existed in the first 3 centuries that did not brake off from Christ and His Apostles?

makesends said:
Those of us that hold to Sola Scriptura all still hold (as best we can, conscientiously) to Christ and to His Apostle's writings/teachings. And our confessions and creeds do the same —we do NOT hold to the authority of men: Not to creeds, confessions nor traditions, as authoritative over Scripture itself. UNLIKE THE ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH, which subjects Scripture (including particularly in this context, Christ's apostle's writings/teachings —the Word of God—) to the authority of mere men of self-designation.

Arch Stanton said:
Not sure you answered the question...

If I did not, you meant your question necessarily to refer to [supposed] apostolic succession or RCC continuance since 2000 years ago by "[break] off from Christ and His Apostles", and not, following the written word of God. Thus, you still employ a circular argument.

Notice that all these arguments —and particularly it is obvious in this last one above— are circular. They assume the RCC is the one and only valid church, in order to prove that it is the one and only valid church. @Arch Stanton believes the fact that they did not believe in Sola Scriptura proves (among many other proofs) that the RCC is the one and only valid church. And how does he know that they did not believe in Sola Scriptura? Because they were good Roman Catholics!

Arch Stanton said: (repeating)
Maybe it would help if you could tell me what Church existed in the first 3 centuries that did not brake off from Christ and His Apostles?

Apparently, no, it would not, Arch! If you demand I answer according to your assumption that the [assumed] first 3 centuries of [supposed] apostolic succession is proof of what sect is the approved one and only church, I will not play that game—it proves nothing, except that you further attempt to prove that the RCC has adopted history for its own. The RCC gives itself credence. Reason and Scripture does not.

 

[makesends]

Who decides if one's church is not following the written word of God?

Scripture does.

At this point, Arch, I'll back away and let you deal with @JesusFan and @John Bauer. Their arguments are not abstract, and you won't answer me concerning your circular argument.

 

[John Bauer]

The [Roman] Catholic Church established 2,000 years ago by Christ has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

According to whom?

Christ when He built His Church... Mt 16

Where in Matthew 16:17-19 do you find Jesus Christ saying that the Roman Catholic Church has “the only authority to interpret Scripture”?

And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

Please provide the explicit textual exegesis.

The Catholic Church is the ‘Roman’ Catholic Church, as well as about 23 other Churches under the six Rites

Leaving aside the imprecise usage of the term rite here—for example, “Latin” would denote a liturgical tradition, whereas “Mozarabic” would denote a particular rite—when you refer to “Catholics” or the “Catholic Church,” you mean the Roman Catholic Church, thus understood broadly to include those Eastern churches that are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, acknowledging him as possessing supreme, universal jurisdiction over the whole church).

For the sake of clarity over nuance and to avoid equivocation, I will translate every occurrence of the term Catholic(s) accordingly.

Sure I do...

Good. This will end up being instructive and helpful for the readers. Thanks for volunteering.

Then you don't need me to prove the facts.

Correct. However, I will need you to prove your claims.

You forgot the ministerial priesthood through the authority of laying on of hands

I did not forget it, I excluded it because we don’t find it in Scripture. I denied its legitimacy by omission. Scripture recognizes ordained offices, but it does not teach a distinct ministerial priesthood that mediates grace or sacrifice alongside Christ. The New Testament never speaks of elders as priests (hiereis). When priest language is used post-ascension, it is applied either to Christ alone or to the whole people of God; it is not a distinct sacerdotal office.

What I don’t see in Scripture are popes, cardinals, or archbishops.

The hierarchical church is there [in Scripture,] John

Great! Show us where in Scripture we find “popes, cardinals, or archbishops”—the terms I identified as being absent.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Scripture does.

signed,
baptists
methodists
presbyterians
anglicans
nondenominational
etc

At this point, Arch, I'll back away and let you deal with @JesusFan and @John Bauer. Their arguments are not abstract, and you won't answer me concerning your circular argument.

Why it isn't "Circular"​

Circular reasoning would be: "The Church is true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because the Church says so."

The actual logical path used is:

1. History (not faith) tells us the Bible is a reliable record of a man named Jesus.
2. Jesus (not the Church) establishes the Church’s authority.
3. The Church (now backed by that authority) then tells us the Bible is divinely inspired.
   
   
   
   This is a linear progression where one fact leads to the next, rather than the end of the argument being used to prove the beginning. [AI]

 

[Arch Stanton]

Where in Matthew 16:17-19 do you find Jesus Christ saying that the Roman Catholic Church has “the only authority to interpret Scripture”?

And Jesus answered him, “You are blessed, Simon son of Jonah, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but my Father in heaven! And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth will have been bound in heaven, and whatever you release on earth will have been released in heaven.”

Giving Peter the keys of authority... the Holy Spirit thought it wise to call Peter 1st [chief/superior]

I'll take these one at a time.

Thanks

 

[Arial]

Why it isn't "Circular"​

Circular reasoning would be: "The Church is true because the Bible says so, and the Bible is true because the Church says so."

What makes all your resaoning circular is you always say Church when what you mean the RCC and have failed to demonstrate that the RCC is Christ's church. And then all the answers you give are given straight from Catholic dogma that claims what it says is what the Scripture says. It is no different than a man standing up and saying, "I am a woman; therefore, I am a woman."

1. History (not faith) tells us the Bible is a reliable record of a man named Jesus.
2. Jesus (not the Church) establishes the Church’s authority.
3. The Church (now backed by that authority) then tells us the Bible is divinely inspired.

Number 1 is a false premise since it is faith that tells us the Bible is a reliable record of a man named Jesus.

If 2 and 3 were written according to what the poster is saying they would read like this:

• Jesus (not the RCC) established the RCC's authority.
• The RCC (now backed by that authority) then tells us the Bible is divinely inspired.

Changes the whole picture doesn't it? It exposes the deception, the circular reasoning, and the self-importance of the RCC.

You must prove that Jesus gave that authority to the RCC without using the evidence that the accused provides.

 

[Carbon]

The universal Church with Peter as the leader.

Then that wouldn't be Roman Catholic.

 

[John Bauer]

Where in Matthew 16:17-19 do you find Jesus Christ saying that the Roman Catholic Church has “the only authority to interpret Scripture”?

Giving Peter the keys of authority.

You have a lot of work cut out for you.

1. Jesus gave “the keys” of the kingdom to the disciples (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22-23).
2. The Roman Catholic Church has the only authority to interpret Scripture.

How do you get from 1 to 2?

 

[Arch Stanton]

You have a lot of work cut out for you.

1. Jesus gave “the keys” of the kingdom to the disciples (Matt 16:19; 18:18; John 20:22-23).

only to Pierre... Mt 16; Mt 18 has 'bind/loose' with no keys

 

[John Bauer]

I did not expect the Roman Catholic argument to deflate so quickly.

I said this exchange would prove to be instructive and helpful, and I was right.

Behold Roman Catholicism, ladies and gentlemen. It cannot present or sustain an argument. (Or it can but refuses to, thus not taking the missional task seriously.)

 

[Arial]

only to Pierre... Mt 16; Mt 18 has 'bind/loose' with no keys

Grammatically (Greek grammar) Matt 16 does not identify Peter as the "rock".

Courtesy ChatGPT

Formal Syllogism (Grammatical Argument)​

Major Premise:
If Jesus intended Peter himself to be the foundational “rock” in Matthew 16:18, the Greek text would naturally use a construction that directly identifies Peter as the referent (e.g., “upon you” [ἐπὶ σοὶ], “upon this Peter” [ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ Πέτρῳ], or “you are the rock” [σὺ εἶ ἡ πέτρα]).

Minor Premise:
The Greek text instead distinguishes between Πέτρος (a masculine proper name) and πέτρα (a feminine common noun), and introduces a demonstrative phrase (“upon this rock,” ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ) that most naturally points back to the immediately preceding divinely revealed confession (v.16–17), not to Peter’s person; moreover, none of the direct-identification constructions appear in the text.

Conclusion:
Therefore, grammatically and syntactically, Matthew 16:18 does not identify Peter personally as the “rock,” but rather identifies the revealed confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” as the foundational referent.

 

[Arch Stanton]

Grammatically (Greek grammar) Matt 16 does not identify Peter as the "rock".

Courtesy ChatGPT

Formal Syllogism (Grammatical Argument)​

Major Premise:
If Jesus intended Peter himself to be the foundational “rock” in Matthew 16:18, the Greek text would naturally use a construction that directly identifies Peter as the referent (e.g., “upon you” [ἐπὶ σοὶ], “upon this Peter” [ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῷ Πέτρῳ], or “you are the rock” [σὺ εἶ ἡ πέτρα]).

Minor Premise:
The Greek text instead distinguishes between Πέτρος (a masculine proper name) and πέτρα (a feminine common noun), and introduces a demonstrative phrase (“upon this rock,” ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ) that most naturally points back to the immediately preceding divinely revealed confession (v.16–17), not to Peter’s person; moreover, none of the direct-identification constructions appear in the text.

Conclusion:
Therefore, grammatically and syntactically, Matthew 16:18 does not identify Peter personally as the “rock,” but rather identifies the revealed confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” as the foundational referent.

'In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church.'
[A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373]

 

[Arch Stanton]

I did not expect the Roman Catholic argument to deflate so quickly.

I said this exchange would prove to be instructive and helpful, and I was right.

Behold Roman Catholicism, ladies and gentlemen. It cannot present or sustain an argument. (Or it can but refuses to, thus not taking the missional task seriously.)

You and I both know that keys are not mentioned in Mt 18 or John 20.

Evangelical scholar F.F. Bruce:

"And what about the 'keys of the kingdom' ? The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; he carried them on his shoulder in earlier times, and there they served as a badge of the authority entrusted to him. About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim ....(Isaiah 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward." (Bruce, The Hard Sayings of Jesus [Intervarsity Press, 1983], 143-144, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 41)

 

[Arial]

'In like manner He says, in Matthew xvi, to the one man Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church.'
[A brief explanation of the Creed; Works of Martin Luther vol. 2 - p.373]

This is a quote regularly ripped from its context and misused to make Luther sound proto-papal. The line actually comes from his catechetical exposition of the Apostles Creed, specifically the article "I believe in the holy Christian Church." He is writing about what the Church is (and he never means the RCC when he says "Church", he is opposing the RCC) and how Christ gives promises to the Church. Luther is answering the question, "Where is the Church located, and how do we know it exists?" Rome claimed the Church is identical with the papal hierarchy and that the Church is visible wherever the pope is. Contrary to the way you have tried to mislead Luther's position, he was countering Rome's position.

When Luther says "Peter, who stands as the representative of the one and only Church" he means Peter is a spokesman, a symbolic stand-in, a type of the confessing Church.

In case you think that is just conjecture here are some quptes from him against the papacy.
“The rock is not Peter, but Christ and the faith which Peter confessed.”
(LW 41:349)

“All agree that the rock
is Christ or the faith in Christ, not Peter himself.”
(WA 10.1.1:519)
“This text [Matt 16:18] does not prove the papacy, for the rock is Christ and the Word which Peter confessed.”
(LW 41:63)

 

[John Bauer]

Conclusion:
Therefore, grammatically and syntactically, Matthew 16:18 does not identify Peter personally as the “rock,” but rather identifies the revealed confession that Jesus is “the Christ, the Son of the living God” as the foundational referent.

More than that, Peter himself acknowledges that it is Christ who is the rock.