# Historical concessions may be afoot in the papacy



## johnbugay (Jun 6, 2011)

I've posted two new threads at Triablogue, based on this work: How Can the Petrine Ministry Be a Service to the Unity of the Universal Church?. 

So far I have found more than a few statements that have the potential to change the whole tenor of the Protestant/Catholic discussion. This first is from Archbishop Roland Minnerath, who was on the Vatican commission to study the "papacy" in the first millennium. Minnerath said: 



> The East never shared the Petrine theology as elaborated in the West. It never accepted that the protos in the universal church could claim to be the unique successor or vicar of Peter. So the East assumed that the synodal constitution of the church would be jeopardized by the very existence of a Petrine office with potentially universal competencies in the government of the church.



Here is a second statement by the late John Reumann, a Lutheran who worked with Raymond Brown on the work "Peter in the New Testament":



> Biblical and patristic studies make clear that historically a gap occurs at the point where it has been claimed “the apostles were careful to appoint successors in” what is called “this hierarchically constituted society,” specifically “those who were made bishops by the apostles . . .,” an episcopate with and “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.” [64] For that, evidence is lacking, quite apart from the problem that the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century.[65] It has been noted above how recent treatments conclude that in the New Testament no successor for Peter is indicated.
> 
> Footnotes:
> 
> ...



This volume is a compendium of presentations given at a 2004 "ecumenical symposium" on the topic of the papacy, in a place called "Farfa Sabina," which is about 50 miles from Rome. 



> Triablogue: John Reumann best states the problem





> Triablogue: Archbishop says: Eastern Orthodox



Of course, this is from a 2010 book compiled from a 2004 symposium. So things may not be forthcoming overnight. But this is definitely something.


----------



## discipulo (Jun 6, 2011)

I believe it was Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa, the author of Il Gattopardo, in this novel about the transition from the Ancient Regime to the Bourgeoisie, who coined the terrific and horrible phrase

*some things must change in order that all remains the same*

That was about the old aristocracy giving place to a new aristocracy, needless to say that our societies continue to be Oligarchies as sure as the greatest Republicans Julius Cesar and Napoleon Bonaparte
crowned themselves Emperors, againts their own pure ideals. The deeper lesson this has to the US I left to the one reading to pursue.

This to say that Rome will remain Rome, the Papacy will remain the Papacy, the Vatican will remain a State within a State, an Episcopal Global network headed by the Bishop of Rom, claiming to himself to be the sucessor of the Apostle Peter.

This must remain with or without any Petrine historical or archaelogical evidences, and no matter what admission may be made of that sort by the fisherman who holds the keys. 

Rome changes in order to remain Rome, as sure as Latin is still the language of the Empire, etc, etc, etc


----------



## johnbugay (Jun 6, 2011)

I know what you mean. But still, this statement is of a nature that we've not seen before. It needs to be publicized, especially among Reformed circles.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 6, 2011)

And, perhaps, quoted in the context of Catholic apologetics?


----------



## J. Dean (Jun 6, 2011)

As interesting as this is, does it affect the semi-pelagianism of the Roman Catholic church?


----------



## discipulo (Jun 6, 2011)

J. Dean said:


> As interesting as this is, does it affect the semi-pelagianism of the Roman Catholic church?



Precisely. It doesn't, it cannot.

The Roman Church is mixture of very strange movements under an Umbrella of Episcopacy, Sacramentology and Heresy that make its weird unity.

Imagine movements so akin to each other as Mysticism and Charismatic Church Renewal with Liberation – Marxist inspired Political Science – Theology. 
Under Rome the opiates of the masses meet the educators of the working classes* for the same purpose, unity - due to its flexibility - universality - roman + catholic.

Under Rome, the Marian dogmas are more important than affirming the Physical Resurrection of the Son of God, I heard myself Jesuit Priests denying the Biblical and Historical Truth of the Risen Christ while defending wholeheartedly the immaculate conception of Mary.

And the Pope is the upper pole of the roman umbrella, the pin that keeps all united and related, that keeps the machinery wheels rolling.

Without Pope the Church stops, the Pope is the King of the Roman Church. The Pope is officially, in Romanitá (romanitas) language, the Pontifex Maximus, the Vicar of Christ . 

Pontifex Maximus was already the title of the Roman Emperor, it stayed as a High Priest title, while Vicar means substitute, now make the math yourself.


----------



## discipulo (Jun 6, 2011)

johnbugay said:


> I know what you mean. But still, this statement is of a nature that we've not seen before. It needs to be publicized, especially among Reformed circles.


 
I agree John, it is important to notice these things and this is an important one, I recognize that. It is also important to bring them accountable to what the Roman Church syas, although they say a lot of things all the time.

Sorry if my reaction seemed like I was not valuing it. I just don't think they will draw the conclusionjs they should out of it. So I don't expect any significant change to occur because of this.

How many Popes speaking ex-cathedra contradicted themselves? And the alleged infallibility self- attesting office of the Papacy stands, 
even more, all those papal writings are official doctrine of the roman church, no matter if the contradiction by a more recent pope should in fact make proof of plain false prophecy / false teaching of the one former pope refuted.

It's a bloody mess.

And this Petrine void is very likely a Trojan horse to admit an opening of the Roman Church towards other Churches, this without changing a single bit on their hierarchy.

Because without their hierarchy, I give them that, the building would fall down like a castle of cards.

It is the Vatican and the Papacy that keep all their religious confusion glued by some sort of identity – unity.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:21 PM ----------




Skyler said:


> And, perhaps, quoted in the context of Catholic apologetics?



Skyler, I agree, one now can / should tell a Roman Catholic : look for centuries you've been telling us you're sure the Pope sits on Peter's Chair, and that's the source of his authority, so now what?

But we have a sure foundation as expressed in Ephesians, the Church, the True Church, that is, rests on the foundation of the prophets and apostles God's given Revelation !


----------



## johnbugay (Jun 6, 2011)

Skyler said:


> And, perhaps, quoted in the context of Catholic apologetics?


 
I think this may be helpful in this context.

---------- Post added at 02:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 PM ----------




> And this Petrine void is very likely a Trojan horse to admit an opening of the Roman Church towards other Churches, this without changing a single bit on their hierarchy.



This is precisely what I think is happening. The doctrines over the last 30 years or so have been rewritten to reflect the "apostolic college, with Peter at the head of it," in a forever-type of "Petrine ministry", that leaves the pope as the pope, without any need to repent, etc.

I'm publishing these remarks because I'm hoping that some Reformed and evangelical theologians somewhere will give these sorts of things the kinds of treatment they deserve. And so that ordinary, work-a-day pastors and believers will be able to know and comment what's going on.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 6, 2011)

Wasn't the "pope" originally called the Bishop of Rome and not the pope? Being the Bishop but not having power against and over lets say the Bishop of Constanpinople?


----------



## johnbugay (Jun 6, 2011)

Rufus said:


> Wasn't the "pope" originally called the Bishop of Rome and not the pope? Being the Bishop but not having power against and over lets say the Bishop of Constanpinople?



That's correct. But before there was a "bishop of Rome," there was a network of house churches and a "presbyterial group of leaders (until about mid second century).


----------



## Rufus (Jun 6, 2011)

johnbugay said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > Wasn't the "pope" originally called the Bishop of Rome and not the pope? Being the Bishop but not having power against and over lets say the Bishop of Constanpinople?
> ...


 
A little off topic but did the anything from the presbyterial system last after the mid second century?


----------



## johnbugay (Jun 6, 2011)

Rufus said:


> A little off topic but did the anything from the presbyterial system last after the mid second century?


 
My understanding is that the presbyterial (new testament) style of church government evolved "in different directions at different speeds," (as Bock put it) into an episcopal form, throughout the early second century. Rome was among the last to get an "episcopal" style of government, largely because the city was so large, and the house churches so geographically dispersed.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 6, 2011)

johnbugay said:


> Rufus said:
> 
> 
> > A little off topic but did the anything from the presbyterial system last after the mid second century?
> ...



Any reason for this?


----------



## johnbugay (Jun 6, 2011)

On the topic of the development of apostolic succession, it's a big topic, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment. 

I've posted a bit on the evolution of the elder/presbyter system of the Jewish synagogues into a Christian elder/presbyter system here:

Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Elders, Teachers, Chairs, and Thrones: “what they knew, and when they knew it” (Part 3)
Beggars All: Reformation And Apologetics: Elders, Teachers, Chairs, and Thrones: “what they knew, and when they knew it” (Part 4): more background information

Also, here is an Anglican take on it that I thought was very honest:

The Continuum: Apostolic Succession and Scripture 

Hope these are helpful.


----------



## Rufus (Jun 6, 2011)

johnbugay said:


> On the topic of the development of apostolic succession, it's a big topic, and I don't have a lot of time at the moment.
> 
> I've posted a bit on the evolution of the elder/presbyter system of the Jewish synagogues into a Christian elder/presbyter system here:
> 
> ...


 
Thanks very much!


----------



## dudley (Jun 9, 2011)

discipulo said:


> johnbugay said:
> 
> 
> > I know what you mean. But still, this statement is of a nature that we've not seen before. It needs to be publicized, especially among Reformed circles.
> ...


 
The pope does not sit on Peters chair.Regarding Matthew 16:18 "And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." 

Roman Catholics incorrectly use this passage to verify the scriptural basis of Apostolic succession.

The biblically correct and whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. 
By the doctrine of apostolic succession the Roman Catholic Church asserts its claim of an uninterrupted and continuous line of succession extending from the twelve apostles through the bishops they ordained right up to the bishops of the present day. 

Apostolicity is the mark by which the Church of today is recognized as identical with the Church founded by Jesus Christ upon the Apostles. It is of great importance because it is the surest indication of the true Church of Christ, it is most easily examined, and it virtually contains the other three marks, namely, Unity, Sanctity, and Catholicity.

Apostolicity of mission is a guarantee of Apostolicity of doctrine. Much Roman catholic doctrine is not able to be identified as Apostolicity by standards of scripture. 

Protestants have reacted strongly against the doctrine of apostolic succession. They have done so in a number of ways, historical and theological. One of these ways is by affirming the apostolicity of the church. 

Apostolicity may be defined as receiving and obeying apostolic doctrine as it is set forth in the New Testament. In matters of doctrine and life, Protestants permit no ultimate appeal to traditions that are distinct from canonical Scripture. 

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith 1.10 says this:
The supreme judge by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.

Absolutely no provision is made for an authoritative, unwritten tradition. In fact, it is to the touchstone of Scripture that all traditions, including those of Roman Catholicism, must be brought.

Protestants have correctly observed that it is the appeal to Tradition that has made possible many doctrines and practices of Roman Catholicism that have no basis in Scripture. These include (to name only a handful) the papacy, papal infallibility, purgatory, the mass, the immaculate conception, and the assumption of Mary.

---------- Post added at 01:35 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:16 AM ----------




Skyler said:


> And, perhaps, quoted in the context of Catholic apologetics?



Jonathan....Roman catholic apologetics and rc theologians will use the following from John to argue the authority of the rc church. "We belong to God, and anyone who knows God listens to us, while anyone who does not belong to God refuses to hear us. This is how we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of deceit." 1 John 4:6
Anyone who does not belong to God does not listen to us? That is a very powerful statement. This is how we know the spirit of truth and deceit? What does this say about those who founded the Protestant movement and perpetuates it today? At what point do we realize the problems with the Protestant movement? No man can find salvation on his own through the Bible. There is not a "to do" list for salvation. There is so much more to Faith that what is in the Bible.

I would agree with John in his verse above but as a Protestant I also believe that the problem with roman Catholicism is that the roman church by 1600 had moved so far from the truth that she became a crafty lie of Satan himself. The devil is the master of deceit. He will make the truth look like a lie and the lie look like a truth. Calvin, Knox and Zwingli truly reformed the corrupted roman papist church which had become the bride of Satan and the “Whore of Babylon” . They went beyond Luther who only pruned the branches of its cancer and corruption. They , Calvin Knox and Zwingli restored the true church of Christ and we follow the reformed confessions as our guide to interpreting scripture the only true source of authority. I also left the roman catholic church and faith because I saw the current pope , Joseph RATzinger returning to the corruptions of a Pre Vatican II mentality.

I follow the Westminster Confession as my guide to church life and scripture and doctrine. I am proud to be a Reformed Protestant and I openly renounce Roman Catholicism and her pope as did the reformers.


----------



## dudley (Jun 9, 2011)

Rufus said:


> Wasn't the "pope" originally called the Bishop of Rome and not the pope? Being the Bishop but not having power against and over lets say the Bishop of Constanpinople?


 
He is the Bishop of Rome and the papacy has always been hungry for power....Pope means father.....we know as reformed protestants that the term Father is for Our God alone...Matthew 23:8-10 (KJV) 
Matthew 23:8–10 (AV) 

8But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 
9And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven. 
10Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ. 

The pope is a deceiver of satan himself....it is why we renounce the pope and the papacy...

2 Thessalonians 2:3-4 (KJV) 
2 Thessalonians 2:3–4 (AV) 

3Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 
4Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God.


----------

