Does the Bible teach the
Doctrine of the Papacy?
Affirmative Closing
Statement
Ben Rosado
Moses,
I hope that my closing statement will be always easy to
understand to you and to your readers in Christ. May some benefit be
preached to you from the Holy Spirit who dwells within me.
In short, I hope to make several points in this last letter
on the Papacy.
First of all, Peter was indeed the leader of the
Apostles. Over and again, many many times, He
acts as their spokesman not only to the Lord, but also to others. Time
and time again Simon keeps presenting the whole church to Jesus and to
others. This is noteworthy and was written for our benefit.
After all, Are all apostles?
Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work mighty deeds? ...
1 Cor
12, 29
I bring this up simply in the case that someone may claim
that every person in the church is the pastor. How funny that would be if
all claimed to be the pastor of your church. What an awful and confusing Sunday
that would be.
and
on the flip side of the coin
Who can honestly say that the church has no pastor at
all?? Try showing up for church when the doors are locked and nobody has organized
the service for the day.
But yes, the bible does speak of Bishops and presbyters
(priests). Who can say that the church is any different today because of
the divisions that have come about. The church remains until this very
hour and will always until the final hour. This is important to know
because any other understanding of where the church has been for these past
2000 years can only lead to the final conclusion that if the church has indeed
always existed in the form described in the bible, then only the catholic
church has ever existed through all the centuries.
Otherwise, where was the church in 500 A.D.?
For me personally, I cannot accept any other than the church has always existed
since Christ founded it. The papacy is a part of the church (The papacy
being the bishops who God speaks through to lead the church).
It is impossible to have a church without a pastor (or a
pastor with pastors under him in cases of large churches). What
church does not have a pastor after all???
So if the matter is that you have a difficulty
understanding how any earthly pastor can proclaim an infallible truth to the
church he watches over, then lets just stop right there and examine that line of
reasoning.
When your pastor stands before the church and says:
"Believe this what I am saying, this is true." That is your
pastor making an infallible statement to the church (unless of course he is not
speaking something that is true). But see my point is this,
there is no problem with a pastor making an infallible statement to the
church. He must after al lead the people into the fullness of
truth. This he does by the working of the holy
Spirit within him and through the grace handed down to him by the previous
Pastors. There is a line of succession all the way back to the
apostles themselves. Each handing down what was taught to them by the
previous generation.
And all this is from Christ who strengthens us.
So without the line of succession, who can ever say "I
have been given authority to preach to God's church." That sounds
like he has taken the authority upon himself. There is no connection in
line with the apostles and martyrs of the early church.
But you must know that this is valid in the catholic
faith. We welcome all who are thirsty to come and see. Taste and
see, the Sprit of Christ is still with us since:
He who remains in me will bear much fruit, but if he does
not remain in me, he will be cast off like a branch and will wither.
This is important and can be likened to a tree that gives
nourishment to all. When some branch breaks itself off of that tree, it
withers for lack of nourishment. This is deplorable and not the will of
the Lord. We should all still be one and we once were in times
past. Before the reformation.
The lack of unity and a pastor for all the protestant
denominations clearly shows a disunity and lack of leadership. The
picture of the early church is very different. They held all things in common
and came together for the breaking of the bread.
Moses, I cannot accept any other church with any other
pastor than the one in line, connected and with the same teaching of the church
that existed in the years 100 A.D. 700 A.D. 1400 A.D. and 2007 A.D. Why
would anyone accept otherwise?
If you can read the early church fathers and see them
describe anything other than a unified church with bishops, belief in the real
presence of Christ in the Eucharist, and even belief in purgatory, then maybe
you can prove that there was some other church in existence besides the Catholic
Church for the hundreds of years since Christ onwards.
But if there is no other church in existence, then how can
I accept any other church now? That would just simply be a different
church. I cannot be more honest than this.
Here are some quotes again from the fathers since you asked
for a few more:
Tertullian says:
For it is evident that those men lived not so long
ago,--in the reign of Antoninus for the most
part,--and that they at first were believers in the doctrine of the Catholic
Church, in the church of Rome under the episcopate of the blessed Eleutherus, until on account of their ever restless
curiosity, with which they even infected the brethren, they were more than once
expelled. Tertullian, On the Prescription Against Heretics, 22,30 (A.D. 200).
Origen:
"And Peter, on whom the
"[F]or the rock is inaccessible to the serpent, and it
is stronger than the gates of Hades which are opposing it, so that because of
its strength the gates of Hades do not prevail against it; but the church, as a
building of Christ who built His own house wisely upon the rock, is incapable
of admitting the gates of Hades which prevail against every man who is outside
the rock and the church, but have no power against it." Origen, On
Matthew, 12:11 (A.D. 244).
Augustine:
It follows after commendation of the Trinity, 'The
In the year 377 A.D. when Augustine wrote this, he was a
catholic and believed in all things catholic.
No other church existed dear readers.
Cyprian:
'...thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my
Church' ... It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts
the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles,
yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the
source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness...If a man does not fast to this
oneness of Peter, does he still imagine that he still holds the faith. If he
deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still
confidence that he is in the Church? Cyprian, De Unitate Ecclesiae (Primacy text), 4 (A.D. 251).
And Firmilian:
...folly of (Pope) Stephen, that he who boasts of the
place of the episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter,
on whom the foundation of the Church were laid... Firmilian, Epistle To Cyprian,
Epistle 75(74):17(A.D. 256).
Even in this hard to accept teaching, Firmilian
says that yes, the succession of Peter on whom the foundation of the church is
laid. It is all there to read in the early church letters.
They are a source of confidence to all who profess to
belong to the one fold handed down since the time of Christ, one in place one
in time and one in the Lord's teaching handed down to us.
May God greatly bless you eyes and ears to find this
treasure of immeasurable worth, even as I, a miserable sinner, did.
With love in Jesus for all of you dear readers,
Your brother in Christ,
Ben