I honestly want an answer. I’m not trying to pick a fight or set up anyone to look bad. Here is my problem with the Pope concept:

Suppose Matthew 16 actually does teach that Peter was given all the authority the Catholic Church claims. Where is Apostolic succession in that passage? Suppose one says that Apostolic Succession is taught in Tradition. Where is that tradition in early church history? I’m willing to believe it if I can find good evidence for it. What I am not willing to do is presuppose it is true and then find Scriptures and snippets of Church Fathers that back it up IF it is first assumed.

I must apologize to you, for evidently I am failing clearly enough to communicate my position.

I certainly understand why a Roman Catholic feels strongly that the Roman Catholic Church is *THE* Church and why it is perfectly acceptable to refer to it as such, and as the *Catholic* [capital C] Church.

I however reject these claims and assertions as false and untrue.

I prefer to refer to the Roman Catholic Church to better identify and more properly label the communion that regards the Bishop of Rome as the Vicar of Christ on earth, to which all authority has been given to rule and govern the church on earth.

If you would like additional insight into why I believe, as I do, you can read this blog post:

http://bookofconcord.blogspot.com/2010/01/church-sa-part-iii-article-xii.html

I fail to see how the Church is in error for identifying herself for who/what she is. Is there not an institution called the Catholic Church prior to Martin Luther? Do you think the Council of Trent was a gathering of Roman Catholic Bishops?

Can Paul McCain define for us what he means by “Roman Catholic Church; I am not exactly sure how he is using it. I find it interesting that he does not recognize that the Church headed by the pope is the “Catholic Church”. This is the way the Church identifies herself in all her official expressions. I suspect that “Roman Catholic Church” as used by McCain is antagonistic but I could be wrong.

It’s a slippery slope. Be careful.

Are you suggesting that the church can do no wrong? That the church cannot err in its theology, law, or practice? I refer you to the biblical texts I’ve already cited, and to the sad reality of church history filled with sins, errors, and obvious wrongs.

I do believe that Christ is a perfect shepherd. I’ve yet to meet any other shepherds or sheep who are sinless or infallible.

Instead of alleging that my theology is deficient, you might want to test your anthropology an ecclesiology in light of the Bible and church history.

Yeah, that’s the kind of valuable shepherding I expect from God setting up His Church. Sort of an “abusive neglect” theology, instead of straight up Deism.

To summarize my earlier posts, Why would we not assume otherwise? Because the church gets core dogmas right does not suggest logically that we would necessarily get other doctrines right. In fact, I think it makes sense to assume that there will be great unity and certainty on core dogma and increasing uncertainty and likelihood for error the further we move from there.

A pastoral friend once suggested a model for prioritizing doctrines based on breadth of biblical witness, clarity of biblical evidence, theological importance, and historical agreement. Doctrines like the nature of the Trinity and the vicarious atonement of Christ will be very high in all those areas. Papal infallibility might be theologically important, but there’s little historical agreement, biblical clarity or scriptural support for it. You might see things differently.

Anyway, thanks for the gracious words. Pax.

Rather than quote myself (which is too self-referential even for me), I will direct us back to Post 70. I think pretty much everything I had to say I said there.

If we are completely basing our lives on the Bible, we should remember through whom the Bible came. Did the Church infallibly get that right, and then start missing it?

I also want to repeat something I said earlier: although I probably come across as pugnacious, I hope that I am not offensive to anyone here. This is an interesting and intelligent blog, and I appreciate the high level of civility (especially high considering typical internet standards). Anyway, there was no need to apologize for anything, and I didn’t intend to imply there was.

I am sincerely sorry if I misunderstood or misrepresented what you were saying.

You expressed incredulity that the church could get major doctrines like the nature of Christ, the incarnation, and the Trinity right and then have gone so wrong on papal authority.

It seemed reasonable to infer that you were arguing that the church having gotten other doctrines right should be trusted to get papal authority right, or that papal authority should be held as equally important as the foundational dogmas you cited.

My response was based on what appeared to be the logical consequence of your comment. If you’re not arguing that official church teaching is infallible and you agree that all doctrines are not equally important, I’d appreciate it if you could help me understand your point.