One of the prooftexts for Catholicism is 1 Tim 3:15. Unfortunately for Catholics, this verse isn’t referring to the church of Rome. In context, it’s referring to the church of Ephesus (cf. 1:3).
It’s a reference to the local church, not the universal church—much less the church of Rome. If, therefore, we’re going to use this verse as a prooftext for a high church ecclesiology, then the church of Ephesus is the pillar and foundation of truth. Roman Catholics are betting on the wrong horse. They should switch their allegiance from Rome to Ephesus. Now that we’ve cleared that up, we look forward to Roman Catholics submitting to the true Vicar of Christ—the bishop of Ephesus.
Ephesus no longer exists, except in ruins - so I would be quite content with the Nowhere Pope of Nothing.
ReplyDeleteI never knew that so much of the Catholic doctrine is held up by that one verse - thanks for sharing...
ReplyDeleteIn context it is referring to "the household of God- which is the church of the Living God- the pillar and foundation of truth."
ReplyDeleteSounds universal to me.
Is there a Triablogue post about this Catholic proof-text:
ReplyDelete"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matt. 16:18)
ANNE SAID:
ReplyDelete“In context it is referring to ‘the household of God- which is the church of the Living God- the pillar and foundation of truth.__Sounds universal to me.”
Wrong.
“As in 3:5, there is no definite article before ‘church, and this suggests that Paul is thinking primarily of the particular local community…the local congregation, Paul adds, is a pillar and buttress of truth…the local church is described as ‘a pillar, etc., not ‘the pillar,’ etc,’ because there are may local churches through the world performing this role,” J. N. D. Kelley, A Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 87-88.
But, if, for the sake of argument, we take the reference to denote the universal church, then it wouldn’t function as Catholic prooftext since it wouldn’t refer to the church of Rome. So, either way, it can’t serve as a Catholic prooftext.
truth unites... and divides said...
ReplyDeleteIs there a Triablogue post about this Catholic proof-text:__"And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." (Matt. 16:18)
********************
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2004/05/back-to-babylon-1.html
Scroll down to §5.
Here's another Triablogue article that addresses Matthew 16 and the papacy:
ReplyDeletehttp://triablogue.blogspot.com/2006/06/was-papacy-established-by-christ-part.html
And here's an article I wrote several years ago, arguing for a Pauline papacy and Ephesian primacy:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060625173851/members.aol.com/jasonte3/paul51.htm
I'd also like to add that the majority of the church fathers did not interpret Matt. 16:18 as referring to Peter (contra the supposedly infallible Vatican I). William Webster has taken upon himself the painstaking task of listing all of the quotes from the church fathers that comment on Matt. 16:18 (including those that interpret the 'rock' as Peter):
ReplyDeletehttp://www.christiantruth.com/fathersmt16.html
My comments on 1 Tim. 3:15 are found here:
http://contra-gentes.blogspot.com/2007/10/eisegeted-verses-1-timothy-315.html
As Monsignor Quinn explains in his magisterial commentary, “Here the anarthrous ekklesia theou, ‘God’s church,’ is the object of the direction and care spoken of…A ‘church, in both 3:5 and 5:16, has a local aspect as a home has an address,” The First & Second Letters to Timothy, 262.
ReplyDeleteCommenting on 3:15, he says “just as the oikos as a sign was the actual, local assembly of believers, that same, local assembly could be called ‘God’s church’ (as in 3:5 above),” ibid. 311.
Steve, Jason, Saint&Sinner,
ReplyDeleteThanks for all the links! I interact occasionally with Catholics on various blogs, and they are rather dismissive of 5-Sola Protestants.
Of course catholicism does not hinge on just one verse. The catholic church compiled which books would be in the bible between the years 380 and 427ad at various synods in Rome, Carthage and Hippo. How can we be proven wrong by using what we formulated as inspired???
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have always understood the verse to refer, not to the magisterial authority which lies in any single locality, but to the church itself--at that time, bishops, presbyters, deacons, and laity--as being essential to the proclamation and understanding of the gospel. It is an epistemic claim, not a geographic claim.
ReplyDeleteHow can you discount the validity of the bible in such a way? As Semper said, the church of Ephesus "no longer exists, except in ruins", and you would rather believe that this is "the pillar and foundation of truth" over the Catholic Church? What sense does that make? If the bible is the Word of God, then to say that a church it professes to be a "pillar and foundation of truth" is in ruin, how can one believe anything else the bible says? "Pillar and foundation of truth" does not, and never will, equal "no longer exists, except in ruins."
ReplyDeleteI am trying to figure out which denominations were already present in the pages of the NT...can you assist?
ReplyDelete