The Pope of the CC.

[WarriorAngel]

“For the Pope holdeth place on earth,
not simply of a man but of the one true God.”
Pope Innocent III, 1215
Fourth Lateran Council

“Either sword is in the power of the church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material. The former is to be used by the church. The one in the hand of the priest, the other in the hand of the kings and soldiers, but at the will and pleasure of the priest. It is right that the temporal sword and authority be subject to the spiritual power. The Roman Pontiff [the Pope] judges all men, but is judged by no one. We declare, assert, define and pronounce to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is to every human creature altogether necessary for salvation . . . That which was spoken of Christ . . . ‘Thou has subdued all things under his feet’, may well seem verified in me. I have the authority of the King of kings. I am all in all and above all, so that God Himself and I, the Vicar of God, have but one consistory, and I am able to do almost all that God can do. What therefore can you make of me but God?”
Pope Boniface VIII, 1302
Papal Bull: Unam Sanctam

“We [the Popes] hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty.”
Pope Leo XIII, 1894
Encyclical Letter

Our Creator's words...

– Acts 16:31; 4:12
"What shall we do? “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved"

"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.”

- Romans 3:10, 12, 23; 6:23
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one"

"there is none that doeth good, no, not one"

"For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God"

"For the wages of sin is death;”

– Ephesians 5:11
"have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.”

Although the boldness of the Popes were a bit much in our thinking and such....
They were stating that as successors of Peter they must shepherd the flock of Christs' on earth....
They are not God, but must stand as shepherd in Peter's place who stood in Christ's place.

But mostly, the second statement was about the Church and the Church must be led without error by the Holy Spirit...hence the Pope cannot [when teaching for the Lord] teach heresy.

Sure the language seems offensive... but it was a given fact for 15-1600 years. The prose of the times must be a consideration!!

I have yet to be shown a place where scriptures tell us the Church would have to fall and be fragmented and divided for good cause.

It would run contrary to Christ's own prayer...
'Father let them be one as We are One.'

AS all power in Heaven and earth was given to Christ, He sent them out....

Popes do not claim to be sinless... they only made claim to teach and instruct [without error] the same teachings handed down to them.

BTW, if there were errors, or untruths...they would have been shown and called out to be heresy. That happened all the time...within the Church and externally from the Church when the fathers of the Church fought off heresies.

How did they know..?
Not only the same Holy Spirit that would always lead the Church Who would keep the Church from prevailing to evil...
BUT because they knew what was taught thru generations.






Revelation Chapters 17 and 18 tells the true believer with the ears to hear, what the RC-system of religion is. That it's a women riding a beast. That it's membership are commanded to come out of her.

This is an interpretation of Scripture and nothing like a "flame". A true flame is a scurilous attack based on nothing except usually an ego war.

The Apostle John who wrote Revelation was involved heart, soul, spirit and mind in a miraculous revelation from Yah sent directly to him.


I interpret 17 and 18 wholly different.
It is a secularized system, and not religion being prophecized. Besides, the Church is not into Trade....[WTC] ahem.

But if you like, perhaps check out

Rev 3
7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth:
8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.

This tells me that the place of Peter is beloved...and the Lord will show the world that He does love His Pope and Church.

And what if I am right??

Ok, I hope this was the right place to put this...
I figured it was.

[kobuk]

Hi. I welcome these honest debates. It's what this part of our forum is for.

The RC position that is used to support the dogma that there actually exists valid Scriptural support for Papistry in the Bible can be easily and fairly debunked using peaceful and fair debate principles.

I'll gather up my debate materials and i look forward to a friendly discussion. Great to see this area visited by RC's! ;):thumbsup:

[WarriorAngel]

Hi. I welcome these honest debates. It's what this part of our forum is for.

The RC position that is used to support the dogma that there actually exists valid Scriptural support for Papistry in the Bible can be easily and fairly debunked using peaceful and fair debate principles.

I'll gather up my debate materials and i look forward to a friendly discussion. Great to see this area visited by RC's! ;):thumbsup:

Ok, I welcome the ideas you may offer...

But I must ask that you consider the times and the way they worded things which were bold and vastly differ from how the world is forced to speak now.

Seriously, the Apostles spoke just as boldly...

Today if you speak as they did through out the ages you will be pegged as arrogant and will put ppl off.

Although the scriptures, which most sola scripturists hold to, [sans Tradition - orally taught of what scriptures mean] are often conceptions of their consciences in the second millenium since Christ. IE, where does the authority derive from after all those years??

For instance, Christ spoke concisely and succintly when He repeated [not to be mistaken] three times to Peter...'Feed My sheep...'

Who is the Shepherd? Jesus is.
He said He was, we were taught He was, and what did He do...?

Did He, or did He not tell Peter to specifically feed the sheep which were His?

IF Jesus had not meant for Peter to stand in His shoes [so to speak] and teach in His place what He wanted taught and adhered to...then why would He assign him such a task?

Is Peter the shepherd in the absense of His master?

Does not feeding the sheep, mean to attend to their needs...and nourish them?

How can he feed them...if not but to teach what Christ wanted taught. That which nourishes our souls...?

And did Christ want mistakes, mishaps, and other heretical teachings to creep in?
No.
Which is why He solemnly foretold that the gates of hell shal not prevail against His Church...!

Also, I am still wondering where Jesus ever said...
'Go, and write what I did so ppl will follow and know...'

Alas, He said to go out and preach the Gospel.

And the Apostles did as He commanded them.
It was not until later they wrote it.

And it was not until 400 years that the Church decided [their choice] what would be scriptures of the NT.
AND for 1500 years the only Bibles around were hand written... and kept in the Churches. The Bible was theirs. IE, written for them and kept by them.

The printing press didnt come about until 1455 [?] AD or so.

So...is 1500-1600 years of the same teachings wrong, since Christ?

I also have verses to fill in the questions you may have about other Catholic doctrines.

The Catholic teachings are purely scriptural...with Traditional teaching of what it all means. Traditional ..as in, what was orally taught to show what it means...
Which again is a scriptural concept ....as per the command Paul gave to Timothy to maintain while teaching and instructing new men whom would be in the line of ordination of priests.

Wow, sorry...I write a whole lot. :wave:

Thanks for particpating. Hope to see you soon.

[kobuk]

Are you RC? I was assuming yes. But it is not possible to be 100% sure without seeing the RC religious institution symbol up there in the upper left corner where we keep our names and customised stuff.

...cheers. ;)

[Rhamiel]

this should be interesting

[BBAS 64]

Although the boldness of the Popes were a bit much in our thinking and such....
They were stating that as successors of Peter they must shepherd the flock of Christs' on earth....
They are not God, but must stand as shepherd in Peter's place who stood in Christ's place.

But mostly, the second statement was about the Church and the Church must be led without error by the Holy Spirit...hence the Pope cannot [when teaching for the Lord] teach heresy.

Sure the language seems offensive... but it was a given fact for 15-1600 years. The prose of the times must be a consideration!!

Good Day, WA

Must be how, their lanauge is very clear offensive no.

Foolishness yes.

Your interpretation is a bit off, that is all.

I have yet to be shown a place where scriptures tell us the Church would have to fall and be fragmented and divided for good cause.

It would run contrary to Christ's own prayer...
'Father let them be one as We are One.'

AS all power in Heaven and earth was given to Christ, He sent them out....

Popes do not claim to be sinless... they only made claim to teach and instruct [without error] the same teachings handed down to them.

BTW, if there were errors, or untruths...they would have been shown and called out to be heresy. That happened all the time...within the Church and externally from the Church when the fathers of the Church fought off heresies.

How did they know..?
Not only the same Holy Spirit that would always lead the Church Who would keep the Church from prevailing to evil...
BUT because they knew what was taught thru generations.








I interpret 17 and 18 wholly different.
It is a secularized system, and not religion being prophecized. Besides, the Church is not into Trade....[WTC] ahem.

But if you like, perhaps check out

Rev 3
7 And to the angel of the church of Philadelphia, write: These things saith the Holy One and the true one, he that hath the key of David; he that openeth, and no man shutteth; shutteth, and no man openeth:
8 I know thy works. Behold, I have given before thee a door opened, which no man can shut: because thou hast a little strength, and hast kept my word, and hast not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will bring of the synagogue of Satan, who say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie. Behold, I will make them to come and adore before thy feet. And they shall know that I have loved thee.

This tells me that the place of Peter is beloved...and the Lord will show the world that He does love His Pope and Church.

And what if I am right??

Ok, I hope this was the right place to put this...
I figured it was.

Wow so much stuff here, so little time.

The "key" was in the hand of the Lord and has nothing to do with Peter.

The church is not divided Christ prayer to his father was answered. The issue is the oneness of the church is likened to the oneness of the God head " as we are one"

As I have said to you before you have wrong view biblical and historical view of the church.

They claim to teach with out error, such name it claim it stuff is silly and very dangerous.

In Him,

Bill

[WarriorAngel]

[/b]

Good Day, WA

Must be how, their lanauge is very clear offensive no.

Foolishness yes.

Your interpretation is a bit off, that is all.


No, it is not my interpretation.
It is my understanding of how the Church has always spoken as an authority she always was/is.

It only offends those who may refuse to accept it.
No one in that time had an issue with accepting it.

It was how things were spoken.

No one revolted from the Church because this was 'something new'....because indeed, if it were a new concept it would have easily been argued.

People do not realise that the Bishops and other fathers would not have stood by something so astounding if it were not in accord with what was always taught.

Today, we call ppl who say these things bold and brash and rude...[well, I dont]

Take for instance, when the Pope stood by the Church in 2007 and we have a witch hunt on our hands from those outside the Church.

It is and has always been about what the 'self' sees in the words.

It has of course always been the Church's understanding that the Pope stands in Peter shoes, better yet sits in his Chair and as an active successor reserves the same authority as Peter.

This is true of every Apostolic successor in each Church such as the EO and OO.

So, it is only offensive to those who refuse to accept the teachings that were always present in the Church.


BTW, Hi BBAS... :wave: I should go into GT more.... havent seen you for a bit.


Wow so much stuff here, so little time.

The "key" was in the hand of the Lord and has nothing to do with Peter.

Jesus would not only disagree, but by His own WORDS He said to Peter...

Matthew 16 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=19&f=s#x)
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

NOW...did Jesus...or did He not give the keys to Peter...?

AND that has absolutely EVERYTHING TO do with Peter.
Revelation, BTW is Jesus speaking about whom has the keys...

He is not talking about Himself in 1st and 3rd party.


The church is not divided Christ prayer to his father was answered. The issue is the oneness of the church is likened to the oneness of the God head " as we are one"

As I have said to you before you have wrong view biblical and historical view of the church.

They claim to teach with out error, such name it claim it stuff is silly and very dangerous.

In Him,

Bill

Sadly, I wish it were not so...but the Churches today are distinctly divided by dissimilar theology and doctrine.

WE in the Church adhere to the ancient doctrines...and you could say 'same ole' and yet the newer churches founded by men's interpretation post 1600 ad have other ideas.

Are you RC? I was assuming yes. But it is not possible to be 100% sure without seeing the RC religious institution symbol up there in the upper left corner where we keep our names and customised stuff.

...cheers. ;)

Well, there is something I have to tell you.

Although I am personally Roman Catholic, which means that is the Rite I belong to, there are many Catholics under the Pope who have another Rite they are in.

Byzantine, Syrian, Greek...etc. ;)

All of which have ancient Churches in their countries and historical icons and such.

Its fascinating stuff really.

[BBAS 64]

No, it is not my interpretation.
It is my understanding of how the Church has always spoken as an authority she always was/is.

It only offends those who may refuse to accept it.
No one in that time had an issue with accepting it.

It was how things were spoken.

No one revoltied from the Church because this was 'something new'....because indeed, if it were a new concept it would have easily been argued.

People do not realise that the Bishops and other fathers would not have stood by something so astounding if it were not in accord with what was always taught.

Today, we call ppl who say these things bold and brash and rude...[well, I dont]

Take for instance, when the Pope stood by the Church in 2007 and we have a witch hunt on our hands from those outside the Church.

It is and has always been about what the 'self' sees in the words.

It has of course always been the Church's understanding that the Pope stands in Peter shoes, better yet sits in his Chair and as an active successor reserves the same authority as Peter.

Good Day, WA

You assume authority for Rome, and have yet to prove that Peter had any that was "his" alone and hold to the "churches" error of understanding.

Same old name it claim it.

This is true of every Apostolic successor in each Church such as the EO and OO.

So, it is only offensive to those who refuse to accept the teachings that were always present in the Church.


BTW, Hi BBAS... :wave: I should go into GT more.... havent seen you for a bit.



Jesus would not only disagree, but by His own WORDS He said to Peter...

Matthew 16 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=47&ch=16&l=19&f=s#x)
19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

NOPW...did Jesus...or did He not give the keys to Peter...?

AND that has absolutely EVERYTHING TO do with Peter.
Revelation, BTW is Jesus speaking about whom has the keys...

He is not talking about Himself in 1st and 3rd party.



Sadly, I wish it were not so...but the Churches today are distinctly divided by dissimilar theology and doctrine.

WE in the Church adhere to the ancient doctrines...and you could say 'same ole' and yet the newer churches founded by men's interpretation post 1600 ad have other ideas.



Well, there is something I have to tell you.

Although I am personally Roman Catholic, which means that is the Rite I belong to, there are many Catholics under the Pope who have another Rite they are in.

Byzantine, Syrian, Greek...etc. ;)

All of which have ancient Churches in their countries and historical icons and such.

Its fascinating stuff really.\


You will notice in Matt "will" give future tense of verb. Also "keys" are not the same as "key" in revelations the words are differnet so your understanding are not based on the words used, But your own complete adoption of Romes errors.

Your Roman based understaning is based on Rome alone, More name it claim it:

Yves M.-J. Congar wrote: “Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.

As to the chuch and your repeated error:

Augustine – The Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the Mother of Christians. He also speaks of an inner and outer church, and the difficulty of telling from appearances who are members of this true church (the "enclosed garden spring shut up, fountain sealed, the paradise with the fruit of apples) who are the elect, and belong to the "invisible fellowship of love" (as opposed to the outer, historical Catholic Church).

Only the elect are part of the true body, true church.

And they are one as the Father and son are one, you dream for some historical unity that did not ever exist:

John Chrysostom comments:

"Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church, and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that the Church is divided into a thousand parties." (Commentary on Galatians, 1:7)


Church is used here as the "outer" visible church which you claim to be roman in nature.

Yes, it has been a while hope you are well.

In Him,

Bill

[BBAS 64]

Ok, I welcome the ideas you may offer...

But I must ask that you consider the times and the way they worded things which were bold and vastly differ from how the world is forced to speak now.

Seriously, the Apostles spoke just as boldly...

Today if you speak as they did through out the ages you will be pegged as arrogant and will put ppl off.

Although the scriptures, which most sola scripturists hold to, [sans Tradition - orally taught of what scriptures mean] are often conceptions of their consciences in the second millenium since Christ. IE, where does the authority derive from after all those years??

For instance, Christ spoke concisely and succintly when He repeated [not to be mistaken] three times to Peter...'Feed My sheep...'

Who is the Shepherd? Jesus is.
He said He was, we were taught He was, and what did He do...?

Did He, or did He not tell Peter to specifically feed the sheep which were His?

IF Jesus had not meant for Peter to stand in His shoes [so to speak] and teach in His place what He wanted taught and adhered to...then why would He assign him such a task?

Is Peter the shepherd in the absense of His master?

Does not feeding the sheep, mean to attend to their needs...and nourish them?

How can he feed them...if not but to teach what Christ wanted taught. That which nourishes our souls...?

And did Christ want mistakes, mishaps, and other heretical teachings to creep in?
No.
Which is why He solemnly foretold that the gates of hell shal not prevail against His Church...!

Also, I am still wondering where Jesus ever said...
'Go, and write what I did so ppl will follow and know...'

Alas, He said to go out and preach the Gospel.

And the Apostles did as He commanded them.
It was not until later they wrote it.

And it was not until 400 years that the Church decided [their choice] what would be scriptures of the NT.
AND for 1500 years the only Bibles around were hand written... and kept in the Churches. The Bible was theirs. IE, written for them and kept by them.

The printing press didnt come about until 1455 [?] AD or so.

So...is 1500-1600 years of the same teachings wrong, since Christ?

I also have verses to fill in the questions you may have about other Catholic doctrines.

The Catholic teachings are purely scriptural...with Traditional teaching of what it all means. Traditional ..as in, what was orally taught to show what it means...
Which again is a scriptural concept ....as per the command Paul gave to Timothy to maintain while teaching and instructing new men whom would be in the line of ordination of priests.

Wow, sorry...I write a whole lot. :wave:

Thanks for particpating. Hope to see you soon.

Good Day WA

You understanding is out side of Peter's own writtings.

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mindNeither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

He was also an elder in the same fashion as the other "elders". They are all tending shepherd, there is only one chief all others are tenders and equal in service to the flock.

In Him,

Bill

[Albion]

The idea that the Pope has claimed to be God is not shown by the quotes given us here, although the aspirations of the bishops of Rome to universal jurisdiction over the church of Christ, to infallibility, or to having a unique position of representing God on Earth are clearly inventions of a time much after Christ.

[WarriorAngel]

Good Day, WA

You assume authority for Rome, and have yet to prove that Peter had any that was "his" alone and hold to the "churches" error of understanding.

Same old name it claim it.

\


You will notice in Matt "will" give future tense of verb. Also "keys" are not the same as "key" in revelations the words are differnet so your understanding are not based on the words used, But your own complete adoption of Romes errors.

Your Roman based understaning is based on Rome alone, More name it claim it:

Yves M.-J. Congar wrote: “Application of the principle is difficult, at least at a certain level. In regard to individual texts of Scripture total patristic consensus is unnecessary: quite often, that which is appealed to as sufficient for dogmatic points does not go beyond what is encountered in the interpretation of many texts. But it does sometimes happen that some Fathers understood a passage in a way which does not agree with later Church teaching. One example: the interpretation of Peter’s confession in Matthew 16.16-19. Except at Rome, this passage was not applied by the Fathers to the papal primacy; they worked out exegesis at the level of their own ecclesiasiological thought, more anthropological and spiritual than judicial. . . . Historical documentation is at the factual level; it must leave room for a judgement made not in the light of the documentary evidence alone, but of the Church's faith.” Yves M.-J. Congar, Tradition and Traditions: An Historical and a Theological Essay (London: Burns & Oats, 1966), pp. 398-399.

As to the chuch and your repeated error:

Augustine – The Church is the realm of Christ, His mystical body and His bride, the Mother of Christians. He also speaks of an inner and outer church, and the difficulty of telling from appearances who are members of this true church (the "enclosed garden spring shut up, fountain sealed, the paradise with the fruit of apples) who are the elect, and belong to the "invisible fellowship of love" (as opposed to the outer, historical Catholic Church).

Only the elect are part of the true body, true church.

And they are one as the Father and son are one, you dream for some historical unity that did not ever exist:

John Chrysostom comments:

"Thus a thousand similar errors are daily introduced into the Church, and we are become a laughing-stock to Jews and Greeks, seeing that the Church is divided into a thousand parties." (Commentary on Galatians, 1:7)


Church is used here as the "outer" visible church which you claim to be roman in nature.

Yes, it has been a while hope you are well.

In Him,

Bill





What is most interesting is the fact that Constantinople [without the successor or Peter's consent] called or named itself the New Rome.
And became the lead of the East...

Now tell me in your own words why they would do that if Rome was nothing. :wave:
Note; Rome refers to authority because that is where the Pontiff resides, not because of the country, which does not have any say so in Church theology.

Good Day WA

You understanding is out side of Peter's own writtings.

The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight [thereof], not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mindNeither as being lords over [God's] heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a crown of glory that fadeth not away.

He was also an elder in the same fashion as the other "elders". They are all tending shepherd, there is only one chief all others are tenders and equal in service to the flock.

In Him,

Bill

Peter considered himself last...
Because had he done otherwise...then he knew that he would be not be first.

'The first shall be last and the last shall be first.'

However; as humble as he was... he was still the one Jesus said to help and watch over the others.

Luke 22 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=49&ch=22&l=32&f=s#x)
32 But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren.

This next statement is telling...
Peter is the only Apostle named...and the others are Apostles.

Acts Of Apostles 5 (http://drbo.org/cgi-bin/d?b=drb&bk=51&ch=5&l=29&f=s#x)
29 But Peter and the apostles answering, said: We ought to obey God, rather than men.

Why is that?

Why is Peter always mentioned first and the first to speak at the councils and meetings?





The idea that the Pope has claimed to be God is not shown by the quotes given us here, although the aspirations of the bishops of Rome to universal jurisdiction over the church of Christ, to infallibility, or to having a unique position of representing God on Earth are clearly inventions of a time much after Christ.

You say so, but where is your proof?

Christ asked Peter to be His shepherd of His people...
DID He, or did He not specifically TELL Peter to feed His sheep?

Its quite simple.

[LivingWordUnity]

The idea that the Pope has claimed to be God is not shown by the quotes given us here, although the aspirations of the bishops of Rome to universal jurisdiction over the church of Christ, to infallibility, or to having a unique position of representing God on Earth are clearly inventions of a time much after Christ.The authority of Peter was formally announced by Jesus Christ Himself in at least three different places in the Bible.

[Albion]

The authority of Peter was formally announced by Jesus Christ Himself in at least three different places in the Bible.

Not really, although I'm sure that is what you were taught.

For instance, where is he called infallible? That IS, after all, part of what is claimed for the bishops of Rome.

Where does Jesus Christ Himself say that whatever commission he was givingt to Peter can be passed on to other people?

What would show us that what Jesus Christ Himself gave to Peter relates to the kind of authority that you want us to believe, rather than some other kind of authority?

To all really critical aspects of the "authority" question, Scripture does not tell us anything about a Papacy. On the other hand, there is very good scriptural evidence of Jesus Christ Himself having something else in mind.

[Albion]

You say so, but where is your proof?

If you need no proof to make blanket statements on matters that you know are controversial, why would you suppose that others are to be held to a higher standard? But in any case, I have already presented the evidence to you and others many times, so "where" it is to be found is in the posts you have already read.

Christ asked Peter to be His shepherd of His people...

And as has been said many times, all bishops are to shepherd their religious flocks.

[mont974x4]

The popes are just men, nothing more. Peter was not the rock, Christ is and always will be. Also, God is not a respector of persons. The idea that He would elevate one man above anothe rin such a way as the RCC suggests go against Scripture.

[Albion]

The popes are just men, nothing more. Peter was not the rock, Christ is and always will be. Also, God is not a respector of persons. The idea that He would elevate one man above anothe rin such a way as the RCC suggests go against Scripture.

I have the feeling that the problem boils down to one basic.

Peter was a key man in Christ's plans, true. But what that translates into can be many things. The bishops of Rome, beginning a few centuries after Christ, tried to parlay the fame and fortune of the city of Rome and the high regard with which Peter had been held in into something much, much more than Jesus ever addressed (and apparently contrary to much that he DID address, as you note).

That includes Universal jurisdiction, Infallibility, and even the ability to decide who the other successors of the Apostles are.

None of that comes from Scripture or the fact that Jesus was counting upon Peter or did assign to him the place of announcing the Gospel to the world. The connection, IOW, from Peter had "authority" to defining that authority in the specific terms that men devised only centuries later is missing.

[LivingWordUnity]

The bishops of Rome, beginning a few centuries after ChristIt is an historical fact that Peter went to Rome, was the Bishop of Rome, and was martyred in Rome. The body of Saint Peter was discovered in Rome in the 20th Century by archeologists, confirming what the Church had always said about it.

In the following quote from Pope Saint Clement written in the year 80 A.D., we see that the Eastern Churches appealed to the higher authority of the Bishop of Rome when they had a dispute that needed to be settled:

“Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved...Accept our counsel, and you will have nothing to regret...anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger...You will afford us joy and gladness if, being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”
St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 1: 58-59, 63, A.D. 80

And in this next quote, the Bishop of Rome was talking about apostolic succession in the year 80 A.D.

"Our Apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned, and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry." St. Clement of Rome, Letter to the Corinthians, 44:1-2, c. AD 80

I highly recommend to anyone to research the writings of the Early Church fathers.

[LivingWordUnity]

None of that comes from Scripture or the fact that Jesus was counting upon Peter or did assign to him the place of announcing the Gospel to the world.Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock. Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

Source:
ScriptureCatholic.Com
http://www.scripturecatholic.com/

[Albion]

As I wrote, Peter is certainly one of the key figures in Christ's church. He was counted upon by Christ and was regarded by the Apostles as one of their leaders.

None of that has anything to do with Papal Claims to universal jurisdiction or infallibility.

[Albion]

I highly recommend to anyone to research the writings of the Early Church fathers.


And I do as well.

When we study them, what do we find?

1) That Peter is considered the leader of the Church by some, Peter and Paul equally by others, James by others. One at least goes out of his way to denounce the claims of leadership by the successor bishops of Rome. In short, the Early Fathers do not support the idea of a Papacy.

2) No evidence of any special role for the successors of Peter as against the successors of the other Apostles. Minus that, there is no Apostolic belief in a Papacy.

As for Clement's writing, he nowhere claims any of the powers alleged for the Popes, but gives his opinion on how churches should proceed. Any other bishop could have done the same, save only that we don't have the documentation of them doing so.

[LivingWordUnity]

As I wrote, Peter is certainly one of the key figures in Christ's church. He was counted upon by Christ and was regarded by the Apostles as one of their leaders.

None of that has anything to do with Papal Claims to universal jurisdiction or infallibility."And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I [Jesus Christ] will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I [Jesus Christ] will give you [Peter] the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you [Peter] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [Peter] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matt. 16:19

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I [Jesus] have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you [Peter] have turned again, strengthen your brethren." - Luke 22:32

Sounds universal and infallible to me.

Show me where Jesus singled out any of the other apostles in the way that He did for Peter. You can't because Jesus didn't do that for anyone else but Peter.

I think that you are downplaying the importance of the promises of Jesus.

[Hentenza]

Oh no, another Peter is the rock thread!!!:doh:

Hasn't this issue been already talked to death?:sick:

[Hentenza]

Sounds universal and infallible to me.



And here is the crux!!!:doh:

[Vambram]

Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "BEHOLD, I LAY IN ZION A CHIEF CORNERSTONE, ELECT, PRECIOUS, AND HE WHO BELIEVES ON HIM WILL BY NO MEANS BE PUT TO SHAME." Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "THE STONE WHICH THE BUILDERS REJECTED HAS BECOME THE CHIEF CORNERSTONE," and "A STONE OF STUMBLING AND A ROCK OF OFFENSE." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed. But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people, that you may proclaim the praises of Him who called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; who once were not a people but are now the people of God, who had not obtained mercy but now have obtained mercy.
(1 Peter 2:4-10)





Believers are identified with Christ, for He is the living Stone and they are like living stones. And as they become more like Him, further conformed to His image, they are being built into a spiritual house. Jesus told Peter, "On this rock I will build My church" (Matthew_16:18). Now Peter (1 Peter_2:4-5) clearly identified Christ as the Rock on which His church is built. Paul called the church a "temple" (1 Corinthians_3:16; Ephesians_2:21) and "a dwelling" (Ephesians_2:22). Believers not only make up the church but serve in it, ministering as a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices. All believers are priests (cf. 1 Peter_2:9; Hebrews_4:16; Revelation_1:6) and need no mediator other than Jesus Christ to approach God directly. Such priestly service requires holiness ( 1 Peter_1:16, 1 Peter_1:22). Praise to God and doing good to others are spiritual sacrifices that please Him (Hebrews_13:15). However, "living stones" may also offer themselves as "living sacrifices" (Romans_12:1), acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.
:groupray:

[Albion]

"And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I [Jesus Christ] will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I [Jesus Christ] will give you [Peter] the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you [Peter] bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you [Peter] loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven." - Matt. 16:19

Right. Nothing there about ruling all the churches in the world and nothing about Peter being infallible. Also nothing about passing on his role, however we view it, to others. Thanks.,



Show me where Jesus singled out any of the other apostles in the way that He did for Peter.

That can be done, but it won't prove or disprove anything about what we are discussing, and for two very good reasons. First, prominence does not create infallibility, etc. It creates prominence. Second, what he "did for Peter" has not been established. I certainly do not agree that he made Peter a Pope since there were none in Jesus plans, so of course we are not going to find that Jesus made--or didn't make--someone else a Pope.

You are saying that the Papacy was Jesus' intention, yet there is nothing in scripture that says this, the early church knew none of it, and even the bishops of Rome didn't start claiming it until centuries down the road. If you could have addressed any of that, I'm sure you would have.


I think that you are downplaying the importance of the promises of Jesus.

Not in the least. Jesus gave Peter the responsibility of opening the Gospel to the wider world. We all know that this was done on Pentecost. As you know, the multitudes heard Peter speaking as if in their own languages. That's not something of insignificance, IMO.

Not only that, but thousands heard and became believers. How can this not be important? It obviously cannot be unimportant when the first people who had not followed Jesus in Galilee and Judea heard about him and converted, and this was probably a greater number than had become disciples in all the time of Jesus' public ministry which many put at three years in duration. This is big stuff, if you ask me, especially since it is the beginning of what the Church has done through every minister for 2000 years thereafter, i.e. preach the word and reach the unsaved who had no opportunity to have heard Jesus personally. And Peter was made by Jesus the one to do it.