Creating the Pope

[Prophesy]

1. First Council Jerusalem. James presided. Yes, we all know what Peter said, but James called for the vote and seemed to take a senior position of authority a chairman.

Just because I see this come up often, I feel the need to ask this:

Who is the president of the United States (the analogy isn’t as clear as it is in the British or Canadian governments)?
Nancy Pelosi is the Speaker of the House, as such she is the moderator over debates between the President’s party as well as the opposing party, which would seem to make her in charge, let alone if the President were to speak in the House, he would specifically address her as Madam Speaker. However, we know that President of the United States is Barack Obama. James acted as moderator because the council took place in his region (Jerusalem as opposed to Rome). Though I don’t think Rome would have been well established at this point yet.

-Prophecy

 

[dmelosi]

Apollos:

I guess you need to learn to read before you write. You quote me as saying I want “modern” evidence - can you please tell me where you see me say that?? “Stupid says what stupid does” is the quote I attribute to you.

JP

You should have responded to Apollos post on the next page instead of right below his post. Apollos said evidence to the modern pope, not modern evidence.
The way you responded, shows what quote should be attributed to who.

 

[Apollos]

You should have responded to Apollos post on the next page instead of right below his post. Apollos said evidence to the modern pope, not modern evidence. The way you responded, shows what quote should be attributed to who.

Kinda ironic in that I’m basically accusing johnny of demanding an anachronism - asking for proof from 33-200 that the papacy as it is seems to us today also seemed this way to them back then - and here we have a sort of anachronism in the series of responses in the thread. Or something like that.

 

[dmelosi]

Kinda ironic in that I’m basically accusing johnny of demanding an anachronism - asking for proof from 33-200 that the papacy as it is seems to us today also seemed this way to them back then - and here we have a sort of anachronism in the series of responses in the thread. Or something like that.

It was pretty silly of Johnny to twist what you said when it was there for everyone to see.

 

[Apollos]

THERE WAS NO INTENTION by the early Church fathers (including apostles) to guide the development of the Holy See - and/or office of the Pope. This seems to have developed a couple hundred years after Jesus was on earth.

If Jesus meant in Mt. that Peter was supposed to have a clear papal position that would be passed on to a successor, and that office was supposed to be as important as it is today, inspired bible writers and known church father’s would have taken the time to at least write something on the matter. The lack of doing such is very telling.

Isn’t this like saying there is no fire suppression system installed in a new building until you see water coming out of the ceiling? Or that I cannot be my parent’s son because my feet are much bigger than the footprints on the birth announcement cards?

 

[Theophorus]

Here you go. I guess it is 1 in 19 (sorry)

1. St. John
2. St. James
3. St. Peter
4. St. Paul
5. St. Timothy
6. St. Mark
7. St. Mathew
8. St. Jude
9. St. Luke
10. St. Clement (Rome)
11. St. Mathetes
12. St. Polycarp
13. St. Barnabas
14. St. Papias
15. St. Justin Martyr
16. St. Irenaeus
17. St. Origen
18. St. Ignatius
19. St. Clement (Alexandria)

Actually St. Ignatius (died circa A.D 117) ascribes to the Church “which presides in the region of Rome” (not over funnily enough but in) a special status which he does not confer on other churches in his letters. Indeed his praise is in keeping with an understanding of the primacy/pre-eminence of the Church of Rome, and for Ignatius the Church is not the Church with out the Bishop.

 

[Barbkw]

This is off topic a bit…

In Holy Scripture there are multiple references to the use of the sentence, “I called you out of Egypt”.

Ever considered the oddity of the Egyptian obelisks in Rome and how they mark salvation history?

‘One of the Egyptian obelisks, weighs 230 ton and it comes from the temple of Amun in Karnak. It was brought to Alexandria with another obelisk by Constantius II, and then brought on its own from there to Rome in 357 to decorate the spina of the Circus Maximus.’

"The Circus Maximus was built in 326 BC and could hold 250,000 spectators and is located in a valley formed by the Palatine and Aventine hills. Later the Circus Maximus was the site of Christian slaughter.

The last games were held in 549 by Totilla the Goth who captured Rome and reduced its population to 500. After 549 the Circus Maximus was never used again."

Wow! Can you imagine being thrown back into that era of time? Being either a pagan or a Jew converting to Chrisitanity? Being a catechumenate with the hope of eventually receiving the Euchacist and being forced to worship in the catacombs - Rome’s subterranean burial grounds?

 

[BanJoe]

In my research of early church documents, including the Christian Greek Scriptures, I find it very interesting references to a Pope, or Bishop of Rome, is conspicuously left out of the writings. Catholics take great pride in being able to name-idly show the succession of Popes back to Peter.

If that is the case, why then are such important writings without acknowledgment of the post and person?

I have heard the argument that it may have been to protect the identity of the Pope, but I would effectively rebut that there is not even mention of past Popes in those writings - nothing to even really highlight their martyrdom.

To define my time period, I will point to 33 CE to 200 CE (including Justin Martyr). Also, there are obviously references to the person who the Church now claims was the Pope (Bishop of Rome), but nothing I can find specifically tying the office with the person.

Even if someone can show me a specific reference otherwise, the fact that one in thousands of pages of documents only exists makes the point I am suggesting - that the office of Pope came way later than the apostles death - by the standard of Church tradition AND the bible.

Actually there initially was a pentarchy and triarchy where all the bishops what headed the 5 churches were equal.

 

[VetA]

Clearly, “St. Peter” is a mythical character. There is no hard evidence for his historical existence. None.

. and you say you’re a catholic?

 

[Apollos]

. and you say you’re a catholic?

No you see if St Peter were a real person then there would be enough ancient Christian literature about him so that our 21st century questions would all be answered to our satisfaction and we wouldn’t have to make intelligent inferences based on the limited records that have come down to us.