Does the Pope Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ChristCrucified
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I go to God’s Word
(The Bible).
Jesus Christ is The Word - John 1:1
Jesus Christ says " “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."Again…no problem for us. This is and has always been Catholic teaching.
We all have different gifts and talents by the grace of God. We are the bride. Christ is the bridegroom who will come back for us upon His second coming.
By no means is one part of the body greater or lesser than the other. (1 Corinthians 12)
1 Corinthians 12:4
There are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
5 There are differences of ministries, but the same Lord.
6 And there are diversities of activities, but it is the same God who works all in all.

This verse completely contradicts the claim that the RCC is the ‘church’ one must be under to be saved. Why Catholics argue this point makes no sense either when scripture is very clear that their position is wrong on this matter. But there’s more where that came from. Don’t want to derail.Again, your assertion fails. In two counts, One, because there is no conflict between authentic Catholic teaching and the Bible, and two, because you again did not offer the context from that chapter…though it would be much better to read and consider the whole context of chapters 12-14
Chapter 12’s context is "27] Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28] And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then workers of miracles, then healers, helpers, administrators, speakers in various kinds of tongues. 29] Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30] Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31] But earnestly desire the higher gifts. And I will show you a still more excellent way. "
 
It’s come to my attention that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ If the RCC truly does believe this, does the Pope sin?
Yes, all men sin. He is the ambassador for Christ. Not the Christ.
 
It’s come to my attention that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ If the RCC truly does believe this, does the Pope sin?
Sure. Nothing about being a vicar indicates sinlessness.

Perhaps you would explain what you think "Vicar of Christ’ means?
 
As to your original;post…
Certainly all of us sin, yet that does not preclude anyone from their ongoing pursuit of Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ.(See Luke 9:23)

The Pope is as much aware of this as anyone, and would certainly explain why his first statement to the public was to beg us all to pray for him. (Argentine Cardinal Bergoglio elected Pope Francis)

The Holy Spirit’s guidance in his election simply means that he is His chosen instrument at this time and place.
 
It always saddens me when people argue that what the Church teaches on a subject is wrong. . .but what they say is being taught, isn’t what the Church DOES teach.

They seldom ask, “Does the Church really teach this?” Heck no, it is, “The ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH/evil empire/whore of Babylon” teaches this terribly terribly terribly wrong thing over which the angels weep and they will all be damned to hell except for the few who will listen to me, and if anybody disagrees, I will whip out my Bible for the hand picked phrases taken out of context to make me look like I actually know what I’m talking about, and if they try to use the Bible I’ll tell them the HOLY SPIRIT is guiding me but not them. . ."

And we’ll have pages and pages of people trying to actually give the Church’s teaching, and people will get frustrated, and finally the thread will be closed because the OP will have been answered many times. . .

Oh well. We’re patient. We’ll keep telling the truth and planting the seeds. . .
 
Church Militant, that was an excellent response to the nonsensical indictment of the teachings of the Church through Scripture. It absolutely amazes me how out of context non Catholic Christians take Scripture. One could literally make any doctrine and find support from Scripture for it. In fact, Ireneaus demonstrates this in ‘Against Heresies’ by showing verses from the Odyssey and taking them out of context, making a completely different story out of them.

I look forward to Christ Crucified’s response.
 
Well CC,
You asked and we have answered, so where are you now?
 
Yes, this doesn’t just apply to the disciples mind you.
We never chose Christ either. God chose us!

Romans 8:7
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.

Ephesians 1:4
just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

That’s not a valid reason to cling to the idea of popes and cardinals. One could look at the scandals around the RCC and conclude the same thing. How do we know when God’s word is being preached? When it lines up with scripture, God’s Word.

Acts 17:11
Now these Jews were more noble than those in Thessalonica; they received the word with all eagerness, examining the Scriptures daily to see if these things were so.

Jesus said himself no one knows the day or hour.
When people continue to put man’s word before God’s, you will always get the same tragic results.

Paul’s name was changed as well. Not by man’s doing, but God.
Abraham, Jacob as well. In fact, you can go all throughout the bible and see this. The verse you’re quoting (Ephesians 2) even addresses this. What’s the problem? They all had authority under Christ. Why? Faith and the Grace of God.
I don’t mean to be nasty but I can’t refer to you as Christ Crucified. I find it a bit disrespectful because you aren’t Christ Crucified. I think you should find a more appropriate username. That’s just how I feel though.
While there are people joining the priesthood for all of the right reasons then Christ’s church will not go astray. That is why it has not gone astray. Go in to any Roman Catholic Church and you will find a language that can be understood universally. The Stations of the cross all around and a sacramental of Christ crucified above the alter.
St Peter began an election for who should replace Judas. If Judas had to be replaced then how much more important was it for St. Peter to be replaced? “Feed my sheep” Jesus said.
 
Is it your belief that the apostles were no different in any manner from other believers?
The scripture you’re quoting already answers that for you.
It’s not scriptual yet the bible makes it clear…in this very verse you quoted. How is that possible?

1 Corinthians 12:20
*As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. *
1 Tim 3:15
if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
What does this verse have to do with your initial question?
If you go to a church that does not preach the gospel, is that church founded in truth?
If you go to a church that preaches the gospel, why is that church founded in truth?

It goes back to the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
Then why did Christ speak different things to the men He chose and appointed, and the multitudes?

Why did He speak parables to the multitude, but explain all things to the men He chose and appointed?
The multitudes that followed Him weren’t all chosen.
As you read John 6, when Jesus said, Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them’ many of the people who initially followed him fell by the waist side.
Where do you see that asserted by any of us? You don’t…so please don’t sit there and misinterpret what we tell you. We say what we mean.
People here have no problem saying the the pope is the *Vicar of Christ *.
Then when I pressed upon the term and definition the answer I received from many is no different from a born -again Christian down the street who represents Christ. Maybe you’ll provide a different answer.

Let me rephrase it another way. Is the role ‘Vicar of Christ’ exclusive to the pope?
According to your own interpretation, but Hebrews 13:17 says/ and James 3:1 says
I’m not arguing any of the points. In fact I never even brought them up.
You’re insinuating that God’s word calls pastors and teachers, let alone the pope the **Head of the Church **which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church and He is the Savior of the body.

Ephesians 4:15
but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—

Are you insinuating that the Pope is the Head of the Church?
Choose your words wisely.
How do you reconcile the clear statement that Our Blessed Lord Jesus Christ makes there telling us that he has given His church the commission and power to forgive or retain sins? Catholic teaching has always been that we all receive the Holy Spirit and that some,** by virtue of their obedience and commitment to Our Lord are more filled with the Holy Spirit than others**, which is what the New Testament (and in fact, the whole Bible) teaches.
I’ve quoted 1 Corinthians 12 quite a few times. The Holy Spirit dwells in all who believe No more, no less. What you’re saying isn’t scriptural. Keep in mind the church consists of believers. The believers make up the church, who Christ will come for upon His return.
Yes, all men sin. He is the ambassador for Christ. Not the Christ.
Are you not an ambassador for Christ to those around you?
If not, why?
Okay…how does the Bible let you know what is right and what is not? What is error and what is not? How does the Bible communicate to us? How does the Bible talk to us?
**
2 Timothy 3:16**
(See Above)

The Bible is God’s Word.
Jesus Christ is The Word (John 1:1)
God speaks to us through His Word.
You say Jesus…who did Jesus commission to spread the Gospel? Did Jesus command anything to them to write a book?
Jesus commands all believers to proclaim the gospel. You think the gospel is for you only? Does it feel good keeping the Good News to yourself while those around you perish?

Romans 10:14
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?
Does the HS guide all of us the same way?
Did you read 1 Corinthians 12?
It answers your question.
How come not everyone who reads the Bible comes to the same conclusion as to its meaning agree with you?
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

It’s because people want to interpret the bible the way they see fit, for their own gain.
This is in large part as to why the reformation occurred.
Could you say someone who does not agree with you is not guided by the HS? Or why is the HS guiding you and that other person differently?
It has nothing to do with what I think.
When scripture speaks on a topic clearly, go to the scriptures for your answer.
Don’t just receive everything you hear without going back to the scripture and cross referencing.

People will look for 1 verse to substantiate their claims and disregard the rest of the bible because the 1 verse they take to interpret the way they want fits their belief. This is not how you interpret scripture. Scripture interprets itself.
 
The scripture you’re quoting already answers that for you.
It’s not scriptual yet the bible makes it clear…in this very verse you quoted. How is that possible?

1 Corinthians 12:20
*As it is, there are many parts, yet one body. *

What does this verse have to do with your initial question?
If you go to a church that does not preach the gospel, is that church founded in truth?
If you go to a church that preaches the gospel, why is that church founded in truth?

It goes back to the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16
All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness

The multitudes that followed Him weren’t all chosen.
As you read John 6, when Jesus said, Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them’ many of the people who initially followed him fell by the waist side.

People here have no problem saying the the pope is the *Vicar of Christ *.
Then when I pressed upon the term and definition the answer I received from many is no different from a born -again Christian down the street who represents Christ. Maybe you’ll provide a different answer.

Let me rephrase it another way. Is the role ‘Vicar of Christ’ exclusive to the pope?

I’m not arguing any of the points. In fact I never even brought them up.
You’re insinuating that God’s word calls pastors and teachers, let alone the pope the **Head of the Church **which couldn’t be further from the truth.

Ephesians 5:23
For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church and He is the Savior of the body.

Ephesians 4:15
but, speaking the truth in love, may grow up in all things into Him who is the head—Christ—

Are you insinuating that the Pope is the Head of the Church?
Choose your words wisely.

I’ve quoted 1 Corinthians 12 quite a few times. The Holy Spirit dwells in all who believe No more, no less. What you’re saying isn’t scriptural. Keep in mind the church consists of believers. The believers make up the church, who Christ will come for upon His return.

Are you not an ambassador for Christ to those around you?
If not, why?

**
2 Timothy 3:16**
(See Above)

The Bible is God’s Word.
Jesus Christ is The Word (John 1:1)
God speaks to us through His Word.

Jesus commands all believers to proclaim the gospel. You think the gospel is for you only? Does it feel good keeping the Good News to yourself while those around you perish?

Romans 10:14
How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

Did you read 1 Corinthians 12?
It answers your question.

1 Corinthians 1:18
For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

It’s because people want to interpret the bible the way they see fit, for their own gain.
This is in large part as to why the reformation occurred.

It has nothing to do with what I think.
When scripture speaks on a topic clearly, go to the scriptures for your answer.
Don’t just receive everything you hear without going back to the scripture and cross referencing.

People will look for 1 verse to substantiate their claims and disregard the rest of the bible because the 1 verse they take to interpret the way they want fits their belief. This is not how you interpret scripture. Scripture interprets itself.
Hello,
You say you are a Christian. Ok you read your Bible. I would be interested to know which denomination you are actually with. Please don’t say you are a non-denomational. There can be no such thing.
Scripture interprets itself? “This is my body and this is my blood” How do you interpret what Jesus said there?
 
The multitudes that followed Him weren’t all chosen.
As you read John 6, when Jesus said, Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood live in me, and I live in them’ many of the people who initially followed him fell by the waist side.
And Christ called them back and explained what He meant? No, He turned to the Apostles and asked them if they would go also. Who made the choice at that point?

The Bible clearly states He spoke to them in parables, but to His Apostles, He explained everything.
People here have no problem saying the the pope is the *Vicar of Christ *.
Then when I pressed upon the term and definition the answer I received from many is no different from a born -again Christian down the street who represents Christ. Maybe you’ll provide a different answer.

Let me rephrase it another way. Is the role ‘Vicar of Christ’ exclusive to the pope?
You are holding people to a definition you hold. It has been explained to you and you barely address it to post the accusation, again based on your definition.

I provided you interpretation of the keys, interpreted through the Old Testament specifically. That you did not address at all. The Apostles had a Hebrew understanding of the keys, when Christ gave those keys to Peters, because they knew Isaiah
**To understand the symbolism of the “keys”, I suggest reading the passage containing Isaiah 22:22.
Isa 22:22 And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut, and none shall open.**
He shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open. He has authority to bind and loose, and it shall be so in heaven, where our King resides currently.

Below is from the Jewish Encyclopedia. They clearly give an understanding of ‘bind and loose’ through the Hebrew understanding.
Rabbinical term for “forbidding and permitting.” The expression “asar” (to bind herself by a bond) is used in the Bible (Num. xxx. 3 et seq.) for a vow which prevents one from using a thing. It implies binding an object by a powerful spell in order to prevent its use (see Targ. to Ps. lviii. 6; Shab. 81b, for “magic spell”). The corresponding Aramean “shera” and Hebrew “hittir” (for loosing the prohibitive spell) have no parallel in the Bible.
The power of binding and loosing was always claimed by the Pharisees. Under Queen Alexandra, the Pharisees, says Josephus (“B J.” i, 5, § 2), “became the administrators of all public affairs so as to be empowered to banish and readmit whom they pleased, as well as to loose and to bind.” This does not mean that, as the learned men, they merely decided what, according to the Law, was forbidden or allowed, but that they possessed and exercised the power of tying or untying a thing by the spell of their divine authority, just as they could, by the power vested in them, pronounce and revoke an anathema upon a person. The various schools had the power “to bind and to loose”; that is, to forbid and to permit (Ḥag. 3b); and they could bind any day by declaring it a fast-day (Meg. Ta’an. xxii.; Ta’an. 12a; Yer. Ned. i. 36c, d). This power and authority, vested in the rabbinical body of each age or in the Sanhedrin (see Authority), received its ratification and final sanction from the celestial court of justice (Sifra, Emor, ix.; Mak. 23b).
In the New Testament.
In this sense Jesus, when appointing his disciples to be his successors, used the familiar formula (Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18). By these words he virtually invested them with the same authority as that which he found belonging to the scribes and Pharisees who “bind heavy burdens and lay them on men’s shoulders, but will not move them with one of their fingers”; that is, “loose them,” as they have the power to do (Matt. xxiii. 2-4). In the same sense, in the second epistle of Clement to James II. (“Clementine Homilies,” Introduction), Peter is represented as having appointed Clement as his successor, saying: “I communicate to him the power of binding and loosing so that, with respect to everything which he shall ordain in the earth, it shall be decreed in the heavens; for he shall bind what ought to be bound and loose what ought to be loosed as knowing the rule of the church.” Quite different from this Judaic and ancient view of the apostolic power of binding and loosing is the one expressed in John xx. 23, where Jesus is represented as having said to his disciples after they had received the Holy Spirit: “Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained.” It is this view which, adopted by Tertullian and all the church fathers, invested the head of the Christian Church with the power to forgive sins, the “clavis ordinis,” “the key-power of the Church.”
Scripture interprets itself.
You avoid a direction question and then give an example of exactly what you’re doing in this instance. Scriptures do not interpret themselves. Each denomination is based on someone’s interpretation, and the majority disagree with each other. Which is a correct interpretation when several people disagree on the interpretation?

You hold up 2 Timothy 3:16 and disregard the scriptures that state the Church is the pillar and ground of truth, and the place where the manifold wisdom of God may be made known. Look at 2 Timothy 3:16 closely. Profitable is short of ALL that is necessary.

Christ did not write anything, nor order anything scribed. Christ built a Church, that gave us the New Testament, not the other way around.
 
I think somewhere there is a bridge missing it’s ----.

Methinks this guy is asking about Apostolic Succession. We’rve already answered the question of the Pope sinning.

Care to start another thread on Apostolic Succession, ChristCrucified? See ya there…
 
It’s come to my attention that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ If the RCC truly does believe this, does the Pope sin?
Yes, the Pope sins. He is human.

Now, here is why we believe that the Pope is the Vicar of Christ:

Peter’s Role as Vicar of Christ’s Church Proved from Scripture

In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”

15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko) my lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko) my sheep.

In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!

Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?

Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.

Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.

First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.

Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:

Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”

In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.

This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.

(cont.)
 
In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.

In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church.

Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
 
It’s come to my attention that the Roman Catholic Church believes that the Pope is the ‘Vicar of Christ’ If the RCC truly does believe this, does the Pope sin?
Is the pope Catholic?🙂

“All have sinned and fall short…”
 
People here have no problem saying the the pope is the *Vicar of Christ *.

Then when I pressed upon the term and definition the answer I received from many is no different from a born -again Christian down the street who represents Christ. Maybe you’ll provide a different answer.
I provided an answer above.
Let me rephrase it another way. Is the role ‘Vicar of Christ’ exclusive to the pope?
In a limited sense, no, because we can all act as the vicar or representative of Christ to some degree. However, the Pope is THE Vicar of Christ in that he is the head of Christ’s visible Church on earth.
Are you insinuating that the Pope is the Head of the Church?
Choose your words wisely.
Okay. I’m typing slowly to avoid making a misteak…

Jesus Christ is the head of the Church which includes both those now living in heaven as well as those now living on earth. Further, Jesus re-instituted the office of the Royal Steward in His kingdom, and in His absence from earth, His representative is the man we call the “Pope”.

Here’s proof:

Peter the Keeper of the Keys and Royal Steward

In ancient times, a king might choose a second in command (known as the royal steward or prime minister) who literally wore a large key as a symbol of his office and who spoke with the authority of the king. The prophet Isaiah confirms this:

"In that day I will summon my servant, Eliakim son of Hilkiah. I will clothe him with your robe and fasten your sash around him and hand your authority over to him. He will be a father to those who live in Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Isaiah 22:22)

In the passage above, God is speaking, and He confirms the existence of the office, the key, and the continuation of the office despite the change of office holder. In other words, the office of the royal steward continued even when the man who held the office died or was replaced by someone else.

In the New Testament, we learn that Jesus inherits the throne of his father, David.

Luke 1:31–33
And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great, and will be called Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever; and of his kingdom there will be no end.

We also know that Jesus named Peter as His royal steward and gave him the “keys to the kingdom of heaven" as the symbol of his authority to speak in His name.

Matthew 16:19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”

Since Jesus is an eternal king, the office of royal steward in His kingdom will never end even though Peter died. The successors of Peter hold the eternal office that Jesus established in His royal court.

In addition to the reference to a key or keys, note the following parallels:

"What he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.” (Is. 22:22)
"Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.” (Mt. 16:19)

Peter has received authority from Jesus to speak in His name. To do so faithfully, Peter must not teach error; therefore, Peter (and his successors who hold the office) are protected by God through the charism of infallibility.
 
I think this guy is mixing his metaphors here, and being a little obtuse as well. What he’s asking is what makes the pope different from everyone else, since we are all supposed to be Christ’s representatives. And that’s true, we’re supposed to be Christ’s representatives on earth. But the pope is not just Jesus’ representative, he’s the leader of the catholic church, the church Christ left on earth for His people. The OP keeps asking about Christ being the Head of the Church. Jesus is the head of the church, the head of the body of Christ. Not just in a metaphorical sense. Jesus is THE head, as in the part that houses the brain at the top of the body. Jesus is the top of the body, we are the members of the body of Christ. When we say the Pope is the head of the church, we mean he’s the leader of the church. Not in the same way Jesus is the head of the body of Christ.

The pope is the leader of the church, and the representative of Christ. What makes him special over every other christian is that he’s the leader of the bishops of the church. The bishops are the successors of the Apostles, the chosen men Jesus left to spread His word and baptize members of the body of Christ. Jesus chose the Apostles, gave them a commission, and set them apart to lead His church. They are a special office and set aside by Christ. And as we see in Acts, they are replaceable as the 11 replaced Judas. And as St Paul shows us, the commission is transferable and can be handed down and multiplied. Jesus left us the Apostles, the Apostles ordained more men to carry on the work of the church after they died. And the Apostles had a leader, who was Peter. Just as the commission of Apostle is handed down, so is the commission of leader of the Apostles. The pope is the successor of Peter, the leader of the church, the Bishop of Rome. That is what makes him special. He leads the catholic church, teaches on faith and morals and docterine.

Every other denomination of christianity, which unlike the catholic church were founded by men, has a leader. Whether it be as localized as the pastor of the local church, or as centralized as the president of the LDS church. Every denomination has a leader, and those leaders teach on faith and morals and make decisions for their denomination/church. The difference is, those denominations/churches were founded by men and men created those offices/leaders. Jesus Christ founded the Catholic Church, and He chose Peter as His leader, the head Apostle. That position was handed down and recognized for 2000 years since Christ left us and ascended into heaven. There’s a big difference there, and that’s why the Pope is called the Vicar of Christ, and that’s what sets him apart from ordinary christians and other church’s leaders.
 
Paul’s name was changed as well. Not by man’s doing, but God.
Abraham, Jacob as well. In fact, you can go all throughout the bible and see this. The verse you’re quoting (Ephesians 2) even addresses this. What’s the problem? They all had authority under Christ. Why? Faith and the Grace of God.
Paul’s name was not changed by God. His Hebrew name was Saul and his Roman (remember he was a Roman Citizen) name was Paul. The verse I am quoting is addressed to Peter alone. There are only three four who had their name changed and it always was an important reason.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top