Faith or work can save us?

[tgGodsway]

The Catholic Church has always known the meaning of Scripture. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament based upon the Teachings of Jesus Christ and discerned the Old Testament based on the same Teachings and the fact that Jesus used the Septuagint Old Testament.

Uhh… no… the Roman Catholic Church did not write the New Testament. The Roman Catholic Church as we all know evolved over Centuries of time to what we have today, a top-heavy political religion. It began as a power-grab for political control gaining momentum by in the year 604 a.d. when the title of pope was given to Gregory I by the wicked emperor Phocas. Likewise the title “poniff” which literally means “bridge builder” comes not from the Bible but from pagan Rome, where the emperor, as the high priest of the heathen religion and in that sense professing to be the bridge or connecting link between this life and the next, was called “Pontifex Maximus.” The title was therefore lifted from paganism and applied to the head of the roman catholic church. As the high priest of the O.T. was the mediator between God and men, so the pope also claims to be the mediator between God and men with power over the souls in purgatory.

The Apostolic circle wrote the scriptures as the Holy Spirit led them. And they preached the kingdom of God in a very hostile and corrupt environment of heresy and false doctrine of the 1st. and 2nd. century. The scriptures survived the time but only few bodies of believers survived in terms of purity of doctrine. When that 2nd. century generation died off (after the Apostles,) and persecution by the Roman Empire increased, Christian doctrine was already well compromised. Much like the generation who lived after the O.T patriarch, Joshua, when he died off, and all those who knew him died off, Israel compromised.

And as for your comments about exegesis, this skill should be used on the Matthew 16 passage. If it were, we wouldn’t have such outrageous (foundational) doctrine built upon one small metaphor of scripture. The fact of the matter is, the early church “fathers” all had little to no development of hermeneutic skill in their practice of reading and understanding scripture. Once the Apostles died off, the chore of explaining what they all meant in their letters became quite a challenge as it is today.

 

[De_Maria]

Uhh… no… the Roman Catholic Church did not write the New Testament.

Yes. The Catholic Church wrote the New Testament.

The Roman Catholic Church as we all know evolved over Centuries of time to what we have today, a top-heavy political religion. It began as a power-grab for political control gaining momentum by in the year 604 a.d. when the title of pope was given to Gregory I by the wicked emperor Phocas…

No, Jesus Christ established the Catholic Church when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”. Matt 16:18-19

The Apostolic circle wrote the scriptures as the Holy Spirit led them.

True. They are the foundation of the Catholic Church.

And they preached the kingdom of God in a very hostile and corrupt environment of heresy and false doctrine of the 1st. and 2nd. century.

That was still the Catholic Church. And she is still doing so to this day.

The scriptures survived the time but only few bodies of believers survived in terms of purity of doctrine. When that 2nd. century generation died off (after the Apostles,) and persecution by the Roman Empire increased, Christian doctrine was already well compromised. Much like the generation who lived after the O.T patriarch, Joshua, when he died off, and all those who knew him died off, Israel compromised.

That is the faithless Protestant teaching. But we have absolute faith in Jesus Christ and His promise that His Church would never fall.

And as for your comments about exegesis, this skill should be used on the Matthew 16 passage. If it were, we wouldn’t have such outrageous (foundational) doctrine built upon one small metaphor of scripture. The fact of the matter is, the early church “fathers” all had little to no development of hermeneutic skill in their practice of reading and understanding scripture. Once the Apostles died off, the chore of explaining what they all meant in their letters became quite a challenge as it is today.

On the contrary, the Early Church Fathers received the Teachings of Jesus Christ directly from the Apostles and tthe Church which these men represent continues to pass those Teachings on to this day.

 

[tgGodsway]

On the contrary, the Early Church Fathers received the Teachings of Jesus Christ directly from the Apostles and these the Church which these men represent continues to pass those Teachings on to this day.

Really? … did the Apostles give us the headship of the pope? if so, please give me two or three biblical witnesses to establish this truth. Unless you can clearly do this; the papal office is NOT established as a truth according to biblical standards. And I’m talking about the nuts and bolts of the office. Please show me how Paul acknowledged and taught such an office. Allow John and James to chime in with the acknowledgment and approval of such an office where one head Bishop would rule over the office of Apostle. I’ve been waiting on this site for months, all I get is re-direct.

Did the Apostles teach in the sinless birth, life, death and resurrection of Mary? Please give me a reference on this. And please quote at least two apostolic witnesses.

Did the Apostles teach, the priesthood (concerning Church government) who would teach transubstantiation in the Eucharist? If they did, please give me a clear verse or two. Better yet, give me at least two Apostles to acknowledge and approve this revelation. Otherwise you have not arrived at a divine truth on these things.

Did the Apostles teach that Jesus would NOT have other siblings through Mary and Joseph? … What sayeth the scriptures?

Please quote direct verses, rather than spin. I respect real quotes not taken out of context. Thank you.

Blessings to you,

 

[De_Maria]

Really? … did the Apostles give us the headship of the pope? if so, please give me two or three biblical witnesses to establish this truth. Unless you can clearly do this; the papal office is NOT established as a truth according to biblical standards.

Matt 16:18-19; Luke 22:31-32; John 21:15-17; Acts 5

And I’m talking about the nuts and bolts of the office. Please show me how Paul acknowledged and taught such an office. Allow John and James to chime in with the acknowledgment and approval of such an office where one head Bishop would rule over the office of Apostle. I’ve been waiting on this site for months, all I get is re-direct.

You don’t have nuts and bolts, as you describe it, for any of your doctrines. For example, you believe Scripture alone. But Scripture says, hold the Traditions. You believe faith alone. But Scripture says, not by faith alone.

Did the Apostles teach in the sinless birth, life, death and resurrection of Mary?

Yes. She is described as “kecharitomene”. Always, full of grace. Thus, she had to be born without sin.

Please give me a reference on this.

The original Greek, Luke 1:28

And please quote at least two apostolic witnesses.

Why? You have no apostolic witnesses for any of your beliefs which contradict Catholic Teaching.

Did the Apostles teach, the priesthood (concerning Church government) who would teach transubstantiation in the Eucharist?

Complicated question. But, as I understand it, the answers are:

1. Yes, the Apostles taught the ministerial Priesthood.
2. Yes, the Apostles taught Church government by the elders, who happen to be priests, deacons and Bishops.
3. Yes, the Apostles taught transubstantiation in the Holy Eucharist.

If they did, please give me a clear verse or two. Better yet, give me at least two Apostles to acknowledge and approve this revelation.

1. The Priesthood is illustrated throughout the New Testament and clearly taught in the episode of the disciples eating the corn on the Sabbath. (Matt 12; Luke 6).

Otherwise you have not arrived at a divine truth on these things.

On the contrary, your arbitrary method of reading Scripture is leading you astray. You have no anchor. We have Sacred Tradition.

Did the Apostles teach that Jesus would NOT have other siblings through Mary and Joseph? … What sayeth the scriptures?

That Jesus is Mary’s only child.

Please quote direct verses, rather than spin. I respect real quotes not taken out of context. Thank you.

As do I. But you’ve essentially asked me to write a book. And yet, I don’t remember you showing the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, with its nuts and bolts, from Scripture. I want you to show me the doctrine there stated and corroborated by two or three apostles who say that Tradition will cease and Scripture alone will continue. And that all we must believe is in Scripture alone.

In the meantime, I can prove all the other things you asked, from Tradition and Scripture. Something that you call spin. And I call, the infallible Teaching of Jesus Christ, through His Church.

Blessings to you,

[/QUOTE]
And to you.

 

[Debbie_Kono]

The entire context of this passage is in response to whether the Gentiles need to uphold the Jewish laws: circumcision, the sabbaths, the new moons, the Mosaic Law. It is to rebut one of the earliest heresies the Church faced, that of the Judaizers, those who preached that the Gentiles who did not accept circumcision and observe the Jewish laws were either not part of the new covenant or did not receive the fullness of it. This theme is repeated elsewhere throughout Paul. He’s not speaking of preaching the faith, clothing and feeding the homeless, tending the sick, visiting those in prison, and such.

It’s my understand that the Dead Sea Scrolls cleared this up…“works of the law”. The phrase “works of the law” is only found in two places; Romans and in the DSS document labeled 4QMMT. 4QMMT is a letter written by the Essenes to the Pharisees and it’s quite clear that “works of the law” is exactly what the CC says…ceremonial Jewish laws…not good works.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Exactly…

John 15 explains that we will remain in Christ IF we keep His commsndments. And Romans 11 also says we can be cut off if we do not remain in His kindness.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Scripture says that some also believed that Jesus was the son of Joseph, which His Church has always taught was not the case. (Matthew 13:55; Mark 6:3; John 6:42)

 

[MonteRCMS]

1. Jesus is The Judge.
2. Be nice to His Mother.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Jesus authorized THE Church HE founded in 33 A.D, to bind and loose in Heaven as on earth…

And it has been doing this since BEFORE the New Testament was decided BY Him THROUGH HIS Church, since He founded His Church again…BEFORE the contents of the New Testament were determined. Which of course is verified within this Holy Book, as preserved by His ONE holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. (Matthew 16)

The litmus tests the 500 yr. old man-made religion of Protestantism created and tries to hold Christ’s Church accountable to, are not actual standards held within the authentic Christianity which HE founded - which is ALSO made clear in Scripture, where it says:

" “If your brother sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector.” (Matthew 18; NAB; emphasis mine)

 

[sainteriksrose]

So then…

Imo it is very clear that when one says they believe IN Jesus, that they understand that this includes BELIEVING Him, too.

Meaning, believing EVERYTHING He said.

 

[tgGodsway]

De_Maria, THANK YOU! for all the hard work, but the scriptures you used are the same ones as before.

These same passages do not say what you are saying about the pope. Let me review them for you,

You basically say that from Matt. 16:18, 19 we can interpret it to mean that "you are PETER AND upon PETER I will build my church. Christ will build His Church upon PETER.

Okay… if I concede this point, (and I don’t) but just for argument’s sake, then how do other scriptures agree with this narrow premise? or do they? Is this same declaration echoed anywhere else in N.T. scripture?

Is any specific information about this new and special office found in Paul’s teaching about the role of a bishop? see 1st. Tim. 3:1,2

Because not only will He build it upon Peter, but Peter himself will now take the role of Bishop (a demotion from Apostle) in Rome in 42 ad- 67 ad. and claim an infallibility by a special miracle involving a chair and a prophetic gift called ex-cathedra.

So this means that though Peter called himself an “apostle of Jesus Christ…” and considered as an apostle by Jesus Christ, (1st. Pet. 1:1) a change has been made and now he is a Bishop ruling over Rome with the understanding that he now rules the Church around the world. It is not too much to ask for biblical support to all of these new ideas, especially when we read that Christ is the head of the universal Church and no other. The chain of headship mentioned in 1st. Cor. 11:3 forgot to add Peter to the list. Why?

The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged new position as Bishop in Rome, is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only nine times in the bible, and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it.

The first twelve chapters of the book of Acts tell of Peter’s ministry and travels in Palestine and Syria Surely if he had gone to Rome, the capital of the empire, that would have been mentioned. Surely Paul would have recognized and addressed Peter when he wrote his epistle to Rome and listed all of his beloved friends there. But no… not one word. All we are left with is an “inference” based on someone’s obscure rendering of Matt. 16:18.

In addition: For a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of the regional churches attempted to exercise authority over any of the other regional churches. The early ecumenical councils were composed of delegates from the various churches who met as equals. There is not a scholar anywhere who pretends to show any decree, canon, or resolution by any of the ecumenical councils which attempt to give pre-eminence to any one Church. Please prove me wrong on this! The first six hundred years of the Christian era know nothing of any spiritual supremacy on the part of the bishops of Rome. The papacy really began in the year 590 with Gregory I, as Gregory the Great, who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and started the Church (of Rome) on a new course.

Moving on to your second passage in the next post.

 

[tgGodsway]

Okay, De_Maria, your second passage was Luke 22:31,32

Since it is short, I will just quote it:

"And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon, indeed Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. v32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Okay… you say that this verse teaches Peter as the first pope in Rome, From what I’ve heard on this site, it is because of what the tail end of verse 32 says, “strengthen your brethren.” Is that right?
So… since Peter was commanded to strengthen his brothers who perhaps could also fall away, this meant that he ALONE was the pope? Does it suggest that only Peter could strengthen anyone, or maybe Christ called him because it was Peter alone who denied Christ?

If Paul were to strengthen someone, or James, should we conclude they had pre-eminence over the others? On what bases? …
Here’s an example: The Apostle Paul used the exact same Greek word in Romans 1:11 where he said that he “long to see you that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to the end that you may be established=strengthened.”

So Paul too strengthened his brethren. Does this mean that Paul had a pre-eminence over the other Apostles? Of course not.

This boarders on ridiculous to any serious bible student.
You are trying to connect dots that do not connect here in this passage.

Your last scripture was John 21:15-17 where Jesus said 3 times, Peter feed my sheep. Two Greek words are employed for the word feed here. The first and third word employ the word bosko= to feed. But the second word in verse 16 is the Greek word poimaino which means to feed and to rule. So, we can say that Peter was called to feed and to rule.

But no one disputes this. Of course Peter was called to feed (Shepherd) and rule. All of the Apostles were. Actually this same Greek word is employed in Acts 20:28 where the Apostle Paul tells a group of Elders to also "feed=rule at Ephesus.
Why do you still draw an inference here?.. How does this passage show Peter as pre-eminent? It doesn’t.
Again, your argument is all drawn from inference and conjecture not the sum of Thy Word.

 

[sainteriksrose]

Because this is how the one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church - which was founded in 33 A.D. by Jesus Christ - was set up when it was established.

This as commanded by Jesus, and which we read about in Matthew 28:

"The eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain to which Jesus had ordered them. When they saw him, they worshiped, but they doubted. Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them TO OBSERVE ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU. And behold, I AM WITH YOU ALWAYS, UNTIL THE END OF THE AGE.” (emphasis mine)

There’s nothing there about reciting a line or two of Scripture, and we’re done.

 

[De_Maria]

Well, I’m back…, since there are at least 4 of you tracking my every word…

And you’re doing really well. Since you’re doing so well, we might even invite more people to the party.

De_Maria,

The judgment seat of Christ is a judgment of the saved…

I know this is what you believe, but that is false.

Romans 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God; 6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds: 7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: 8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,

See. 1st. Cor. 3 You go study it!

I have. I frequently have to break it down for Protestants.

And even Protestants agree that this chapter includes those who can lose their salvation.

It, therefore, is the epitome of folly to suggest that this context teaches explicitly, or even implies, that a child of God can never be lost. The truth is, it affirms just the opposite of that view.
It’s a short read.

However, if you go to verse 17, you will see that it explicitly speaks of people losing their salvation.

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.

Only Christians are Temples of the Holy Spirit and thus, Temples of God. And they can defile their temple and God will destroy them

You think you know what you are talking about De_Maria, but you don’t. Not trying to be rude, but your comments about what I understand or what I don’t, are off.

You’ll have to prove that.

There is no judgment found in the New Testament to judge the personal sins of the saved. I challenge you to quote me a verse that explicitly talks about this. Please don’t give me implicit opinions. …

I’m pretty sure I’ve proven my point.

 

[sainteriksrose]

The New Testament DOES SAY that the quality of the works of those who are saved WILL BE tested, and the results will determine the person’s reward in Heaven. (1 Corinthians 3:12-15)

 

[tgGodsway]

Yes. She is described as “kecharitomene”. Always, full of grace. Thus, she had to be born without sin.

From what I understand here, kecharitomene can mean a sense of completeness, but Greek scholars argue on all the nuances of the word. The prefect tense carries with it a sense of fullness or completion, it is said.

In the fourth century Pope Damasus commissioned St. Jerome to make a fresh Latin translation of the bible where the idea of fullness and completion eventually (from this verse) became to mean sinless from conception. I want to back up and apply a simple hermeneutic of interpretation here.
If Mary was sinless from conception suggesting completeness, does the word itself suggest completeness FROM HER CONCEPTION or was that another inference?

Catholcpoint.blogspot.com, take liberty on this point to imply 'one who has always been full of grace." The Greek word here does NOT make that leap and these scholars know it. When I said catholic apologist took liberty, this is a fact.

But even if I conceded the point, hermeneutics demands a unity of thought in the minds of the Apostolic circle, seeing that all of them were inspired to write from the same Holy Spirit. How do the other writers and Apostles come into acknowledgement and agreement that Mary was full of grace from conception, or do they? … There is no hint of acknowledgment much less agreement.

Remember the biblical requirement to find a truth and thus establish doctrine is found “upon the mouth of two or three witnesses letting EVERY word be established.” Actually there are no other scriptures in the New Testament that says what Catholic scholars said about Matt. 1:28. There are no other voices or writers saying what they have concluded here. That should be a red flag to any serious bible student who believes the SUM of Thy word is Truth.

But let’s go a little further conceding the (above) point again. If Mary was the object of GRACE, (favor and completeness) meaning sinless-ness, and there was no time when she was NOT full of grace. Then how could she be the object of grace? The fact that she received grace, only suggest that she needed grace. But it is said that a miracle of grace was given at conception. Okay…then at conception she NEEDED grace because she was in a state of sin. How is this taught not only from Matthew’s point of view, but from all other biblical witnesses? Lets not forget the huge leap of thought between fullness of grace and sinless-ness. God alone needs no Grace, for God is sinless.
When the Holy Spirit said through Paul, "For ALL have sinned and fall short "… Rom 3:23 did He mean almost all have sinned … all except Mary … ?
Why did Paul not seem to know anything about this so-called miracle given to Mary in Matt. 1:28? Why is there absolutely no acknowledgment or agreement anywhere in scripture? Why would Mary and her husband offer a sin offering according to Moses?.. Why did she cry out calling God her Savior if she was sinless?

There is too much hyperbole here for any serious student of scripture.
Blessing to you,

 

[De_Maria]

De_Maria, THANK YOU! for all the hard work,

You’re welcome!

but the scriptures you used are the same ones as before.

Yep. They are not going to change. The Catholic Church Teaches the same thing today that she did when the Apostles walked the earth.

These same passages do not say what you are saying about the pope. Let me review them for you,… if I concede this point, (and I don’t) but just for argument’s sake, then how do other scriptures agree with this narrow premise? or do they? Is this same declaration echoed anywhere else in N.T. scripture?

Well, throughout Scripture, the Apostles refer to “Peter”. Therefore, they acknowledge that Jesus changed his name.

2nd, we know that Jesus is the Rock. I’m sure you agree with me on that point, right? And since Peter means Rock, to us that means that Jesus is signifying that there is a special relationship between Peter and He.

3rd, John 21:15-17, depicts Jesus saying to Peter that he should feed His Sheep. That hearkens the image of Peter as the Good Shepherd. Again, implying strongly, that Jesus has elected Peter to lead His Church.

Is any specific information about this new and special office found in Paul’s teaching about the role of a bishop? see 1st. Tim. 3:1,2

No. But neither does it mention Jesus’ role as Bishop.

1 Peter 2:25 For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.

Because not only will He build it upon Peter, but Peter himself will now take the role of Bishop (a demotion from Apostle) in Rome in 42 ad- 67 ad.

Do you think that St. Peter gave Jesus a demotion, above?

and claim an infallibility by a special miracle involving a chair and a prophetic gift called ex-cathedra.

That is what it means when Jesus says, “what you tie down on earth will be tied down in heaven.”

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

So this means that though Peter called himself an “apostle of Jesus Christ…” and considered as an apostle by Jesus Christ, (1st. Pet. 1:1) a change has been made and now he is a Bishop ruling over Rome with the understanding that he now rules the Church around the world.

Jesus made that change when He changed Peter’s name to His own and gave Him the keys fo the Kingdom.

It is not too much to ask for biblical support to all of these new ideas,

These are the original ideas. The so-called “reformers” are the ones that added their new ideas to Scripture.

especially when we read that Christ is the head of the universal Church and no other.

St. Peter doesn’t replace Jesus. He represents Jesus:

2 Corinthians 5:20 Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.

The chain of headship mentioned in 1st. Cor. 11:3 forgot to add Peter to the list. Why?

He didn’t forget. He took it for granted that you already knew. That is why, everywhere in Scripture, Peter is named FIRST.

The remarkable thing, however, about Peter’s alleged new position as Bishop in Rome, is that the New Testament has not one word to say about it. The word Rome occurs only nine times in the bible, and never is Peter mentioned in connection with it.

History tells us that the Church was being persecuted. That the Church was underground. And that St. Peter was being hidden by the Church. That is why, Scripture does not mention his whereabouts.

The first twelve chapters of the book of Acts tell of Peter’s ministry and travels in Palestine and Syria Surely if he had gone to Rome, the capital of the empire, that would have been mentioned. Surely Paul would have recognized and addressed Peter when he wrote his epistle to Rome and listed all of his beloved friends there. But no… not one word. All we are left with is an “inference” based on someone’s obscure rendering of Matt. 16:18.

But, in his Epistle, he does mention that someone went there before him. And history tells us, that person was Peter.

In addition: For a period of six centuries after the time of Christ none of the regional churches attempted to exercise authority over any of the other regional churches. The early ecumenical councils were composed of delegates from the various churches who met as equals. There is not a scholar anywhere who pretends to show any decree, canon, or resolution by any of the ecumenical councils which attempt to give pre-eminence to any one Church. Please prove me wrong on this!

THAT will be easy.

cont’d

 

[De_Maria]

cont’d

The first six hundred years of the Christian era know nothing of any spiritual supremacy on the part of the bishops of Rome. The papacy really began in the year 590 with Gregory I, as Gregory the Great, who consolidated the power of the bishopric in Rome and started the Church (of Rome) on a new course.

The Papacy began with St. Peter. And the early Church recognized this:

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles. Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

Moving on to your second passage in the next post.

[/QUOTE]
Ok.

See also:
http://www.staycatholic.com/ecf_primacy_of_rome.htm

Moving on to your second passage in the next post.

[/QUOTE]
Ok.

 

[De_Maria]

Okay, De_Maria, your second passage was Luke 22:31,32

Since it is short, I will just quote it:

"And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon, indeed Satan has asked for you, that he may sift you as wheat. v32 But I have prayed for you, that your faith should not fail; and when you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren.”

Okay… you say that this verse teaches Peter as the first pope in Rome, From what I’ve heard on this site, it is because of what the tail end of verse 32 says, “strengthen your brethren.” Is that right?

Partially. But notice that:

1. Jesus singled Peter out.
2. Jesus revealed that Satan had also singled Peter out. I wonder why that would be, if Peter were simply one of the fellas?
3. Jesus revealed that Peter would be strengthened and given the task of strengthening everyone else.

Couple that with the fact that St. Peter had been singled out by the Father to be the one who revealed that Jesus is the Son of God. (Matt 16:17) and you have a lot of supernatural beings focusing on one human.

So… since Peter was commanded to strengthen his brothers who perhaps could also fall away, this meant that he ALONE was the pope?

Correct.

Does it suggest that only Peter could strengthen anyone, or maybe Christ called him because it was Peter alone who denied Christ?

No. Except for St. John, all the Apostles denied Christ by running away.

cont’d