i disagree. the priest admitted that some popes might be in hell according to dante’s inferno.
Who denies this? Catholics don’t believe popes are perfect. We explicitly believe popes sin. The pope goes to confession
weekly, and he’s obviously confessing something (although I’ll venture that his confessions are boring
). Judas was one of the Twelve, called by Christ in the clearest Church hierarchy in the Bible – that is, there were disciples, and then there were Disciples.
You’re right that in Matthew 20:25-28, Jesus calls the Twelve to use their authority to be servants to the flock. Amen! But we also know from the Bible that the Twelve weren’t always perfect at this.
Their failure didn’t cause them to lose the status of Disciples, it just made them imperfect Disciples. So it is here. The pope is called to be a servant to all Catholics everywhere. If you’re familiar with the papal titles, one of them is
Servus Servorum Dei, “Servant of the Servants of God.” It’s based on Luke 22:31-32.
Clearly, the best popes have been the ones who use the authority entrusted to them by God to advance and promote the Gospel through humility and loving service of their fellow man, and the pope is called in particular way to strengthen and serve other bishops (again, Luke 22:31-32), who in turn strengthen and support and serve their priests, and so on to us laity. That’s what we’re all called to do. Does the fact that they fail mean they’re not really popes, bishops, priests, etc.? Absolutely not. Husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, and children are all given particular callings in the New Testament, and each of us has failed in those callings. Did we cease to be a husband, wife, father, mother, or child with that failure? Is God’s faithfulness nullified by our unfaithfulness?
ive been watching these debates between them and walter martin comes with solid scripture and many times the priest sounds unsure of what he’s saying.
I was thinking about this debate today, because I wasn’t impressed with Father’s boldness. He was right, and the only one who knew what he was talking about on the verse, but he didn’t come off like that (if you read the transcripts, it’s a much better performance). I think he was daunted that the moderator ganged up on him. At one point, in introducing the segment after a return from the commerical break, they said something to the effect of: “Jesus said, 'you are
Petros, small rock, and on this petra, large rock, I will build My Church.” That’s wrong – and in fact, flatly refuted by Fr. Pacwa during the segment (he quotes the Aramiac, even!) – and it just gets glossed over. So in terms of appearance, I agree with you that he looked like he was beaten; but his arguments were superior.
The establishment of this pope hierarchy is definately un-biblical. In fact what seems to have happened is the Roman Catholic Church tried to model its system after Judaism with the chief priests. It certainly didn’t come from Scripture.
Read Daniel 2, and the prophesy that a Rock unformed by human hands will come and form a mountain during the Fourth Kingdom (the Roman Empire). It’s Christological, and makes clear reference to a Rock building a Church upon the Rock. The Rock in question is both Petrine and Christological. And it makes absolutely, 100% clear that the Church will be founded at the time of Christ and will never disappear or be taken over by another (that is, it’ll never succumb to error), and will spread all over the world.
Or read Isaiah 22 and 2 Kings 18, about how Eliakim is able to speak on behalf of the King of Israel, because he’s been given the Keys to the House of David. Then read Matthew 16:17-19 and Rev. 1 to see how both Jesus and Peter bear the keys. Or read John 10, about how the Good Shepherd will call a shepherd to tend His flock (John 10:1-10 – note that the Shepherd in the parable, not called the Good Shepherd, isn’t Christ – Christ is the Gate; Christ is the Good Shepherd, from v. 11 onwards). Then read the end of John’s Gospel (say, John 21:15), where Jesus asks Peter if he loves Him
more than the other Eleven, and then tasks him with shepherding the flock of Christ. Or read any list of the Twelve, and notice who is mentioned first (Peter) and who is mentioned last (Judas) every single time.
To say that the papacy isn’t in the Bible is to ignore an enormous chunk of the Bible, both Old and New. Peter’s clearly the leader of the Apostles. He’s mentioned more than any of the other Eleven by so much that it’s absurd. He, James and John are the three selected to see the Transfiguration, and Luke refers to the three as “Peter and the others,” leaving no doubt that even within these premiere three (prefiguring the Patriarchs), there is one in a place of clear primacy.
Besides that, to suggest that the structure is too Jewish seems bizarre. Everything in the Old Covenant prefigures something in the New, so if it looks like a fulfillment of something within Judaism, that’s a good sign that it’s the real deal. And note, within Judaism, they had the Chair of Moses, which prefigurse the Chair of Peter – see Matthew 23:1-4 (and note that the Chair of Moses was valid even when the Pharisees controlled it and were corrupt, answering your original point).
