The Pope?

[MariaG]

ML
I’ll assume you are still lurking.

You all have given me a lot of information that I need to research. **I am not sure I will be able to consider any other documents other than the Bible.
**In brief layman terms, how did the bible get to us after Jesus left Earth?
I am teaching my Bible class tonight,and this will be good information for us to discuss. One of my students has a Mother that is a Cathilic. For some reason there seem to be good cathilics and just Catholics. Good Catholics go to mass more often than Easter and Christmas. Are you familiar with these 2 names?

I certainly understand you concern with considering any other documents other than the bible.

However, I will tell you, I researched the Catholic Church beliefs using the Catechism and the Bible alone. Many of the historical or early church documents refer to scripture. They just then give the interpretation of it also. For example:

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was *, but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (*The Unity of the Catholic Church **4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

I also constantly prayed that God would lead me to all truth. No less no more.

God Bless,
Maria

 

[mercygate]

ml1958:

Is this website an official Catholic site? Is it approved by the Catholic church?

Since you didn’t use the “quote” feature, I don’t know what website you are referring to. The *Catechism of the Catholic Church *is absolutely approved by the Catholic Church. It was authored principally by Cristoph Cardinal Schonborn of Vienna, under the direction of Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI).

You all have given me a lot of information that I need to research. I am not sure I will be able to consider any other documents other than the Bible.

Huh? How can you learn about the authenticity and authority of Sacred Scripture without knowing where it came from?

In brief layman terms, how did the bible get to us after Jesus left Earth?

One of the best short summaries of how we got the Bible is by Dr. R. C. Sproul, an evangelical Presbyterian. In the end, he has to admit that for Catholics, the Bible is an infallible collection of inerrant books, but for Protestants it is a fallible collection of inerrant books.

I hope somebody else posts a link for you on this subject but the short version is that hundreds (thousands?) of “writings” were circulating in the early Church.

Writings “in use” in those days, before the printing press, meant “being read in church.” So the “setting” of Scripture is Christian worship. Early on some writings were widely recognized by tradition as authoritative (the 4 Gospels, the catholic epistles of Paul, etc.). Others were questioned or rejected: The Gospels of Thomas, Peter, Barnabas, Mary Magdalene, The Proto-evangelium of James . . . Why are Matthew, Mark, Luke & John in the Bible but not these? Because the Church determined that the 4 Gospels we have received were authentic while the others were not. Even when the canon was set (at the councils of Hippo in 393 and Carthage in 398), important theologians were virtually certain that Hebrews was not written by Paul, James was not written by James, and that 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation were of questionable authorship (did I leave anything out?) but the consensus was that, based on the strength of the tradition and their putative authorship, they were to be admitted to the canon. Aside from a tradition that a text was associated with an Apostle, the question for inclusion was, “What are we reading in Church?”

Just a note on tradition and Scripture. Why do we accept that the Gospel of Matthew was written by Matthew? Nowhere in that book is there any mention of the author. We accept it because the tradition of the early Church held that Matthew wrote it.

. . . One of my students has a Mother that is a Cathilic. For some reason there seem to be good cathilics and just Catholics. Good Catholics go to mass more often than Easter and Christmas. Are you familiar with these 2 names?

I’m not sure what you mean by “names.” Of course there are “good” Catholics, so-so Catholics, smart Catholics, stupid Catholics, pious Catholics, well-informed Catholics, dissident Catholics . . .

 

[Ignatius]

ml1958:

A day or two ago someone sent me a reply saying that it was the Catholics that made sure us ( Church of Christ ) people actually got the New Testament. How did this happen?

You’re kidding right? You actually don’t know that it is the Catholic Church which gave you the New Testament? How can you believe absolutely in the Sacred Scripture as the inerrant Word of God without knowing why?

OK, let’s start from the beginning. Here’s the first assignment. Insofar as what books to include in the New Testament, who declared which books to include, where (geographic location) was this done, when (specific dates) was this done? (Hint: look for New Testament Cannon). Please reply to this post and let me know what you find out.

I pray the Holy Spirit will guide you in your search and bring you to Pillar and Foundation of Truth.

Yours in Christ.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Martin Luther:

We are compelled to concede to the papists that they have the Word of God; that we received it from them, and that without them we should have had no knowledge of it at all"

(Martin Luther, Commentary on St. John)

 

[mercygate]

ml1957/1958 suspended again? Can anybody guess what that is about?

I thought ml was quite decent. If we’re going to hold ingrained anti-Catholic prejudice against people – especially newcomers – then why are we here?

 

[truthinlove]

I have been suspended twice previously without warning or explanation. If I said something offensive or hurtful, it would have been nice to have it pointed out. I don’t even know which post did it.

I am curious in this post specifically. Is there anyone that believes in the pope that does so by ONLY looking at the Bible, and not a Catholic-leaning translation? If God’s Word says Peter is pope, that he was the “visible” head of the church, etc. Then you’d think the claimed 36,000 denominations that claim the Bible as sole authority would find that evidence and proclaim it. I see many Catholics focusing on only Matt 16, but ignoring the rest of the epistles. Peter never calls himself anything other than a “fellow worker”, how many pope’s are there? No one ever sees Peter with divine authority, Paul has to correct Peter. If I had to choose a person to be supreme visible leader(pope) purely by reading the Bible and not know anything about Catholicism, then I’d pick Paul. He was personally taught by the risen Christ, wrote half the NT, corrected Peter’s incorrect doctrine, and wrote to believers in Rome.

Who’s with me Paul is pope, the Catholic church is the “protestants” from the 4th century. All joking aside, I would like to know what verses alone outside of the Catholic church’s teachings leads one to believe in this most critical doctrine of the one, true, holy, apostolic Church.

God bless

 

[mercygate]

truthinlove:

I have been suspended twice previously without warning or explanation. If I said something offensive or hurtful, it would have been nice to have it pointed out. I don’t even know which post did it.

Well, I’m glad you’re back. Thanks.

I am curious in this post specifically. Is there anyone that believes in the pope that does so by ONLY looking at the Bible, and not a Catholic-leaning translation?

This isn’t a question over which there are translation disputes.

If God’s Word says Peter is pope, that he was the “visible” head of the church, etc. Then you’d think the claimed 36,000 denominations that claim the Bible as sole authority would find that evidence and proclaim it.

It is precisely BECAUSE there are >30K denominations that they CANNOT see it. If the saw it, they would be conscience-bound to come into the Church.

I see many Catholics focusing on only Matt 16, but ignoring the rest of the epistles.

I disagree. See post #2 of this thread.

Peter never calls himself anything other than a “fellow worker”, how many pope’s are there?

So far? 265 (you had to see THAT coming!)

No one ever sees Peter with divine authority,

Keys? Isaiah 22?

Paul has to correct Peter. If I had to choose a person to be supreme visible leader(pope) purely by reading the Bible and not know anything about Catholicism, then I’d pick Paul. He was personally taught by the risen Christ, wrote half the NT, corrected Peter’s incorrect doctrine, and wrote to believers in Rome.

Since the Catholic Church gave us the New Testament, to read it without knowing anything about Catholicism puts one at an insurmountable disadvantage in understanding it.

I’ll bet you are not aware that the Church celebrates the feasts of Sts Peter and Paul on the same day, in recognition that they were both instrumental in building up the church at Rome. But only Peter was given the Keys.

I know it’s daunting, but follow some of your beloved mercygate’s posts on this thread. Also read itsjustdave1988. (Skip over some of the tetchy people – from BOTH sides of the Tiber.)

 

[EA_Man]

quote=truthinloveow many pope’s are there?
[/quote]

mercygate:

So far? 265 (you had to see THAT coming!)

265? Really? According to which source?

Owing, chiefly, to the fact that during what is called the Great Schism of the West, there were sometimes several claimants to the Holy See, only one of whom could be the lawful successor of St. Peter’, authorities differ concerning the correct list of the Popes. Some reckon that Pius XI. Is the two hundred and sixty-first successor of St. Peter. –Joseph Deharbe, S.J., A Complete Catechism of the Catholic Religion, Sixth American Edition, © 1912/1919/1924 Scwartz, Kirwin & Fauss, p. 68; Book has Nihil Obstat of Very Rev. Edmund T. Shanahan, D.D., Catholic University of America; and Imprimitur of John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York.
(Note: Papal chronology in this book lists Pius XI as the 266th pope.)

From the death of Pius XI to the present, there have been six popes. If Deharbe’s list is accurate, that would make Benedict XVI the 272nd link in Peter’s chain—or the 267th in that other list Deharbe mentioned.

The well-respected Catholic Encyclopedia provides a list of those who ruled the Catholic Church. In this list, Pius XI is the 259th pope and John Paul II was number 264 and Benedict XVI the 265th. Is this the source that you consider authoritative?

A well-known Catholic educator and historian provides yet another list of the legitimate occupants of Peter’s throne. In this list, Pius XI is in position 257, while John Paul II is number 262. (Richard P. McBrien, Chronological List of Popes in Lives of the Popes, © 1997 HarperSanFrancisco, pp. 443-50) This makes Benedict XVI number 263 according to this reckoning.

A highly regarded Anglican priest and historian gathered information about the papacy into a volume that is considered by many to be a definitive work on the subject. At the beginning of the book, the researcher lists the names and reigns of 269 popes, John Paul II being pope number 269, and 39 antipopes. (J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press (1987), pp. 1-4) That would make Benedict XVI number 270.

What do we have thus far? Depending upon which source one uses, we are informed that Benedict XVI is the 272nd successor to Peter. Or the 267th. Or the 263rd. Or the 270th. Or the 265th.

I suppose the way to “solve” this problem is to ignore any difficulties raised by differing accounts or scholarship and only consider the RCC’s accounting as valid.

 

[mercygate]

265? Really? According to which source?

A well-known Catholic educator and historian provides yet another list of the legitimate occupants of Peter’s throne. In this list, Pius XI is in position 257, while John Paul II is number 262. (Richard P. McBrien, Chronological List of Popes in Lives of the Popes, © 1997 HarperSanFrancisco, pp. 443-50) This makes Benedict XVI number 263 according to this reckoning.

A highly regarded Anglican priest and historian gathered information about the papacy into a volume that is considered by many to be a definitive work on the subject. At the beginning of the book, the researcher lists the names and reigns of 269 popes, John Paul II being pope number 269, and 39 antipopes. (J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press (1987), pp. 1-4) That would make Benedict XVI number 270.

What do we have thus far? Depending upon which source one uses, we are informed that Benedict XVI is the 272nd successor to Peter. Or the 267th. Or the 263rd. Or the 270th. Or the 265th.

I suppose the way to “solve” this problem is to ignore any difficulties raised by differing accounts or scholarship and only consider the RCC’s accounting as valid.

Variants or confusion in the historic record do not threaten either the theology of Apostolic Succession or the primacy of the Roman see. Even a break in the Roman line (or any other single line) would not nullify the charism of Apostolic succession nor the primacy of the Roman see. Apostolic succession is shared equally by all of the bishops and the bishop who licitly ascends to the chair of Peter is – the Bishop of Rome.

 

[truthinlove]

mercygate:

Well, I’m glad you’re back. Thanks.

Glad to be here, not sure how long I have left before my account goes poof again.

This isn’t a question over which there are translation disputes.

I know I was trying to make the point that without Catholic tradition to give you the interpretation to back up the papacy, there is no papacy. You can’t find it in Scripture. Peter never mentions his supposed authority, and nor does anyone else in the Bible. Peter calls Paul’s writings inspired Scripture, Paul does not return the favor. Paul wrote to Rome and never said one word about Peter. You see how thin the ice is over the papacy in the NT? In fact, the very idea of a pope has been evolving since men first lorded their positions over each other. Catholic pope’s first claimed infallibility in the 1800’s.

It is precisely BECAUSE there are >30K denominations that they CANNOT see it. If the saw it, they would be conscience-bound to come into the Church.

I guess that would make Catholicism 30,001 ay? Can you give me a link to a list of say 2000 of the supposed 36,000? It is a number thrown around to attack and cheapen respect for non-Catholics. Catholics have the same schisms as any other church(and are not the only ones to claim apostolic authority through tradition and trace their lineage down from the apostles).

So far? 265 (you had to see THAT coming!)

You had to know I meant other popes living at the same time. Peter is not writing to dead people that were his predecessors. LOL

Keys? Isaiah 22? Since the Catholic Church gave us the New Testament, to read it without knowing anything about Catholicism puts one at an insurmountable disadvantage in understanding it.

Interesting but it doesn’t teach anything but a type of Christ, not Peter. The Word of God says the teacher of the Word is the Holy Spirit, not even the apostles claimed to interpret the Word of God for the people.

I’ll bet you are not aware that the Church celebrates the feasts of Sts Peter and Paul on the same day, in recognition that they were both instrumental in building up the church at Rome. But only Peter was given the Keys.

No I wasn’t. Are you aware of Revelation 3?

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Revelation 3:7
The Key of David is mentioned Revelation 3 also comes up in Isaiah 22. What exactly is the Key of David?
In the passage from Revelation, we see Jesus describing Himself. This letting us know something about himself is a major feature of the book aptly named The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

 

[mercygate]

truthinlove:

I know I was trying to make the point that without Catholic tradition to give you the interpretation to back up the papacy, there is no papacy. You can’t find it in Scripture.

But we *do *find it in Scripture. Although the word “pope” does not appear in scripture, do not confuse form with substance. You didn’t read post #2 of this thread?

Peter never mentions his supposed authority, and nor does anyone else in the Bible.

Nobody except Jesus. Read this long thread. The primacy of Peter is all over the Gospels and emphatically evident in the Acts of the Apostles.

Peter calls Paul’s writings inspired Scripture, Paul does not return the favor. Paul wrote to Rome and never said one word about Peter. You see how thin the ice is over the papacy in the NT?

In my Greek Bible Peter calls the writings of Paul just that: writings. There is no reason to think that Peter did not value the writings of Paul as “inspired,” nor is there any reason to assume that he did.

In fact, the very idea of a pope has been evolving since men first lorded their positions over each other. Catholic pope’s first claimed infallibility in the 1800’s.

The 1800s? Hardly. The doctrine *did *develop over the centuries and was definitively promulgated in 1870, but it was not made up on the spot.

You seem unclear about what infallibility means.

When I see language like “lord it over” I know I am dealing with someone who has been privileged to receive a fine anti-Catholic education – not your fault, of course. The papacy and the protection of infallibility derive not from a model of power but from the servant-shepherd model of Christ and the teaching mission of the Church given to her by Christ at the Ascension.

I guess that would make Catholicism 30,001 ay?

Not at all. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Nor are the Churches of the East.

Can you give me a link to a list of say 2000 of the supposed 36,000? It is a number thrown around to attack and cheapen respect for non-Catholics.

I can give you a source. We do not need cheap tricks. Taken from Katholikos on another thread:

An article in the April 16, 2001 Newsweek magazine documents the rapid growth of separate, competing, and conflicting Protestant denominations in the world, reports the number of denominations as 33,820.

Newsweek’s source for this number is the World Christian Encyclopedia by David Barrett (2001 edition), where it appears on page 10 of Volume 1. (In 1970, a similar statistical study by Barrett gave the number of denominations as 26,350.) The 2001 figure is broken down as 11,830 traditional denominations and 21,990 paradenominations. He divides Christianity into (Roman) Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and Protestant (Barrett is an Anglican clergyman). So if an organization does not belong in one of the first three categories, it’s Protestant. Barrett has some statistical definitions and breakdowns which must be taken into account.

Protestant apologist Eric Svendsen . . . has taken exception to this statistical study, or rather to those has concluded that are are actually only 8,196 Protestant denominations. He criticizes Catholic apologists for using the larger number, though they most likely get it from publications like Newsweek.

Catholics have the same schisms as any other church(and are not the only ones to claim apostolic authority through tradition and trace their lineage down from the apostles).

Hardly. Certainly not 8200. The fact that the schismatic Eastern Churches have Apostolic succession in no way touches upon nor dilutes the Petrine primacy.

Interesting but it doesn’t teach anything but a type of Christ, not Peter.

Is. 22:22 is both.

The Word of God says the teacher of the Word is the Holy Spirit, not even the apostles claimed to interpret the Word of God for the people.

As for Apostolic Tradition and the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, I direct you to Jn 20:22. The New Testament is littered with examples of the Apostles interpreting Scripture. Two instances come immediately to mind: Acts 15:16-20; Hebrews Ch 11. Every citation of OT Scriptures in the NT is an interpretation.

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth; Revelation 3:7
The Key of David is mentioned Revelation 3 also comes up in Isaiah 22. What exactly is the Key of David?
In the passage from Revelation, we see Jesus describing Himself. This letting us know something about himself is a major feature of the book aptly named The Revelation of Jesus Christ.

Indeed. You make the Catholic case here without realizing it.

 

[truthinlove]

mercygate:

But we *do *find it in Scripture. Although the word “pope” does not appear in scripture, do not confuse form with substance. You didn’t read post #2 of this thread?

I’m not arguing over the word pope, I know it isn’t in the Bible. I am talking about Christ making Peter the one he would build His church on(hello its Peter’s confession, read…I Cor 3(note none of the Corinthians is arguing, I’m of Peter the rock). Notice the division that exists in Corinth, does Paul point them to the Catholic church? No, Paul corrects their thinking by pointing them not to Peter as the visible head of the church and foundation, but to Christ…

1 And I, brethren, could not speak to you as to spiritual people but as to carnal, as to babes in Christ. 2I fed you with milk and not with solid food; for until now you were not able to receive it, and even now you are still not able; 3for you are still carnal. For where there are envy, strife, and divisions among you, are you not carnal and behaving like mere men? 4For when one says, “I am of Paul,” and another, “I am of Apollos,” are you not carnal?

5Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers through whom you believed, as the Lord gave to each one? 6I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. 7So then neither he who plants is anything, nor he who waters, but God who gives the increase. 8Now he who plants and he who waters are one, and each one will receive his own reward according to his own labor.
9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

The 1800s? Hardly. The doctrine *did *develop over the centuries and was definitively promulgated in 1870, but it was not made up on the spot.

Doesn’t the Catholic church teach it hasn’t changed in 2000 years?, its the reason its the “one, true, holy, apostolic church”. Yet you yourself rightly say that the doctrine developed over time and was not practiced with the church started in Acts 2. Many other doctrines have crept into the Catholic church over the centuries(statues, prayer to saints/Mary, daily mass, devotion to Mary, etc).

You seem unclear about what infallibility means.

The opposite of fallible. Means that the pope cannot make mistakes in teachings about doctrine and faith.

When I see language like “lord it over” I know I am dealing with someone who has been privileged to receive a fine anti-Catholic education – not your fault, of course. The papacy and the protection of infallibility derive not from a model of power but from the servant-shepherd model of Christ and the teaching mission of the Church given to her by Christ at the Ascension.

We know from the Bible that the Word of God is infallible, and Christ is. We know that Peter was indeed very fallible in his doctrine and had to be corrected by Paul. Peter was even rebuked, being called Satan by our Lord, moments after Jesus supposedly called him the rock and gave him the keys.

Not at all. The Catholic Church is not a denomination. Nor are the Churches of the East. I can give you a source. We do not need cheap tricks. Taken from Katholikos on another thread:

No more cheap tricks, well great. I still don’t see a list, anyone can throw out a number. I have a book written by an ex-Catholic(not anti-Catholic) that puts the Catholic number at around 80 or 800, I’ll have to look it up. When you boil it all down, those that are not Catholic agree on more issues than you’d think. Hence, the rallying cry of the 1600’s…Scripture alone, Christ alone, Grace alone, Faith alone.

Hardly. Certainly not 8200. The fact that the schismatic Eastern Churches have Apostolic succession in no way touches upon nor dilutes the Petrine primacy.

The line has been broken, there have been anti-popes and the seat of power was even in France for a number of decades. So much for tracing one back to Peter, not that that is the measuring stick for truth. Teaching the truth of Scripture is the measure of a true church.

Indeed. You make the Catholic case here without realizing it.

I did? I think I made a case for Christ alone, something the Catholic church says is in error.

 

[Genesis315]

We know from the Bible that the Word of God is infallible, and Christ is. We know that Peter was indeed very fallible in his doctrine and had to be corrected by Paul. Peter was even rebuked, being called Satan by our Lord, moments after Jesus supposedly called him the rock and gave him the keys.

You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability.

 

[James_Cody]

CARose:

Well,

It looks like ML1957 will be away for a while (anyone know the terms of a suspension?).

In the meantime, I had 2 Jehovah’s Witnesses come to the door today. Not quite Church of Christ, but similar in many ways. Once they realized I’m serious about my Catholicism and was able to defend the Church teachings they lost interest.

Actually, I had hoped to open a dialog that would go on for a while, but I was nervous as all get out while they were here. Don’t know what that’s all about. So when I felt myself getting all shaky, I just prayed to the Holy Spirit that something, anything I might say might help them to better understand the Catholic Church.

They were especially surprised when I stated that the Pope didn’t have the Authority to make certain changes, because he’s the Vicar of Christ and can only proclaim the truth according to Jesus Christ.

CARose

Yes, ML1957 is providing an invaluable service by bringing out exactly what is on the minds of the non-denominational Protestant Christians against Catholicism.

I have encountered this line of argumentation by other non-denoms before, and they all mirror ML1957’s line of reasoning perfectly. We can all pick up some pointers on the illogic of this off-shoot of Protestanism generously provided by ML1957.

 

[Peace-bwu]

ml1957:

I am not rejecting Jesus. Is rejecting the pope the same as rejecting Christ?

Please do not confuse the two of them. I am a follower of Christ,a Christian.

It is rejecting Christ’s teachings about Peter, the rock, on which Christ would build His Church. You have some mistaken notions. You want to pick and choose which of Christ’s teachings to follow.
To be a true Christian you should follow ALL of Jesus’s teachings not just what is convenient for you.

 

[Peace-bwu]

James Cody:

Yes, ML1957 is providing an invaluable service by bringing out exactly what is on the minds of the non-denominational Protestant Christians against Catholicism.

I have encountered this line of argumentation by other non-denoms before, and they all mirror ML1957’s line of reasoning perfectly. We can all pick up some pointers on the illogic of this off-shoot of Protestanism generously provided by ML1957.

It makes me very sad. This poor guy really believes what he is saying but is suffering from a lack of information., and he’s teaching a class of young people… perpetuating the ignorance. (I am not calling you a name, ignorance means a lack of information)

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Milliardo:

No, I am not inferring that, but then you seem to take Paul’s words against Jesus’ words, and not take them as a harmony. Correct?

Act 9:10 Now there was a disciple at Damascus named Anani’as. The Lord said to him in a vision, “Anani’as.” And he said, “Here I am, Lord.”​

Act 9:11   And the Lord said to him, "Rise and go to the street called Straight, and inquire in the house of Judas for a man of Tarsus named Saul; for behold, he is praying,  

Act 9:12   and he has seen a man named Anani'as come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight."  

Act 9:13   But Anani'as answered, "Lord, I have heard from many about this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem;  

Act 9:14   and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all who call upon thy name."  

Act 9:15   But the Lord said to him, "Go, **for he is a chosen instrument of mine to carry my name before the Gentiles and kings and the sons of Israel**;  

Act 9:16   for I will show him how much he must suffer for the sake of my name."

That’s quite a recommendation IMHO - and it does suggest that his letters deserve very high respect, even though they cannot be quite so important as the Gospels themselves.

Humanly speaking, Christianity would perhaps have been a sect on the fringe of Judaism, had there been no St. Paul ##

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

truthinlove:

I have been suspended twice previously without warning or explanation. If I said something offensive or hurtful, it would have been nice to have it pointed out. I don’t even know which post did it.

I am curious in this post specifically. Is there anyone that believes in the pope that does so by ONLY looking at the Bible, and not a Catholic-leaning translation?

Certainly ​

I became a Catholic while studying theology at a university which was not even Catholic in name - though there were plenty of them there.

And I did not use any Catholic Bible, but a number of Protestant ones. I didn’t look at the Bible only, because the Bible, though inspired, is also a human book - which means it has a history; so does the transmission of the texts, the transmission of the books, the interpretation of the whole and of the parts of it. ##

If God’s Word says Peter is pope, that he was the “visible” head of the church, etc. Then you’d think the claimed 36,000 denominations that claim the Bible as sole authority would find that evidence and proclaim it. I see many Catholics focusing on only Matt 16, but ignoring the rest of the epistles.

That sounds likely ​

Peter never calls himself anything other than a “fellow worker”, how many pope’s are there? No one ever sees Peter with divine authority, Paul has to correct Peter.

Blessed Columba of Rieti rebuked Pope Alexander VI for his sins, publicly - it did not stop her being a Catholic. There is nothing unCatholic in warning or rebuking Popes - to think so, is an excessively defensive attitude. Rejecting their authority if one has acknowledged it as held from Christ, is another matter.​

As for Peter - he was indeed a “fellow-elder” with others. Not over the Church as its Lord - that position is already held - but in the Church with his fellows, and over them as the “servant of all”. He has in principle a wider authority, so as to render a wider service, which is always to be of the same sort as Christ’s. Peter was not a pope: the Papacy as such, is a later development, and as we Catholics believe a legitimate one, of the ministry committed to Peter by Christ.

Peter, like the other teachers in the Church, had authority from Christ, according to the Gospels. And as the Church was to last beyond the lifetime of Peter and the others, the ministry of Peter, and of the other eleven Apostles, is carried out by successors to them. These successors are not Apostles - they succeed to that part of the Apostolate which is separable from being an apostle: IOW, to the care of the flock of Christ the Great Shepherd.

Paul’s letters mention “laying of hands” for some of these men. ##

If I had to choose a person to be supreme visible leader(pope) purely by reading the Bible and not know anything about Catholicism, then I’d pick Paul. He was personally taught by the risen Christ, wrote half the NT, corrected Peter’s incorrect doctrine, and wrote to believers in Rome.

Who’s with me Paul is pope, the Catholic church is the “protestants” from the 4th century. All joking aside, I would like to know what verses alone outside of the Catholic church’s teachings leads one to believe in this most critical doctrine of the one, true, holy, apostolic Church.

They can all be found in any Protestant Bible ​

The true foundation of the Church is Christ Himself - He is the Eternal Shepherd Who makes all human shepherds fruitful and effective in their ministry - they are nothing apart from Him ##

God bless

 

[mercygate]

truthinlove:

I’m not arguing over the word pope, I know it isn’t in the Bible. I am talking about Christ making Peter the one he would build His church on(hello its Peter’s confession, read…I Cor 3(note none of the Corinthians is arguing, I’m of Peter the rock). Notice the division that exists in Corinth, does Paul point them to the Catholic church? No, Paul corrects their thinking by pointing them not to Peter as the visible head of the church and foundation, but to Christ…

9For we are God’s fellow workers; you are God’s field, you are God’s building. 10According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it. 11For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.

Sigh. Does the Catholic Church deny that Peter’s Confession is fundamental? Does the Catholic Church declare that Peter is the cornerstone, not Christ? Of course not, for without the Confession Jesus would not have declared Peter to be “this rock.” And in his first epistle, Peter affirms Christ as the cornerstone.

If you watched the inaugural Mass of Pope Benedict XVI, you saw the pallium ceremony in which the pallium, symbol of Christ’s pastoral commission to Peter in Jn. 21 (feed my sheep), which had been laid at Peter’s tomb overnight was brought up from the crypt to chants exclaiming that it is Peter’s faith upon which the Church is built. We do not separate Peter from his confession. Ubi Petrus, ibi Ecclesia. Where Peter is, there is the Church. The passage from Corinthians no way counters the Petrine Primacy. Peter and Paul preached one Gospel. Peter’s confession is the rock foundation of the Church insofar as the Church will be preserved in the truth through Peter. Peter is subordinate to Christ.

 

[chunkymaster]

Peter was the first pope, Peter was filled with the Holy Spirit and gifted, Peter was doing the work of Christ, and Jesus said this many times. Peter, the rock of the Church, which Jesus himself said…he did the work of Christ…Peter, was in union with Christ…Peter became pope…, thus, when Peter, being in union with Christ, and doing his work, as pope, he was doing what Christ sent him to do. Nothing is contrary to the pope in anything Jesus has said.