The Pope?

[Tantum_ergo]

I can’t get past the whole Pope thing. The Pope is not Peter. Who told Peter to appoint another Peter when Peter died?
A conclave? Cardinals?

Hi ML, glad you’re back.
Is it the idea of a leader that gives you pause? Now Jesus had not just his 12 apostles but 72 disciples as well (referenced in Matthew and Luke. He sent out the 72 in his mission), plus countless numbers of followers. Jesus also referred to “the Kingdom of God” being at hand. Kings rule kingdoms, but they have helpers. They appoint prime ministers, generals etc. to help them run things from the palace, and additionally they appoint representatives all throughout the kingdom to handle various details. And of course Paul speaks of the bishops and deacons (though the words, which were originally Greek, can just as easily point to cardinals and priests too.) And Jesus told Peter that “You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church”. That puts Peter right there as the “number one” or second in command to Christ. Jesus also told Peter to “Feed his lambs and feed His sheep”. And–I think a lot of people forget this–we must consider the HOLY SPIRIT in all of this, especially in the early Church. Jesus had promised to send the Spirit, whom He said would GUIDE THE CHURCH. It is the SPIRIT who, if you will, “told” Peter to appoint a successor. Too many people are fixed on Father and Son roles and think of the Spirit, if at all, as some kind of dove just fluttering around. . .but it is the Spirit who has guided the members of the church. . .and all its aspects, from the idea of amassing the Bible (Jesus said nothing about “write down what I say”), and the way the church was structured. Think about the time that Peter and Paul and James met together and discussed whether or not Gentiles needed to be circumcised. . .this wasn’t a piecemeal operation where Paul’s people did one thing and James’ another. This was, if you will, the first “council” of the church.

Without a hierarchy of priests (to instruct) and bishops (and later archbishops and cardinals), what would have become of Christianity? There were no writings to guide people. We know from the letters of Paul, James, Jude and Peter that even with the apostles themselves teaching people, people were getting it “wrong”, starting factions, listening to false teachings, etc. The Spirit guided the Church and helped it to establish itself as a Church which exists ON this earth but FOR Heaven. . .just as Jesus wanted.

Before Jesus left earth he did not establish an earthly Kingdom. Jesus left earth to make ready a kingdom in heaven. Even the Jews thought his Kingdon would be on earth. When they found out otherwise and that the Gentiles could also be a part of the Kingdon in Heaven they crucified him. He left us with the apostles which all lived and died…and from them he left diciples…that lived and died.
I consider myself a diciple of Christ. I will also live and die.

Well, we disagree here. I believe that Jesus did indeed establish a heavenly Kingdom, but that it also exists here. That is why we pray, “thy Kingdom come, thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” If the Kingdom is ONLY for heaven, why would we ask for God’s will to be done on earth too?

Yes, the apostles lived and died. . .and since Christ was the first fruits of those who conquer death and rise never to die again, the apostles likewise have conquered death and will never die again. Their souls are in heaven and their bodies will be raised and joined to the already live souls on the Last Day. But President George Washington lived and died. . .and then came President Adams, etc. The presidency did not collapse because its first president died. The Episcopal Church did not collapse when Henry VIII died. The Presbyterian Church did not collapse when Calvin died. If these man-made institutions and Protestant sects did not collapse at the death of their founders, why would the eternal Church established by the Eternal and Risen Lord collapse?

Con’t next post.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Why can’t the Pope work miracles? Peter and the Apostles performed them. Jesus also performed miracles,so that all might know that he is the Son of God.
The only reason I can find for Catholics needing a Pope is that their faith is not strong enough to beleive in Jesus,and trust Jesus.

Benedict XVI speaks several languages, but I’m not sure that he speaks Aramaic or would be understood by St. Peter. . .but then again, most Christians today don’t speak Aramaic. Why on earth would performing a miracle be considered a job requirement, especially to someone like you who doesn’t believe in the job in the first place? Of course, the Pope isn’t the Son of God, so we don’t require him to perform miracles like Jesus. And Peter and the apostles performed miracles not OF THEMSELVES but because of the will of GOD. . .you can bet that if God wills that the Pope–or anyone–performs a miracle that they will do so.

I and others have told you over and over that we don’t have a Pope because we don’t believe and trust in Jesus–we have him PRECISELY BECAUSE WE DO BELIEVE AND TRUST IN JESUS, WHO WAS THE ONE WHO GAVE US A POPE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Since we believe, and have provided the evidence by which we believe, that Jesus Himself instituted Peter as Pope and the Catholic Church as His church, how could we dare consider NOT having a Pope? We would be disobeying Christ. What greater example of belief and trust–and love–in Jesus could you ask of us than for us to DO HIS WILL?]

God bless.

 

[DianJo]

bkniceley:

I seriously hope you do not believe that. Jesus said this but not to just peter or his “successors” but to ALL Christians. Christ lives in every one of us and for us to reject anothe christian would be rejecting christ and going to war with god since christ is in that believer. A lot of things that Jesus said to the disciples were meant for every christian.

I certainly understand your point here, but…

In Luke 10, this is where Jesus commissioned the 72 to go before Him; to all the towns he intended to visit. He specifically commissioned these men for a specific purpose. The beginning of Chp. 10 specifically address the discipleship of those individuals - and yes, it can be applied to us, but these verses are specifically addressing these isndividuals - not everyone.

Just as in Matt 10, this chapter also speaks of the commissioning of the 12. He tells them about their coming persecutions and to have courage under these circumstances and what the conditions of dicsipleship are. These verses are directed specifically to the 12 - not everyone.

The positions that these men held were “offices” shown by the simple fact that after the Ascension, the 11 eleven got together and called upon the Holy Spirit to chose another to take the place of Judas. Acts 1:15-26 - Verse 16 - "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus. (17) - **He was numbered among us and was alloted a share in this ministry…**Verse 24 - Then they prayed, “You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen (25) to take the place in this apostolic minstry form which Judas turned away to go to his own place.” This indicates office if that “place” can be filled with another person - succession, in this case Apostolic Succession.

For you to deny that Jesus was speaking to those that He purposefully chose and gave them instructions is to deny the truth in front of you on paper!
These verses can and are rightfully used for everyone (us) but in context, He was speaking directing to certain individuals.

 

[bkniceley]

jimmy:

Actually that is false. Christ left the Church, and the Church wrote the gospels and the epistles. They came 15 to 50 years after the ressurection. The Church existed from Pentecost in 33AD. Since the Church wrote the books of the bible, it is the Church that has authority. The bible teaches us some of what was taught by the apostles. Paul says that the Church is “the pillar and ground of truth”, not scripture.

Woa… is not all scripture god-breathen?? It is indeed and yet u are saying that scripture is not the pillar and ground of truth. And Christ has left the church? Christ IS the church. The church of christ consists of all believers… Christ is the head of the church and each believer is part of the body of christ. the “Church” of whom u are referring to wrote the books of the bible but the holy spirit was working through each man and therefore it is not them who came up with the words but it was god himself. How does the church have authority when they have done nothing… it is god that does everything. Dont u know that it is not you that is talking when sharing your faith with a non-believer? It is the holy spirit working through you and every good work that comes out of us is god’s own working in our lives. How do we have authority if God is the one doing all the working?

And sure the bible does not have everything that Jesus had said while he was on earth. But God has control and im sure he has put everything that we needed in the bible… in his word.

The trinity is not found in the bible but what is the trinity? Father, son, and holy spirit… all of which are in the bible. The Pope refers to the leader of the Catholic Church supposedly Peter back in the times of the new testament.

Have you read the greek translation of the passage that refers to Peter as “the rock” ? It is quite interesting…“That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Now… the name Peter in the greek is “Petrus” which means a little stone or better yet a piece of rock. And then when he says upon this “rock” the greek word is Petra which means a solid foundation or a big rock. Jesus wanted Peter to show the difference between him and Jesus. He wanted to let Peter know that he was a little rock and that he was the solid foundation. Remember… “On Christ the solid rock I Stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

 

[Irenicist]

ml1957:

I can’t get past the whole Pope thing. The Pope is not Peter. Who told Peter to appoint another Peter when Peter died?
A conclave? Cardinals? .

Well, it seems we are getting somewhere. You got past Peter at least.

You are right to some degree. The Pope is indeed not Peter, to the extent that he cannot share in Peter’s claim to direct divine inspiration. This was unique to the 11 and to Paul. The power of the keys, and the responsibility to lead the flock, to pass on God’s word to future generations devolved on the successors of the Apostles (we call them “bishops”) and most particularly to Peter’s successor and thus leader of the bishops, Linus.

If you can accept that Christ saw the necessity of designating Peter as leader of the Apostles and of the Church after the Resurrection, why is it so difficult to accept that this leadership in the Church should continue to be provided for after Peter’s death?

As to who chose Linus to be bishop of Rome after Peter, we can’t tell you. We can’t say what we don’t know. We can speculate, however. Either Peter, before his death, chose him and designated him as his eventual successor, or the elders of the Roman church (“presbyters”, “priests”) elected Linus after Peter’s death and he was confirmed in his office by the recognition of the other Christian leaders. If it was the latter, then yes it was a “conclave” as the cardinals are now the “elders” of the church of Rome (each is titular head of a Roman parish).

ml1957:

Before Jesus left earth he did not establish an earthly Kingdom. Jesus left earth to make ready a kingdom in heaven.

And what makes you think the Church is an “earthly Kingdom”? It is merely that part of the Heavenly kingdom which is visible here on Earth. Christ is its king, and the Pope is, at best, his steward. And as the steward holds the keys to the Kingdom , and as we are Christ’s servants, the Pope is the leader of our household until Christ returns. As steward, the Pope doesn’t own the Church. He can’t sell it or change its mission. All he can do it keep it neat and orderly, and feed and direct the staff until the Lord’s return.

ml1957:

Even the Jews thought his Kingdon would be on earth. When they found out otherwise and that the Gentiles could also be a part of the Kingdon in Heaven they crucified him.

The Jews crucified Him? Are you sure? Are you now going to claim you and your class found this in the Bible too? I would suggest you sit down and read the Gospels again.

ml1957:

He left us with the apostles which all lived and died…and from them he left diciples…that lived and died.

I consider myself a diciple of Christ. I will also live and die…

To replace Judas, the Apostles drew lots among the disciples and ordained a replacement by laying their hands on him. They did the same with respect to the leaders of all the Christian communities they left behind as they spread God’s word throughout the ancient world. This is described in Acts and the various epistles. The successors to the Apostles (the “bishops”) laid hands on their successors, and so on down to this day.

Who laid his hands on you and ordained you one of His “disciples”? Who authorized you to exercise this Christian leadership and to speak for the Church? Catholics can answer this for their own bishops and for all their predecessors all the way back to the Apostles. Are they following the practice of the early Church as found in Scripture, or are you.

ml1957:

Why can’t the Pope work miracles? Peter and the Apostles performed them. Jesus also performed miracles,so that all might know that he is the Son of God.

What, so the Apostles were Sons of God too? Why should the Pope or, anyone for that matter, work miracles? Is your faith only sustained by witnessing miracles? Didn’t Paul warn against expecting miracles from his successors?

ml1957:

The only reason I can find for Catholics needing a Pope is that their faith is not strong enough to beleive in Jesus,and trust Jesus.

Then you aren’t listening. Everyone here has been telling you over and over that they believe they need a leader chosen by Christ (a “Pope”) specifically to strengthen their faith because Christ said they should have one. He appointed one for them as leader of the Apostles, and the Apostles appointed successors to themselves. This is all clearly laid out over numerous passages in the New Testament which you claim to have read.

By refusing to accept Christ’s ordination of leadership within the Church you would not be believing in Him, you would not be trusting Him. You would be denying Him.

Irenicist

 

[yochumjy]

bkniceley:

Have you read the greek translation of the passage that refers to Peter as “the rock” ? It is quite interesting…“That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Now… the name Peter in the greek is “Petrus” which means a little stone or better yet a piece of rock. And then when he says upon this “rock” the greek word is Petra which means a solid foundation or a big rock. Jesus wanted Peter to show the difference between him and Jesus. He wanted to let Peter know that he was a little rock and that he was the solid foundation. Remember… “On Christ the solid rock I Stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

Except that Jesus spoke aramaic, which is why Peter’s name is also written as Cephus. The whole Greek argument is flawed. Aramaic did not have the gender associated with the word Rock that Greek did/does. So would you expect the bible writers, who wrote in Greek, to say that Peter was feminine? That would open a big can of worms with the homosexual crowd, now wouldn’t it…

John

 

[mercygate]

ml1957:

I can’t get past the whole Pope thing. The Pope is not Peter. Who told Peter to appoint another Peter when Peter died?
A conclave? Cardinals?

Peter does not appoint another Peter. The assembled Church (streamlined these days to the College of Cardinals since it’s hard to fit a billion people into one room) prays that the Holy Spirit will endow them with the wisdom to select as the Bishop of Rome the one who will fill the shoes of the fisherman according to the will of God. Cardinals are just bishops (you found those in the Bible, right?) but with honorary status.

Before Jesus left earth he did not establish an earthly Kingdom.

But he did promise to build his Church, and he breathed the Holy Spirit into the disciples and charged them with that task, and he charged them 40 days later with the commission to “go and teach all nations . . .,” and he promised to be with us always.

Jesus left earth to make ready a kingdom in heaven. Even the Jews thought his Kingdon would be on earth. When they found out otherwise and that the Gentiles could also be a part of the Kingdon in Heaven they crucified him. He left us with the apostles which all lived and died…and from them he left diciples…that lived and died.

Nothing in this statement is contrary to Catholic thinking.

I consider myself a diciple of Christ. I will also live and die.

As are we all. As will we all.

Why can’t the Pope work miracles?

OK, I won’t be cocky and ask how you know he can’t. Miracles are in short supply these days. Since the very early Church it has been thought that the age of miracles was brief and served to build up the Church quickly during a time of ferocious persecution.

Peter and the Apostles performed them. Jesus also performed miracles,so that all might know that he is the Son of God.

When the Apostles performed miracles, did we call them the Son of God? You are a disciple of Christ. Do you think we won’t believe it unless you perform a miracle? C’mon! Use your noodle.

The only reason I can find for Catholics needing a Pope is that their faith is not strong enough to beleive in Jesus,and trust Jesus.

Aaaaccch! Gimme a break! You’ve spent 24 hours challenging the concept of the primacy of Peter and the development of the papacy and you say, “The only reason I can find . . .”

As a former Protestant, I recognize the auto-rejection factor kicking in on you. It can take years just to open your mind the slightest crack to the possibility that Catholics might just maybe not be completely off the wall, might, in fact, be onto something – that they actually READ the Bible . . .

 

[Irenicist]

bkniceley:

Have you read the greek translation of the passage that refers to Peter as “the rock” ? It is quite interesting…“That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Now… the name Peter in the greek is “Petrus” which means a little stone or better yet a piece of rock. And then when he says upon this “rock” the greek word is Petra which means a solid foundation or a big rock. Jesus wanted Peter to show the difference between him and Jesus. He wanted to let Peter know that he was a little rock and that he was the solid foundation. Remember… “On Christ the solid rock I Stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

Oh for goodness’ sake. This argument is transparently faulty on two separate grounds:

1. Christ probably spoke to Peter in Aramaic. In Aramaic “kepha” means both “piece of rock” and “foundation stone”, so He would have said “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church”.

Still not convinced? How about this:

1. The Gospel as it has come down to us is written not in Attic Greek (spoken in central Greece), but in Koine Greek (spoken in the Middle East). In Koine Greek a large rock or foundation stone is “petros” not “petra” (“petrus” is Latin not Greek). So only if you assume that for some unknown reason Christ was speaking to Peter in a dialect of Greek not common in Palestine, does the petra/petros problem come up.

Irenicist

 

[jimmy]

bkniceley:

Woa… is not all scripture god-breathen?? It is indeed and yet u are saying that scripture is not the pillar and ground of truth. And Christ has left the church? Christ IS the church. The church of christ consists of all believers… Christ is the head of the church and each believer is part of the body of christ. the “Church” of whom u are referring to wrote the books of the bible but the holy spirit was working through each man and therefore it is not them who came up with the words but it was god himself. How does the church have authority when they have done nothing… it is god that does everything. Dont u know that it is not you that is talking when sharing your faith with a non-believer? It is the holy spirit working through you and every good work that comes out … How do we have authority if God is the one doing all the working?

Yes, all scripture is God-breathed, but it is not the pillar and ground of truth. Read what Paul says. You are right, God inspired them to write it, but what is written in the bible was already the teaching of the Church.

I don’t know what your point is with your statements about it being God working through us. Are you telling me that the bible is for you to interpret, and that Christ did not leave an earthly authority here for us? If so, you contradict the bible and the early Church, and consequently Christ. Christ left us a Church with leaders.

All believers are a part of the Church to a point, but not fully. You are only a part of the Church in as much as you believe of the truth. Since a protestant does not believe the full truth, which is in the Catholic Church, he is not a complete member of the Church.

15

But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1Tim.3] *

bkniceley:

And sure the bible does not have everything that Jesus had said while he was on earth. But God has control and im sure he has put everything that we needed in the bible… in his word.

That is clearly false. The bible itself teaches that the Church is the pillar of truth. Christ never speaks of giving us the bible or any book. The apostles never speak of the bible, only what is in the OT. I have a question for you. Where in the bible does it list the books which are inspired? If you can’t tell me that without using an outside source, then you can’t claim the bible to contain everything that is needed. I will be waiting for your answer, and remember, the preface to the KJV is not part of the inspired text.

bkniceley:

The trinity is not found in the bible but what is the trinity? Father, son, and holy spirit… all of which are in the bible. The Pope refers to the leader of the Catholic Church supposedly Peter back in the times of the new testament.

Show me the hypostatic union in the bible. You will not find it. The word Trinity was not used until the end of the second century as we know it. It is part of tradition.

bkniceley:

Have you read the greek translation of the passage that refers to Peter as “the rock” ? It is quite interesting…“That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Now… the name Peter in the greek is “Petrus” which means a little stone or better yet a piece of rock. And then when he says upon this “rock” the greek word is Petra which means a solid foundation or a big rock. Jesus wanted Peter to show the difference between him and Jesus. He wanted to let Peter know that he was a little rock and that he was the solid foundation. Remember… “On Christ the solid rock I Stand, all other ground is sinking sand.”

Yes, as well as the Aramaic. The difference between Petros and Petra is a simple one. If you know the greek language, you know that there are 3 different genders. The Masculine, Feminine, and the Neuter. Dealing with names of people, you always use the masculine gender to name a male, and the feminine to name a female. Objects fit into these genders too. The word petra is a feminine noun that means rock. Since Peter is a man the author of Matthew was not going to use a feminine noun to name Peter so he used the masculine form. In Greek it does not work to name a man with a feminine noun.

Further, it is understood that Christ spoke Aramaic and that he did not actually use the words petra and petros. This can be seen in the gospel of John where it actually says Christ called him Cepha. In Aramaic we do not have the gender problem. There is a 5th century Aramaic translation of the bible called the Peshita. What this says is “you are Cepha, and on this Cepha…” So in Jesus’ native language, we can see that he was using the same word. It would be a fatal error to say that Christ was speaking about anyone other than Peter with the second part.

Your destinction is completely wrong.

 

[Genesis315]

Originally Posted by ml1957

The only reason I can find for Catholics needing a Pope is that their faith is not strong enough to beleive in Jesus,and trust Jesus. *

Nice anti-Catholic remark. The only reason I can see that Protestants (yes, you are a Protestant) don’t need a pope is because their pride makes them think they can read a bunch of books that are thousands of years old and that they have no idea where they came from, interpret them all correctly, and know it all without any help whatsoever. Catholics have a pope strictly because we do trust and have faith in Jesus and not ourselves.

I apologize if that little rant was uncharitable, but I needed to get it out of my system.

 

[mercygate]

bkniceley:

Have you read the greek translation of the passage that refers to Peter as “the rock” ? It is quite interesting…“That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church.” Now… the name Peter in the greek is “Petrus” which means a little stone or better yet a piece of rock. And then when he says upon this “rock” the greek word is Petra which means a solid foundation or a big rock. Jesus wanted Peter to show the difference between him and Jesus. He wanted to let Peter know that he was a little rock and that he was the solid foundation.

Wow! You don’t say! Man! How could the Catholic Church be so stupid? :yawn: Show me the source for your assertion that in Hellenistic Greek petros means “little rock.” You can’t. This is one of those things that gets handed down from fundamentalist to fundamentalist without any examination.

I direct you to a series of quotations from Protestant scholars refuting this assertion (collected by our very own itsjustdave1988.) itsjustdave1988.blogspot.com/A sterling effort by Huiou Theou has been unable to uncover any reference to this petros/petra argument prior to 1945. forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=579353#post579353

 

[Genesis315]

Irenicist:

Oh for goodness’ sake. This argument is transparently faulty on two separate grounds:

1. Christ probably spoke to Peter in Aramaic. In Aramaic “kepha” means both “piece of rock” and “foundation stone”, so He would have said “You are Kepha and on this kepha I will build my Church”.

Still not convinced? How about this:

1. The Gospel as it has come down to us is written not in Attic Greek (spoken in central Greece), but in Koine Greek (spoken in the Middle East). In Koine Greek a large rock or foundation stone is “petros” not “petra” (“petrus” is Latin not Greek). So only if you assume that for some unknown reason Christ was speaking to Peter in a dialect of Greek not common in Palestine, does the petra/petros problem come up.

Irenicist

A third point is that Petra is a feminine name and giving it to Peter would have been just weird

 

[mrS4ntA]

Genesis315:

A third point is that Petra is a feminine name and giving it to Peter would have been just weird

indeed, that’s like saying to a Michael, “You are Michelle”

 

[dbrown]

ml1957:

I can’t get past the whole Pope thing. The Pope is not Peter. Who told Peter to appoint another Peter when Peter died?
A conclave? Cardinals?

Before Jesus left earth he did not establish an earthly Kingdom. Jesus left earth to make ready a kingdom in heaven. Even the Jews thought his Kingdon would be on earth. When they found out otherwise and that the Gentiles could also be a part of the Kingdon in Heaven they crucified him. He left us with the apostles which all lived and died…and from them he left diciples…that lived and died.
I consider myself a diciple of Christ. I will also live and die.

Why can’t the Pope work miracles? Peter and the Apostles performed them. Jesus also performed miracles,so that all might know that he is the Son of God.
The only reason I can find for Catholics needing a Pope is that their faith is not strong enough to beleive in Jesus,and trust Jesus.

Let me ask you this when Judas betrayed Christ and eventually killed him self did the Apostles not elect another to take his place. succession is clearly stated in the bible. I also consider myself as do all Catholics a disciple of Christ. Pope John Paul Worked many miracles. exorcisims, prophsey, etc. For you to say we are lost is BUNK. you my friend are what I like to call completely ignorant to the truth. Peace be with you.

 

[DianJo]

ml1957:

I can’t get past the whole Pope thing. The Pope is not Peter. Who told Peter to appoint another Peter when Peter died?
A conclave? Cardinals?
QUOTE]

No one said that the current pope was Peter. The Chair of Peter is a successive office by virtue of it’s institution by Jesus.

You obviously missed the posts that explained this to you.
Look at Isaiah 22: 15-24. Verse 15 - Shebna is the official who is the master of the palace. He angers the Lord and the Lord takes his **office **from him. Verse 19 - I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. The Lord gives his office to Elikin to - verse 21 - be the father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judea. Verse 22 - I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open. Verse 23 - I will fix him like a peg in a sure spot, to be a place of honor for his family…

The word key denotes authority. It says that when he opens, no one shall shut…This means he has the authority in the Lord’s house. He is the “prime minister” of the Lord. I will fix him like a sure peg…Ever see the place where someone hangs their keys - a bunch of pegs - a place of permanance.

This is why Jesus references Isaiah when he says he will give Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Peter will have the authority in the Lord’s house (on earth), he will be the “prime minister.”

Now look at Acts 1: 15-26. This is where the 11 gather to chose a successor to Judas’ office. This is your “conclave”. Verse 17 - He was numbered among us and was alloted a share in this ministry. Verse 24 - Then they prayed," You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen (25) to take the place in this apostolic ministry from which Judas turned away to go to his own place.

Here you have keys which signifies authority and an office which also denotes succession since the “master of the palace” was an “official” position and the choosing of Judas’ successor to take his place in the apostolic ministry.

Pope and succession - Is that a little clearer?

 

[ml1957]

I am beginning to feel like a Christian in the Roman catholic lions den, and the lions are hungry.

What books are you reading?

This is enough information i need for a while.I will continue to study and pray for all of us.

I have been told that I will be banned from this forum if I continue to beleive in what i beleive in. I will continue to bear my cross daily and if I get punted out of here,it will be a sign. I am not sure what kind of a sign it will be.

How do you know what the pope is saying. I can barely hear a word they say. I see a lot of waving…the pope wave…is he blessing people who see the wave? what if you see it on tv?

 

[netmender]

Yes, ML - you did get a lot of responses!

You ask about books - I already mentioned one to you. Here is another one:
“Unabridged Christianity - Biblical Answers to Common Questions About the Roman Catholic Faith” by Fr. Mario Romero. Very helpful - good section on the Papacy and many other things.
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1579180566/qid=1114123710/sr=8-1/ref=pd_ka_1/104-4350140-2301515?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
May God bless you.

 

[mercygate]

ml1957:

I am beginning to feel like a Christian in the Roman catholic lions den, and the lions are hungry.

I HEAR ya! We get excited, my brother. We’re on fire with the love of Jesus Christ and his Holy Church! This IS a Catholic forum after all.

What books are you reading?

Just go with some of the CA tracts if you want the basics. Someone recommended *The Four Witnesses. *

This is enough information i need for a while.I will continue to study and pray for all of us.

I agree. Thanks for your prayers, you will be in mine tomorrow morning at Mass.

I have been told that I will be banned from this forum if I continue to beleive in what i beleive in. I will continue to bear my cross daily and if I get punted out of here,it will be a sign. I am not sure what kind of a sign it will be.

You will NOT be banned for believing what you believe unless you start calling us the antichrist or some such hogwash.

How do you know what the pope is saying. I can barely hear a word they say. I see a lot of waving…the pope wave…is he blessing people who see the wave? what if you see it on tv?

Depends on when he says it. At Mass – even in Latin – we pretty much know it by heart. Otherwise there are people who are linked to broadcast centers who CAN hear and repeat. In “normal” times, the Popes write letters (encylicals) and other teaching instruments or pastoral statements.

The Pope – any bishop or priest – confers a blessing by “waving” – making the sign of the cross in the air (holding his hand with the fingers arranged to represent the threefold nature of the Trinity and the twofold nature of Christ). He “draws” a cross in the air from top to bottom and from his left to right. Catholics at the same time make the sign of the cross on themselves by touching their forehead, chest, left shoulder, right shoulder. You will see us bow our head when we speak the Name of Jesus. When we recite the Nicene Creed, we bow deeply at the words “by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary and became man.”

We pray with our whole body.

 

[ml1957]

MERCYGATE,

you rock. Now we are getting somewhere.

If the Pope decides birth control is a sin,do all of you do as he says?

It seems to me if you are married,and you don’t want a house full of kids, you pray for a easy going Pope.

Does the Pope talk directly to God in a way that we don’t? I mean is he on a first name basis?

 

[StratusRose]

ml1957:

MERCYGATE,

you rock. Now we are getting somewhere.

If the Pope decides birth control is a sin,do all of you do as he says?

It seems to me if you are married,and you don’t want a house full of kids, you pray for a easy going Pope.

Does the Pope talk directly to God in a way that we don’t? I mean is he on a first name basis?

Artificial Birth Control IS a sin. It’s been declared a sin since the church was in it’s infancy.

What’s wrong with a house full of kids? Kids are awesome, they say funny stuff all the time! The Catholic position on childbearing is not to have as many kids as humanly possible. Go online and check out NFP. You’ll learn A LOT.

We all talk to God the same way the pope does. I mean, it’s not like the pope has a red phone on his desk that goes to God’s desk in heaven.