2
2ndGen
Guest
Well, my being Catholic and right has nothing to do with it.
But, the word in Latin is “papa”, in Greek “papas”.
“The Pope (from Latin: papa, tutor;[1] from Greek πάπας (pápas); father…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
- Status
But, the word in Latin is “papa”, in Greek “papas”.
“The Pope (from Latin: papa, tutor;[1] from Greek πάπας (pápas); father…”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
QUOTE]Several of the Church Fathers so interpreted the words as reference to the confession.
Where? That’s the second time you’ve made that statement without (conveniently) citing a source that can be confirmed.
Do you believe that Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to a group of words…yes or no?
“And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”
Not only does Jesus tell this person he healed to not confess what has happened to him to any “man” and to only confess it to a Priest, He orders the person he healed to do what The Priest (not what any common man) tells him to do (the ritual sacrifice that Moses prescribed).
You do know that his bones were found “under” The Church in Rome right?
catholic.com/library/was_peter_in_rome.asp
What Archaeology Proved
After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
St. Peter himself says otherwise:
I
Besides, my statement to you was that in John 21, Jesus only chose Peter to feed and tend the flock.
You still haven’t shown me a scripture that states that Jesus chose anybody else.
Whoever Peter chose to serve as bishops later (and whoever the men that Peter chose chose as well through Apostlic Succession), was by his “authority” to do so.
Remember, Jesus chose Peter…Peter chose everybody else and confirmed whoever Jesus sent to him (like he did with Saint Paul).
Now, do you or do you not (and I was very specific about my question so you can’t act as if you didn’t know) have a scripture that states the Jesus chose anybody else besides Peter to “feed” and to “tend” His sheep?
Again, here is my quote that you responded to:
"Again, only Peter was chosen to feed Jesus’ lambs and to feed and to tend His flock of sheep.
You never posted a scripture proving otherwise."
Not who Peter or The Church appointed “after” Jesus left us physically.
Of course there were going to be others appointed through Apostolic Succession as the original Apostles died off.
But again, the proof asked for was to whom did Jesus leave His flock’s care (tending) in…Jesus, not anybody else…Jesus.
I’ve seen it denied over and over that Vatican I didn’ t mean that the pope of Rome is the only bishop. But now you seem to confirm that means precisely that./QUOTE
Where? That’s the second time you’ve made that statement without (conveniently) citing a source that can be confirmed.
You just described what’s known by Christianity as The Papal Oath of Office.
But your answer isn’t a straightfowrard answer. You refer me to an even (without a source to site such as a chapter and verse), but again, don’t answer the question:
Do you believe that Jesus gave the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to a group of words…yes or no?
Peter,being an ordained Priest of Jesus’ Church (as Jesus Himself was a Priest) is separated from common men as Jesus distinguished men from Priests in Matthew 8:4
“And Jesus saith unto him, See thou tell no man; but go thy way, shew thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded, for a testimony unto them.”
Not only does Jesus tell this person he healed to not confess what has happened to him to any “man” and to only confess it to a Priest, He orders the person he healed to do what The Priest (not what any common man) tells him to do (the ritual sacrifice that Moses prescribed).
Simon was created from soil, but Peter was converted to Rock! It was upon God’s choice of Peter to reveal to Jesus Who He was that Jesus chose Peter (and Peter alone) to give The Keys to The Kingdom of Heaven to.
Peter returned to soil, but, The Church was built upon him both spiritually “and” physically.
You do know that his bones were found “under” The Church in Rome right?
catholic.com/library/was_peter_in_rome.asp
What Archaeology Proved
After the original release of Boettner’s book, evidence had mounted to the point that Pope Paul VI was able to announce officially something that had been discussed in archaeological literature and religious publications for years: that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that in the vicinity of his tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew that the prince of the apostles was there. The story of how all this was determined, with scientific accuracy, is too long to recount here. It is discussed in detail in John Evangelist Walsh’s book, The Bones of St. Peter. It is enough to say that the historical and scientific evidence is such that no one willing to look at the facts objectively can doubt that Peter was in Rome. To deny that fact is to let prejudice override reason.
St. Peter himself says otherwise:
I
Um, you “do” understand that the word “shephard” is used as a “verb” there? As in to “tend” the flock? Here, the shephards are individual leaders of The Church (the way a Priest is referred to as a “Pastor”).
Besides, my statement to you was that in John 21, Jesus only chose Peter to feed and tend the flock.
You still haven’t shown me a scripture that states that Jesus chose anybody else.
Whoever Peter chose to serve as bishops later (and whoever the men that Peter chose chose as well through Apostlic Succession), was by his “authority” to do so.
Remember, Jesus chose Peter…Peter chose everybody else and confirmed whoever Jesus sent to him (like he did with Saint Paul).
Now, do you or do you not (and I was very specific about my question so you can’t act as if you didn’t know) have a scripture that states the Jesus chose anybody else besides Peter to “feed” and to “tend” His sheep?
Again, here is my quote that you responded to:
"Again, only Peter was chosen to feed Jesus’ lambs and to feed and to tend His flock of sheep.
You never posted a scripture proving otherwise."
Not who Peter or The Church appointed “after” Jesus left us physically.
Of course there were going to be others appointed through Apostolic Succession as the original Apostles died off.
But again, the proof asked for was to whom did Jesus leave His flock’s care (tending) in…Jesus, not anybody else…Jesus.
I’ve seen it denied over and over that Vatican I didn’ t mean that the pope of Rome is the only bishop. But now you seem to confirm that means precisely that./QUOTE
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Isa Almisry;3269403:
No, you were. You claimed that St. Petre literally refered to himself as pope in the NT. You do know what literal means, no?
A quick look at my posts would show that I can. Can you?
Never said it didn’t.
So does dad, daddy, paw, old man, papi, as well as parent, paternal unit, and sperm donor. But not exactly the same thing.
Do you see a difference between “We have a pope” and “who’s your daddy?” both refer to a father.
You couldn’t even use the correct word when you attempted to correct me and now you’re insisting on words being perfect?
Oh? Do you want to be so dogmatic about that? Everytime you see the word father, you see the word pope. John 8:44
:bigyikes:
Think :tsktsk: before you speak ex cathedra.
I haven’t complained about the thread. Just that you made an absurd, and even worse absolute absurd claim, that the word pope is in the Bible, and even worse went further on a limb with even more absolute claims that can easily, with the click of a mouse on a concordance, be disproved.
Actually you said:
Now, we know that Peter was chosen to lead The Church by Jesus and we know that He was in Rome.
I was merely commenting that he was elsewhere, and there first. You still haven’t explained the import of him being at Rome.
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
actually, no. That would be SS. Andrew and Phillip: John 1:40-51.
the first to be chosen as a leader,
actully he is grouped with his brother Andrew and the brothers James and John. Matthew 4:18-22, 10:1-2
something actually accurate.
by whom?
Yes, it starts off with the 155 times in the NT number, and then goes on to explain them all: all except Peter’s denial, which altogether comprise how many of those 155 times?
posthumously
Always obliged to help.
I think you mean anti-Petrines. And I’m anti-ultra-montanist, which means I’m pro-Petrine.
He rebuked Peter but obeyed James (Galatians 2, Acts 21). He saw both in the passage you are alluding to (Galatians 1:18-9).
And you skipped verse 17: he explicitely says he went first to Damascus, where Ananias was in charge, and from whom he received baptism.
As for Paul’s formal ordination (Act 13:1-3) Peter had already left the scene (12:17), and is no more heard from until Acts 15.
then why did they go up to Jerusalem from Antioch, when Peter was in Antioch?
[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).
You left out the eulogy on Paul, which is longer and more detailed than Peter’s.
And so, Peter was martyred? Your point?
Yes, I rather like Clement I myself.
But it doesn’t mention anything about a pope, not even the word, (as far as I can tell) nor the concept. And you promised documentation..:tsktsk:
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
Luke 1:55 - Mary says that He spoke to our “fathers,” to Abraham and to his posterity for ever.
Luke 1:73 - Zechariah says the oath which he swore to our “father” Abraham.
Luke 16:24,30 - Jesus, in His parable about the rich man, says our “father” Abraham.
John 4:12 - the Samaritan woman asks Jesus if He is greater than our “father” Jacob.
John 7:22 - Jesus refers to the “fathers” who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.
John 8:56 - Jesus tells the Jews your “Father” Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day.
Acts 3:13,25; 5:30 - Peter teaches that the God of our “fathers” glorified His servant Jesus and raised Him to life.
Acts 4:25 - Peter and John pray to God and refer to our “father” David.
Acts 7:11-12, 15,19,38,44-45,51-52 - Stephen refers to our “fathers” in the faith.
Acts 7:32 - Stephen calls God the God of our “fathers.”
Acts 13:17,32,36; 24:14; 26:6; 28:17,25 - Paul also refers to the God of our “fathers” in the faith.
Acts 22:3 - Paul says he was educated according to the strict law of our “fathers.”
Acts 22:14 - Ananias says the God of our “fathers.”
Rom. 4:1 - Paul calls Abraham our “forefather.”
Rom. 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is the “father” of us all and the “father” of many nations.
Rom. 9:10 - Paul calls Isaac, a spiritual leader, our “forefather.”
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul says that our “fathers” were all under the cloud, referring to the Old Testament spiritual leaders.
Gal. 1:14 - Paul says that he was zealous for the tradition of his “fathers.”
2 Tim. 1:3 - Paul thanks God whom he serves with a clear conscience as did his “fathers” in faith.
Heb. 1:1 - the author says God spoke of old to our “fathers.”
Heb. 3:9 - the Holy Spirit says that your “fathers” put me to the test.
Heb. 8:9 - God says not like the covenant that I made with their “fathers.”
James 2:21 - James says was not our “father” Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac?
1 Peter 1:18 - Peter says you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your “fathers.”
2 Peter 3:4 - Peter says ever since the “fathers” fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning.
Top
III. Other Examples Where Jesus Uses the Word “Father” When Teaching
Matt. 15:4-5; 19:19 - Jesus uses “father” when He teaches God’s commandment to “Honor your father and your mother.”
Mark 7:10-12; Luke 18:20 - these are more examples of Jesus using “father” when teaching about honoring our fathers and mothers.
Eph. 6:2,4 - Paul also teaches to honor your “father” and mother, and says “fathers,” do not provoke your children.
Matt. 10:21; 35,37; Mark 13:12 - Jesus says “father” will deliver up his child in the last days.
Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7,19 - Jesus says a man shall leave his “father” and mother and be joined to his wife. See also Eph. 5:31.
Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29-30 - Jesus says whoever has left mother or “father” for His sake shall receive a hundredfold.
Matt. 21:31 - Jesus uses “father” when he teaches about the parable of the two sons and asks, "who did the will of his “father?”
Luke 6:23,26 - Jesus speaks about reward and punishment with reference to what their “fathers” did to the prophets.
Luke 11:11 - Jesus says what “father” among you will give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish.
Luke 11:47-48 - Jesus tells the lawyers they are witnesses to the deeds of their “fathers.”
Luke 14:26 - Jesus says we must leave our “fathers” and mothers and come to him, or we cannot be His disciple.
Luke 15:12,17-18,20-22,27-29 - Jesus repeatedly uses “father” when teaching about the prodigal son.
Luke 16:27 - Jesus uses “father” when teaching about the rich man in purgatory.
John 6:49,58 - Jesus says your “fathers” ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
Everytime you see the word “father” there, read it in Greek.
You’ll get papas. Or pope.
scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html
Luke 1:73 - Zechariah says the oath which he swore to our “father” Abraham.
Luke 16:24,30 - Jesus, in His parable about the rich man, says our “father” Abraham.
John 4:12 - the Samaritan woman asks Jesus if He is greater than our “father” Jacob.
John 7:22 - Jesus refers to the “fathers” who gave the Jews the practice of circumcision.
John 8:56 - Jesus tells the Jews your “Father” Abraham rejoiced that he was to see my day.
Acts 3:13,25; 5:30 - Peter teaches that the God of our “fathers” glorified His servant Jesus and raised Him to life.
Acts 4:25 - Peter and John pray to God and refer to our “father” David.
Acts 7:11-12, 15,19,38,44-45,51-52 - Stephen refers to our “fathers” in the faith.
Acts 7:32 - Stephen calls God the God of our “fathers.”
Acts 13:17,32,36; 24:14; 26:6; 28:17,25 - Paul also refers to the God of our “fathers” in the faith.
Acts 22:3 - Paul says he was educated according to the strict law of our “fathers.”
Acts 22:14 - Ananias says the God of our “fathers.”
Rom. 4:1 - Paul calls Abraham our “forefather.”
Rom. 4:16-17 - Paul says that Abraham is the “father” of us all and the “father” of many nations.
Rom. 9:10 - Paul calls Isaac, a spiritual leader, our “forefather.”
1 Cor. 10:1 - Paul says that our “fathers” were all under the cloud, referring to the Old Testament spiritual leaders.
Gal. 1:14 - Paul says that he was zealous for the tradition of his “fathers.”
2 Tim. 1:3 - Paul thanks God whom he serves with a clear conscience as did his “fathers” in faith.
Heb. 1:1 - the author says God spoke of old to our “fathers.”
Heb. 3:9 - the Holy Spirit says that your “fathers” put me to the test.
Heb. 8:9 - God says not like the covenant that I made with their “fathers.”
James 2:21 - James says was not our “father” Abraham justified by works when he offered his son Isaac?
1 Peter 1:18 - Peter says you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your “fathers.”
2 Peter 3:4 - Peter says ever since the “fathers” fell asleep, all things have continued as they were from the beginning.
Top
III. Other Examples Where Jesus Uses the Word “Father” When Teaching
Matt. 15:4-5; 19:19 - Jesus uses “father” when He teaches God’s commandment to “Honor your father and your mother.”
Mark 7:10-12; Luke 18:20 - these are more examples of Jesus using “father” when teaching about honoring our fathers and mothers.
Eph. 6:2,4 - Paul also teaches to honor your “father” and mother, and says “fathers,” do not provoke your children.
Matt. 10:21; 35,37; Mark 13:12 - Jesus says “father” will deliver up his child in the last days.
Matt. 19:5; Mark 10:7,19 - Jesus says a man shall leave his “father” and mother and be joined to his wife. See also Eph. 5:31.
Matt. 19:29; Mark 10:29-30 - Jesus says whoever has left mother or “father” for His sake shall receive a hundredfold.
Matt. 21:31 - Jesus uses “father” when he teaches about the parable of the two sons and asks, "who did the will of his “father?”
Luke 6:23,26 - Jesus speaks about reward and punishment with reference to what their “fathers” did to the prophets.
Luke 11:11 - Jesus says what “father” among you will give his child a serpent when he asks for a fish.
Luke 11:47-48 - Jesus tells the lawyers they are witnesses to the deeds of their “fathers.”
Luke 14:26 - Jesus says we must leave our “fathers” and mothers and come to him, or we cannot be His disciple.
Luke 15:12,17-18,20-22,27-29 - Jesus repeatedly uses “father” when teaching about the prodigal son.
Luke 16:27 - Jesus uses “father” when teaching about the rich man in purgatory.
John 6:49,58 - Jesus says your “fathers” ate the manna in the wilderness and died.
Everytime you see the word “father” there, read it in Greek.
You’ll get papas. Or pope.
scripturecatholic.com/the_priesthood.html
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
2ndGen;3269702:
actually, no. That would be SS. Andrew and Phillip: John 1:40-51.No, you were. You claimed that St. Petre literally refered to himself as pope in the NT. You do know what literal means, no?
A quick look at my posts would show that I can. Can you?
Never said it didn’t.
So does dad, daddy, paw, old man, papi, as well as parent, paternal unit, and sperm donor. But not exactly the same thing.
Do you see a difference between “We have a pope” and “who’s your daddy?” both refer to a father.
You couldn’t even use the correct word when you attempted to correct me and now you’re insisting on words being perfect?
Oh? Do you want to be so dogmatic about that? Everytime you see the word father, you see the word pope. John 8:44
:bigyikes:
Think :tsktsk: before you speak ex cathedra.
I haven’t complained about the thread. Just that you made an absurd, and even worse absolute absurd claim, that the word pope is in the Bible, and even worse went further on a limb with even more absolute claims that can easily, with the click of a mouse on a concordance, be disproved.
Actually you said:
Now, we know that Peter was chosen to lead The Church by Jesus and we know that He was in Rome.
I was merely commenting that he was elsewhere, and there first. You still haven’t explained the import of him being at Rome.
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
the first to be chosen as a leader,
actully he is grouped with his brother Andrew and the brothers James and John. Matthew 4:18-22, 10:1-2
something actually accurate.
by whom?
Yes, it starts off with the 155 times in the NT number, and then goes on to explain them all: all except Peter’s denial, which altogether comprise how many of those 155 times?
posthumously
Always obliged to help.
I think you mean anti-Petrines. And I’m anti-ultra-montanist, which means I’m pro-Petrine.
He rebuked Peter but obeyed James (Galatians 2, Acts 21). He saw both in the passage you are alluding to (Galatians 1:18-9).
And you skipped verse 17: he explicitely says he went first to Damascus, where Ananias was in charge, and from whom he received baptism.
As for Paul’s formal ordination (Act 13:1-3) Peter had already left the scene (12:17), and is no more heard from until Acts 15.
then why did they go up to Jerusalem from Antioch, when Peter was in Antioch?
You left out the eulogy on Paul, which is longer and more detailed than Peter’s.
And so, Peter was martyred? Your point?
Yes, I rather like Clement I myself.
But it doesn’t mention anything about a pope, not even the word, (as far as I can tell) nor the concept. And you promised documentation.
2
2ndGen
Guest
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
2ndGen;3269702:
actually, no. That would be SS. Andrew and Phillip: John 1:40-51.No, you were. You claimed that St. Petre literally refered to himself as pope in the NT. You do know what literal means, no?
A quick look at my posts would show that I can. Can you?
Never said it didn’t.
So does dad, daddy, paw, old man, papi, as well as parent, paternal unit, and sperm donor. But not exactly the same thing.
Do you see a difference between “We have a pope” and “who’s your daddy?” both refer to a father.
You couldn’t even use the correct word when you attempted to correct me and now you’re insisting on words being perfect?
Oh? Do you want to be so dogmatic about that? Everytime you see the word father, you see the word pope. John 8:44
:bigyikes:
Think :tsktsk: before you speak ex cathedra.
I haven’t complained about the thread. Just that you made an absurd, and even worse absolute absurd claim, that the word pope is in the Bible, and even worse went further on a limb with even more absolute claims that can easily, with the click of a mouse on a concordance, be disproved.
Actually you said:
Now, we know that Peter was chosen to lead The Church by Jesus and we know that He was in Rome.
I was merely commenting that he was elsewhere, and there first. You still haven’t explained the import of him being at Rome.
scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html
the first to be chosen as a leader,
actully he is grouped with his brother Andrew and the brothers James and John. Matthew 4:18-22, 10:1-2
something actually accurate.
by whom?
Yes, it starts off with the 155 times in the NT number, and then goes on to explain them all: all except Peter’s denial, which altogether comprise how many of those 155 times?
posthumously
Always obliged to help.
I think you mean anti-Petrines. And I’m anti-ultra-montanist, which means I’m pro-Petrine.
He rebuked Peter but obeyed James (Galatians 2, Acts 21). He saw both in the passage you are alluding to (Galatians 1:18-9).
And you skipped verse 17: he explicitely says he went first to Damascus, where Ananias was in charge, and from whom he received baptism.
As for Paul’s formal ordination (Act 13:1-3) Peter had already left the scene (12:17), and is no more heard from until Acts 15.
then why did they go up to Jerusalem from Antioch, when Peter was in Antioch?
You left out the eulogy on Paul, which is longer and more detailed than Peter’s.
And so, Peter was martyred? Your point?
Yes, I rather like Clement I myself.
But it doesn’t mention anything about a pope, not even the word, (as far as I can tell) nor the concept. And you promised documentation.
sorry. for you to understand the leadership of peter within the church you must understand the line of leadership chosen by God written in the OT.
2
2ndGen
Guest
Now, for the last time…who did Jesus choose to “tend & to feed His sheep” and to “feed His lambs”.
And, do you believe that to Jesus, the sheep and the lamb are one in the same and if so, why did he seperate them when He told Peter to tend them and feed them?
(You do understand that the sheep and lamb thing being the same completely put Peter in charge of The Apostles too if they are both one in the same and this clearly sets Peter apart from the lambs/sheep combination, right?)
And, do you believe that to Jesus, the sheep and the lamb are one in the same and if so, why did he seperate them when He told Peter to tend them and feed them?
(You do understand that the sheep and lamb thing being the same completely put Peter in charge of The Apostles too if they are both one in the same and this clearly sets Peter apart from the lambs/sheep combination, right?)
2
2ndGen
Guest
2
2ndGen
Guest
(deep breath…)
Hay…Isa, do you like apples?
Well how do you like them apples?
- John X (914-28)
- Leo VI (928)
- Stephen VIII (929-31)
- John XI (931-35)
- Leo VII (936-39)
- Stephen IX (939-42)
- Marinus II (942-46)
- Agapetus II (946-55)
- John XII (955-63)
- Leo VIII (963-64)
- Benedict V (964)
- John XIII (965-72)
- Benedict VI (973-74)
- Benedict VII (974-83)
- John XIV (983-84)
- John XV (985-96)
- Gregory V (996-99)
- Sylvester II (999-1003)
- John XVII (1003)
- John XVIII (1003-09)
- Sergius IV (1009-12)
- Benedict VIII (1012-24)
- John XIX (1024-32)
- Benedict IX (1032-45)
- Sylvester III (1045)
- Benedict IX (1045)
- Gregory VI (1045-46)
- Clement II (1046-47)
- Benedict IX (1047-48)
- Damasus II (1048)
- St. Leo IX (1049-54)
- Victor II (1055-57)
- Stephen X (1057-58)
- Nicholas II (1058-61)
- Alexander II (1061-73)
- St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
- Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
- Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
- Paschal II (1099-1118)
- Gelasius II (1118-19)
- Callistus II (1119-24)
- Honorius II (1124-30)
- Innocent II (1130-43)
- Celestine II (1143-44)
- Lucius II (1144-45)
- Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
- Anastasius IV (1153-54)
- Adrian IV (1154-59)
- Alexander III (1159-81)
- Lucius III (1181-85)
- Urban III (1185-87)
- Gregory VIII (1187)
- Clement III (1187-91)
- Celestine III (1191-98)
- Innocent III (1198-1216)
- Honorius III (1216-27)
- Gregory IX (1227-41)
- Celestine IV (1241)
- Innocent IV (1243-54)
- Alexander IV (1254-61)
- Urban IV (1261-64)
- Clement IV (1265-68)
- Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
- Blessed Innocent V (1276)
- Adrian V (1276)
- John XXI (1276-77)
- Nicholas III (1277-80)
- Martin IV (1281-85)
- Honorius IV (1285-87)
- Nicholas IV (1288-92)
- St. Celestine V (1294)
- Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
- Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
- Clement V (1305-14)
- John XXII (1316-34)
- Benedict XII (1334-42)
- Clement VI (1342-52)
- Innocent VI (1352-62)
- Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
- Gregory XI (1370-78)
- Urban VI (1378-89)
- Boniface IX (1389-1404)
- Innocent VII (1406-06)
- Gregory XII (1406-15)
- Martin V (1417-31)
- Eugene IV (1431-47)
- Nicholas V (1447-55)
- Callistus III (1455-58)
- Pius II (1458-64)
- Paul II (1464-71)
- Sixtus IV (1471-84)
- Innocent VIII (1484-92)
- Alexander VI (1492-1503)
- Pius III (1503)
- Julius II (1503-13)
- Leo X (1513-21)
- Adrian VI (1522-23)
- Clement VII (1523-34)
- Paul III (1534-49)
- Julius III (1550-55)
- Marcellus II (1555)
- Paul IV (1555-59)
- Pius IV (1559-65)
- St. Pius V (1566-72)
- Gregory XIII (1572-85)
- Sixtus V (1585-90)
- Urban VII (1590)
- Gregory XIV (1590-91)
- Innocent IX (1591)
- Clement VIII (1592-1605)
- Leo XI (1605)
- Paul V (1605-21)
- Gregory XV (1621-23)
- Urban VIII (1623-44)
- Innocent X (1644-55)
- Alexander VII (1655-67)
- Clement IX (1667-69)
- Clement X (1670-76)
- Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
- Alexander VIII (1689-91)
- Innocent XII (1691-1700)
- Clement XI (1700-21)
- Innocent XIII (1721-24)
- Benedict XIII (1724-30)
- Clement XII (1730-40)
- Benedict XIV (1740-58)
- Clement XIII (1758-69)
- Clement XIV (1769-74)
- Pius VI (1775-99)
- Pius VII (1800-23)
- Leo XII (1823-29)
- Pius VIII (1829-30)
- Gregory XVI (1831-46)
- Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
- Leo XIII (1878-1903)
- St. Pius X (1903-14)
- Benedict XV (1914-22)
- Pius XI (1922-39)
- Pius XII (1939-58)
- Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
- Paul VI (1963-78)
- John Paul I (1978)
- John Paul II (1978—2005)
- Benedict XVI (2005-*)
Hay…Isa, do you like apples?
Well how do you like them apples?
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
yes. i believe they all know that Peter was chosen as leader of the Church. they could not possible miss this. i think it is much easier for them to deny this truth this way they do not have to admit the guilt of separation from the True church. from the writings of the churche’s fathers it is clear that the church of Rome is special and it is look at as the mother church to which all churches should be in communion with.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
This is a good one.(deep breath…)
trivialworld.info/religion/list-of-popes/
- John X (914-28)
- Leo VI (928)
- Stephen VIII (929-31)
- John XI (931-35)
- Leo VII (936-39)
- Stephen IX (939-42)
- Marinus II (942-46)
- Agapetus II (946-55)
- John XII (955-63)
- Leo VIII (963-64)
- Benedict V (964)
- John XIII (965-72)
- Benedict VI (973-74)
- Benedict VII (974-83)
- John XIV (983-84)
- John XV (985-96)
- Gregory V (996-99)
- Sylvester II (999-1003)
- John XVII (1003)
- John XVIII (1003-09)
- Sergius IV (1009-12)
- Benedict VIII (1012-24)
- John XIX (1024-32)
- Benedict IX (1032-45)
- Sylvester III (1045)
- Benedict IX (1045)
- Gregory VI (1045-46)
- Clement II (1046-47)
- Benedict IX (1047-48)
- Damasus II (1048)
- St. Leo IX (1049-54)
- Victor II (1055-57)
- Stephen X (1057-58)
- Nicholas II (1058-61)
- Alexander II (1061-73)
- St. Gregory VII (1073-85)
- Blessed Victor III (1086-87)
- Blessed Urban II (1088-99)
- Paschal II (1099-1118)
- Gelasius II (1118-19)
- Callistus II (1119-24)
- Honorius II (1124-30)
- Innocent II (1130-43)
- Celestine II (1143-44)
- Lucius II (1144-45)
- Blessed Eugene III (1145-53)
- Anastasius IV (1153-54)
- Adrian IV (1154-59)
- Alexander III (1159-81)
- Lucius III (1181-85)
- Urban III (1185-87)
- Gregory VIII (1187)
- Clement III (1187-91)
- Celestine III (1191-98)
- Innocent III (1198-1216)
- Honorius III (1216-27)
- Gregory IX (1227-41)
- Celestine IV (1241)
- Innocent IV (1243-54)
- Alexander IV (1254-61)
- Urban IV (1261-64)
- Clement IV (1265-68)
- Blessed Gregory X (1271-76)
- Blessed Innocent V (1276)
- Adrian V (1276)
- John XXI (1276-77)
- Nicholas III (1277-80)
- Martin IV (1281-85)
- Honorius IV (1285-87)
- Nicholas IV (1288-92)
- St. Celestine V (1294)
- Boniface VIII (1294-1303)
- Blessed Benedict XI (1303-04)
- Clement V (1305-14)
- John XXII (1316-34)
- Benedict XII (1334-42)
- Clement VI (1342-52)
- Innocent VI (1352-62)
- Blessed Urban V (1362-70)
- Gregory XI (1370-78)
- Urban VI (1378-89)
- Boniface IX (1389-1404)
- Innocent VII (1406-06)
- Gregory XII (1406-15)
- Martin V (1417-31)
- Eugene IV (1431-47)
- Nicholas V (1447-55)
- Callistus III (1455-58)
- Pius II (1458-64)
- Paul II (1464-71)
- Sixtus IV (1471-84)
- Innocent VIII (1484-92)
- Alexander VI (1492-1503)
- Pius III (1503)
- Julius II (1503-13)
- Leo X (1513-21)
- Adrian VI (1522-23)
- Clement VII (1523-34)
- Paul III (1534-49)
- Julius III (1550-55)
- Marcellus II (1555)
- Paul IV (1555-59)
- Pius IV (1559-65)
- St. Pius V (1566-72)
- Gregory XIII (1572-85)
- Sixtus V (1585-90)
- Urban VII (1590)
- Gregory XIV (1590-91)
- Innocent IX (1591)
- Clement VIII (1592-1605)
- Leo XI (1605)
- Paul V (1605-21)
- Gregory XV (1621-23)
- Urban VIII (1623-44)
- Innocent X (1644-55)
- Alexander VII (1655-67)
- Clement IX (1667-69)
- Clement X (1670-76)
- Blessed Innocent XI (1676-89)
- Alexander VIII (1689-91)
- Innocent XII (1691-1700)
- Clement XI (1700-21)
- Innocent XIII (1721-24)
- Benedict XIII (1724-30)
- Clement XII (1730-40)
- Benedict XIV (1740-58)
- Clement XIII (1758-69)
- Clement XIV (1769-74)
- Pius VI (1775-99)
- Pius VII (1800-23)
- Leo XII (1823-29)
- Pius VIII (1829-30)
- Gregory XVI (1831-46)
- Blessed Pius IX (1846-78)
- Leo XIII (1878-1903)
- St. Pius X (1903-14)
- Benedict XV (1914-22)
- Pius XI (1922-39)
- Pius XII (1939-58)
- Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
- Paul VI (1963-78)
- John Paul I (1978)
- John Paul II (1978—2005)
- Benedict XVI (2005-*)
Hay…Isa, do you like apples?
Well how do you like them apples?
2
2ndGen
Guest
Well, my girlfriend is Orthoodox, she just placed a call to a Greek Orthodox family member who’s very devout.
She told me that based on what has been said here, the persons who said these things are “not” Orthodox Christians, but probably members of one of the lesser Orthodox Churches that may or not be in communion with The Orhodox Church.
I also just find out that the Greeks and The Russians are “not” united (as it’s been so proclaimed here) and that they are in schism.
W
wisdomseeker
Guest
I know it. have you heard of the fights they been having in the church in Jerusalem? aparently they dont know how to share the same church. they have been stepping into each others boundaries. they have been going at. they actually been having physical fights.Well, my girlfriend is Orthoodox, she just placed a call to a Greek Orthodox family member who’s very devout.
She told me that based on what has been said here, the persons who said these things are “not” Orthodox Christians, but probably members of one of the lesser Orthodox Churches that may or not be in communion with The Orhodox Church.
I also just find out that the Greeks and The Russians are “not” united (as it’s been so proclaimed here) and that they are in schism.
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
But wait, here are all the examples of the word “pope” appearing in the Bible (since you seem to ignore the links I post):
I’m not Protestant.
but there is the point of calling someone THE Father, besides the Father. Now who does that?
Btw:
και πατερα μη καλεσητε υμων επι της γης εις γαρ εστιν ο πατηρ υμων ο εν τοις ουρανοις
Ditto
και ειπεν αυτω μιχα καθου μετ’ εμου και γενου μοι εις πατερα και εις ιερεα και εγω δωσω σοι δεκα αργυριου εις ημερας και ζευγος ιματιων και τα προς το ζην σου και επορευθη ο λευιτης
אבויאמר לו מיכה שבה עמדי והיה־לי ל
ולכהן ואנכי אתן־לך עשרת כסף לימים וערך בגדים ומחיתך וילך הלוי
και ειπαν προς αυτον κωφευσον επιθες την χειρα σου επι το στομα σου και ελθε μεθ’ ημων και εση ημιν εις πατερα και εις ιερεα μη βελτιον ειναι σε ιερεα οικου ανδρος ενος η γινεσθαι σε ιερεα φυλης και συγγενειας εν ισραηλ
אבויאמרו לו החרש שים־ידך על־פיך ולך עמנו והיה־לנו ל
ולכהן הטוב היותך כהן לבית איש אחד או היותך כהן לשבט ולמשפחה בישראל׃
Correct. So we are all popes in the pope?
Btw.
τουτου χαριν καμπτω τα γονατα μου προς τον πατερα του κυριου ημων ιησου χριστου
Personally, I don’t care. Again, your pre-packaged answers for Protestants are’t going to cut it.
Btw.
ο δε εφη ανδρες αδελφοι και πατερες ακουσατε ο θεος της δοξης ωφθη τω πατρι ημων αβρααμ οντι εν τη μεσοποταμια πριν η κατοικησαι αυτον εν χαρραν
ܐܒܗܬܢܗܘ ܕܝܢ ܐܡܪ ܓܒܪܐ ܐܚܝܢ ܘ
ܫܡܥܘ ܐܠܗܐ ܕܬܫܒܘܚܬܐ ܐܬܚܙܝ ܠܐܒܘܢ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܟܕ ܐܝܬܘܗܝ ܗܘܐ ܒܝܬ ܢܗܪܝܢ ܥܕ ܠܐ ܢܐܬܐ ܢܥܡܪ ܒܚܪܢ
ανδρες αδελφοι και πατερες ακουσατε μου της προς υμας νυνι απολογιας
ܫܡܥܘ ܡܦܩ ܒܪܘܚ ܕܠܘܬܟܘܢܐܒܗܬܐܐܚܐ ܘ
γραφω υμιν πατερες οτι εγνωκατε τον απ αρχης γραφω υμιν νεανισκοι οτι νενικηκατε τον πονηρον γραφω υμιν παιδια οτι εγνωκατε τον πατερα
εαν γαρ μυριους παιδαγωγους εχητε εν χριστω αλλ ου πολλους πατερας εν γαρ χριστω ιησου δια του ευαγγελιου εγω υμας εγεννησα
Here you don’t even have the word for father in the Greek, nor from the same root, just progenigor.
ιδου τριτον ετοιμως εχω ελθειν προς υμας και ου καταναρκησω υμων ου γαρ ζητω τα υμων αλλα υμας ου γαρ οφειλει τα τεκνα τοις γονευσιν θησαυριζειν αλλ οι γονεις τοις τεκνοις
You do get it in Syriac translation
ܗܐ ܗܕܐ ܕܬܠܬ ܗܝ ܙܒܢܝܢ ܕܡܛܝܒ ܐܢܐ ܕܐܬܐ ܠܘܬܟܘܢ ܘܠܐ ܐܩܪ ܥܠܝܟܘܢ ܡܛܠ ܕܠܐ ܒܥܐ ܐܢܐ ܕܝܠܟܘܢ ܐܠܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܠܐ ܓܝܪ ܚܝܒܝܢ ܒܢܝܐ
ܠܡܤܡ ܤܝܡܬܐ ܠܠܒܢܝܗܘܢ
ܐܒܗܐ ܐܠܐ ܐܒܗܐ
την δε δοκιμην αυτου γινωσκετε οτι ως πατρι τεκνον συν εμοι εδουλευσεν εις το ευαγγελιον
καθαπερ οιδατε ως ενα εκαστον υμων ως πατηρ τεκνα εαυτου παρακαλουντες υμας και παραμυθουμενοι
εις παιδειαν υπομενετε ως υιοις υμιν προσφερεται ο θεος τις γαρ υιος εστιν ον ου παιδευει πατηρ
τεκνια μου ταυτα γραφω υμιν ινα μη αμαρτητε και εαν τις αμαρτη παρακλητον εχομεν προς τον πατερα ιησουν χριστον δικαιον
γραφω υμιν πατερες οτι εγνωκατε τον απ αρχης γραφω υμιν νεανισκοι οτι νενικηκατε τον πονηρον γραφω υμιν παιδια οτι εγνωκατε τον πατερα
εγραψα υμιν πατερες οτι εγνωκατε τον απ αρχης εγραψα υμιν νεανισκοι οτι ισχυροι εστε και ο λογος του θεου εν υμιν μενει και νενικηκατε τον πονηρον
cont…
I
Isa_Almisry
Guest
Actually, this defeats your point against the Protestants
και μη δοξητε λεγειν εν εαυτοις πατερα εχομεν τον αβρααμ λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι δυναται ο θεος εκ των λιθων τουτων εγειραι τεκνα τω αβρααμ
ܐܒܐܘܠܐ ܬܤܒܪܘܢ ܘܬܐܡܪܘܢ ܒܢܦܫܟܘܢ ܕ
ܐܝܬ ܠܢ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܕܡܫܟܚ ܐܠܗܐ ܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܠܡܩܡܘ ܒܢܝܐ ܠܐܒܪܗܡ
ποιησατε ουν καρπους αξιους της μετανοιας και μη αρξησθε λεγειν εν εαυτοις πατερα εχομεν τον αβρααμ λεγω γαρ υμιν οτι δυναται ο θεος εκ των λιθων τουτων εγειραι τεκνα τω αβρααμ
ܐܒܐܥܒܕܘ ܗܟܝܠ ܦܐܪܐ ܕܫܘܝܢ ܠܬܝܒܘܬܐ ܘܠܐ ܬܫܪܘܢ ܠܡܐܡܪ ܒܢܦܫܟܘܢ ܕ
ܐܝܬ ܠܢ ܐܒܪܗܡ ܐܡܪ ܐܢܐ ܠܟܘܢ ܓܝܪ ܕܡܢ ܗܠܝܢ ܟܐܦܐ ܡܫܟܚ ܐܠܗܐ ܠܡܩܡܘ ܒܢܝܐ ܠܐܒܪܗܡ
ευλογημενη η ερχομενη βασιλεια εν ονοματι κυριου του πατρος ημων δαυιδ ωσαννα εν τοις υψιστοις
ܐܒܘܢܘܒܪܝܟܐ ܗܝ ܡܠܟܘܬܐ ܕܐܬܝܐ ܕ
ܕܘܝܕ ܐܘܫܥܢܐ ܒܡܪܘܡܐ
ουτος εσται μεγας και υιος υψιστου κληθησεται και δωσει αυτω κυριος ο θεος τον θρονον δαυιδ του πατρος αυτου
ܗܢܐ ܢܗܘܐ ܪܒ ܘܒܪܗ ܕܥܠܝܐ ܢܬܩܪܐ ܘܢܬܠ ܠܗ ܡܪܝܐ ܐܠܗܐ ܟܘܪܤܝܗ ܕܕܘܝܕ ܐܒܘܗܝ
Now, after this rathe tedious exercise, what have we learned?
If I was a Protestant, that priests should be called fathers. Uh, we know that already.
Now through all that, not a single “pope”
Btw, I elimanated the children references, as you can infer “sperm donor” just as well as “father”, if you were of such a mind.
- Status