why st peter ?

[jimmy]

bjcros:

Alright maybe I was to harsh on the Popes but you didn’t answer in of the questions. And just so you know it wasn’t that small of a minority. I think there were quite a few, and more than there should be for so many people to accept every word

First of all, it is not every word of the popes that must be accepted. The pope is a sinner like every other person on this earth, that is why he goes to confession.

Second, it is a small minority of popes that have been evil. Previous to the year 1300 could you name one? Could you name any recent popes that have been evil? Very few of the popes from 1300 - 1800 were evil. I would say you would be very lucky to name 5 out of the 268 popes to be evil.

I left your questions to others to answer because I felt they could answer them better.

 

[DianJo]

bjcros:

With that said, I do not think I’m wrong in my interpretation. I think the Pope claims that b/c Peter founded the Roman church he passed his commission down to the Popes? Jesus didn’t say that Peter’s power was passed down through the ages. The Pope isn’t a descendent of Peter. Does the Bible say that Peter passes down the keys to heaven which the Pope claims to have? There is zero scriptual evidence to support the Pope’s power, and that is why I don’t think he has any more power than anyone else in the church.

From the very beginning, even before they started preaching and teaching, they filled the OFFICE that was left vacant by Judas. (Acts 1:15-26).
Verse 20 - For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ (Speaking of the Field of Blood that was bought with the 30 pieces of silver) And: ‘May another take his office.’
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.”

So there is ample evidence of the place of the Apostles as being an office. They would be called bishops.
The chief steward or Prime Minister of the kingdom in the absence of the King, i.e.,the Pope, is an office. This signifies succession. Offices are to be filled when vacated.

There is a little more than zero evidence in scripture.

 

[jimmy]

bjcros:

That makes a little more sense. But did Peter choose his sucessor?

The successor was probably chosen by the leaders of the Church(bishops), as is done now and has been done for a long time. Several bishops probably got together and chose someone as bishop of Rome.

 

[bjcros]

jimmy:

First of all, it is not every word of the popes that must be accepted. The pope is a sinner like every other person on this earth, that is why he goes to confession.

Second, it is a small minority of popes that have been evil. Previous to the year 1300 could you name one? Could you name any recent popes that have been evil? Very few of the popes from 1300 - 1800 were evil. I would say you would be very lucky to name 5 out of the 268 popes to be evil.

I left your questions to others to answer because I felt they could answer them better.

No I couldn’t. I’m not a Catholic. I probably was wrong. I was just writing a response. I apologize if i offended you. I was making generalizations and that probably wasn’t very smart

 

[jimmy]

bjcros:

No I couldn’t. I’m not a Catholic. I probably was wrong. I was just writing a response. I apologize if i offended you. I was making generalizations and that probably wasn’t very smart

I am not offended. I just felt that it was a little bit of an over generalization to say the popes have been evil. I’m not trying to jump all over you, just defending the popes.

 

[bjcros]

DianJo:

From the very beginning, even before they started preaching and teaching, they filled the OFFICE that was left vacant by Judas. (Acts 1:15-26).
Verse 20 - For it is written in the Book of Psalms: ‘Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.’ (Speaking of the Field of Blood that was bought with the 30 pieces of silver) And: ‘May another take his office.’
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.”

So there is ample evidence of the place of the Apostles as being an office. They would be called bishops.
The chief steward or Prime Minister of the kingdom in the absence of the King, i.e.,the Pope, is an office. This signifies succession. Offices are to be filled when vacated.

There is a little more than zero evidence in scripture.

I’m not talking about the position. That is evidence of the position being filled. but that doesn’t show that the respect given to the apostles was passed on. Even in choosing books for the cannon its writter had to either be a apostle or have know what happened through an apostle. The Pope shouldn’t claim the power of Peter, because he wasn’t given the power, and even then it is the people choosing the Pope, and the people don’t have the power.

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

Actually, 33,000 is a trajecally low estimate according to Webster’s definition of “denomination”, which is a “a religious organization uniting local congregations in a single legal and administrative body.”

According to you and Websters, neither of which is definite in my book. Denomination has a much broader meaning as used in everyday language, I think you would agree.

According to baptist scholars, “every baptist parish is a law unto itself.”

Source? Sounds out of context and is a ridiculous claim even if in correct context.

I dunno about you, but there’s a lot of baptist parishes in my town, each of them is a denomination according to Webster’s definition. And yes, some don’t fellowship with the others because they are not “Bible Christians” in the same unique way that they claim to be.

There’s alot where I live too. That doesn’t mean they are different denominations. There’s Ashworth Baptist, 5th Street Baptist, Valley Baptist, etc. So what? They are all Southern Baptists. They belong to the same denomination, the Southern Baptist Convention. They are identical in doctrine. They buy into the same leadership and rule of law. They are separate in name and congregation identity and in the eyes of the IRS (which also considers each and every Catholic parish as separate and distinct, does it not?).

Furthermore, I don’t think he’s misrepresented anything. He seems to be saying that Protestantism is marked by disunity. This is noted also by Protestant authors.

According to Protestant author J. Leslie Dunstan’s book, Protestantism:

It’s a constant mis-representation and is used by so many people, especially Catholics. If he meant to say that Protestants were marked by disunity, then say so. Say what you mean and mean what you say. And, by the way, they aren’t Baptist parishes, they are churches. Parish is unique to Catholicism and other denominations.

 

[DianJo]

bjcros:

I’m not talking about the position. That is evidence of the position being filled. but that doesn’t show that the respect given to the apostles was passed on. Even in choosing books for the cannon its writter had to either be a apostle or have know what happened through an apostle. The Pope shouldn’t claim the power of Peter, because he wasn’t given the power, and even then it is the people choosing the Pope, and the people don’t have the power.

Please re-read the scripture verses, You seem to be missing it.
You asked about why the authority of Peter would be passed down to the next Bishop of Rome. It is because the position of Bishop is an office and the authority and power is passed on to the next person who holds the office.

What about the presidency? Does the next president elected not have the same power and authority as the one before him?
Keys and offices designate succession, along with this goes the power and authority of the office. That’s why the Pope has the authority - because of the office he holds.

Am I missing your question?

 

[vern_humphrey]

bjcros:

First of all I am asking questions that I am struggling with in hopes of answers, I would rather receive Biblical answers than what church tradition says.

The Catholic Church existed for about 350 years before there WAS a New Testament.

Now, what did the Church exist on? Tradition, of course – the message was handed down from generation to generation.

An it was the Catholic Church that decided there would BE a New Testament, and selected the books that make it up – based on Tradition.

bjcros:

With that said, I do not think I’m wrong in my interpretation. I think the Pope claims that b/c Peter founded the Roman church he passed his commission down to the Popes?.

Do you think Christ intended His Chruch to last only one generation? He knew the need for a Steward, to lead the Church on earth, and He knew that need would be there for many generations. Hence the power bestowed on Peter had to pass to other generations.

As I have pointed out before, one major proof is that IT WORKED. The Catholic Church has existed as a unified Church for 2,000 years, teaching the same message.

The Protestant Churches, in existance only about a quarter of that time, split and split again, and the splinters split. There are about 33,000 Protestant denomiations in the US alone, and only one Cathollic Church, world wide.

bjcros:

Jesus didn’t say that Peter’s power was passed down through the ages…

He didn’t say that pigs can’t fly, either. Does that mean they can?

bjcros:

The Pope isn’t a descendent of Peter. …

And George Bush isn’t a descendent of George Washington.

bjcros:

Does the Bible say that Peter passes down the keys to heaven which the Pope claims to have? There is zero scriptual evidence to support the Pope’s power, and that is why I don’t think he has any more power than anyone else in the church. The Pope had tremendous seculair power b/c of the claim to hold the keys to heaven, and he held it over many leaders and used it for his own agenda. The Popes have been evil throughout history. I’m not saying that this Pope is evil, but many Popes were evil. There are no new revelations so, why do catholics hold that what the Pope says is true?

Because it IS true.

Christianity is what it was. Until Jesus returns, there is no new general revelation. Read the wrtings of the Church Fathers, from the earliest times forward, and see how Catholic they are.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

Give me a simple yes or no – don’t tap dance around.

The Jews do not accept Jesus as the Messiah. They don’t believe Jesus rose from the dead. They don’t accept the Trinity – Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

So, yes or no – do Jews believe in the same God we worship?

Jews, Muslims and Christians all claim that their God is the God of Abraham. Whether or not Jews or Muslims accept Christ is not a valid argument. I suppose if you further define “God” as Deity, whether God the Christ and/or God the Holy Spirit or God the Father, then I suppose your argument is valid.

The answer to your question if we are defining God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is that: yes, Jews worship the same God Christians do. So what if they don’t believe Christian doctrines? They also don’t accept Muslim teachings given to Mohammed either. That doesn’t negate that all three religions believe in ONE God. Isn’t that true?

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

Jews, Muslims and Christians all claim that their God is the God of Abraham. Whether or not Jews or Muslims accept Christ is not a valid argument. I suppose if you further define “God” as Deity, whether God the Christ and/or God the Holy Spirit or God the Father, then I suppose your argument is valid.

The answer to your question if we are defining God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is that: yes, Jews worship the same God Christians do. So what if they don’t believe Christian doctrines? They also don’t accept Muslim teachings given to Mohammed either. That doesn’t negate that all three religions believe in ONE God. Isn’t that true?

That is exactly the position of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the God of Abraham.

Our absent friend, having denounced the Pope as a heretic for saying Muslims worship the God of Abraham, was hoist on his own petard when I asked him about Jews – because the same objections he raised also apply to them.

 

[bjcros]

ahimsaman72:

Jews, Muslims and Christians all claim that their God is the God of Abraham. Whether or not Jews or Muslims accept Christ is not a valid argument. I suppose if you further define “God” as Deity, whether God the Christ and/or God the Holy Spirit or God the Father, then I suppose your argument is valid.

The answer to your question if we are defining God as the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, is that: yes, Jews worship the same God Christians do. So what if they don’t believe Christian doctrines? They also don’t accept Muslim teachings given to Mohammed either. That doesn’t negate that all three religions believe in ONE God. Isn’t that true?

I don’t think Muslims think they worship the same God. and I don’t think any Jews believe they worship the same God as Christians, but rather the opposite they think that we are blasphemers. I see that the Jews worship basically the same Godas Christians. It doesn’t matter if they believe in ONE God. That only means that they are monotheistic… it doesn’t mean that is the same God. Muslims are heretics aswell. They think that Jesus was a good man, but deny that he was God’s son. This can’t be true. Each group thinks that they have it the right way. I’m not saying that the Pope is a heretic because of this. But Rather, that he is just being politically correct. I don’t think the Pope has to be politically correct.

 

[SusanL]

bjcros:

I don’t think Muslims think they worship the same God. and I don’t think any Jews believe they worship the same God as Christians, but rather the opposite they think that we are blasphemers. I see that the Jews worship basically the same Godas Christians. It doesn’t matter if they believe in ONE God. That only means that they are monotheistic… it doesn’t mean that is the same God. Muslims are heretics aswell. They think that Jesus was a good man, but deny that he was God’s son. This can’t be true. Each group thinks that they have it the right way. I’m not saying that the Pope is a heretic because of this. But Rather, that he is just being politically correct. I don’t think the Pope has to be politically correct.

Well, actually, that’s not entirely true. The Muslims and Jews do believe that they are worshipping the same God. However; their beliefs about God and their forms of worship are drastically different.

The Muslims, Jews and Christians can all trace back their beliefs to Abraham. After that it all goes in completely different paths.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

I’m talking about separate, independent organizations claiming to be churches, and applying for tax exemption.

Is that clear enough for you?

Thanks for answering.

If the difference between one demonimation and another for them to form separate, independent organizations, then the difference is as real as it gets.

I

According to the papers they file, each one of them is an independent entity, calling itself a church. If THEY call themselves churches, who are you to disagree?

Baptist church x, y and z are all Southern Baptist Churches, even though they file separately. They hold the same doctrines. Your contention is that all these supposed 33,000 denoms are basically at war with each other and differ in doctrine. That simply is not true. If they all belong to the Southern Baptist Convention, then they all follow the same “Baptist Faith and Message”. They all pay in money to the cooperative program.

I

“Slanderous?” Have you run out of logic and resorted to name calling?

In reasoned debate, that’s usually the sign one has lost the argument.

Name calling? I don’t think I called you a name. You seem to get your words mixed up. I said they were slanderous errors. Get a grip.

Is there a church that proclaims it teaches falsely? Can there be more than one truth?

When a church splits, the off-shoots must of necessity either proclaim their version of the truth, or admit they are not in possession of the truth.

From that standpoint, a half-dozen competing “truths” would be enough and more than enough to prove my point. So 300 would be far more then I need, let alone 33,000.

If the difference is enough to have one denomination split from another, it’s a serious difference, no matter what you say.

The IRS doesn’t – the 33,000 separate churches say it. They say it by filing documents with the IRS claiming to be separate, independent churches.

I assume you have never been a protestant, so that shows your ignorance. Most churches split over petty issues, not theological issues. It’s because their current pastor is rather dry in his sermon or the food fellowship afterwards wasn’t what they would have liked it to be. I’ve seen many church splits over these kinds of things - usually these kinds of things. Rarely is it over theological differences. It’s symptomatic of American freedom of choice. If you don’t like this one, go to another one you like. If you don’t like chocolate ice cream, then by all means buy vanilla ice cream.

They are separate churches, of course. That doesn’t mean they are separate denominations - a distinction you don’t recognize. Denominations are: Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc. Baptist, Valley Baptist and Mount Vernon Baptist Churches are all distinct churches belonging to the same denomination.

I know you hold to one truth, narrow-minded elitist Christian philosophy. I understand. I used to belong to it myself. The blinders are on and nothing is in the peripheral view. I completely understand.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

A ship went down in a typhoon in the Pacific, There were only six survivors, two Jews, two Catholics, and two Baptists. They managed to make it to a desert island, and were stranded there.

Within a year, the Jews had built Temple Beth Israel.

The Catholics built the Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception.

And the Baptists built the First Baptist Church, the Second Baptist Church, the Southern Baptist Church, the American Baptist Church, the Missionary Baptist Church . . . http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

(I was told this by a Baptist, bu the way.)

That’s because the Baptists were out evangelizing the natives while everyone else was sipping tea or wine and enjoying it.

 

[vern_humphrey]

bjcros:

I don’t think Muslims think they worship the same God…

They most certainly do. Islam claims to worshiip the God of Abraham, and the Qran specifically says Jews and Christians arr 'People of the Book" and not Kaffirs (unbelievers.)

bjcros:

and I don’t think any Jews believe they worship the same God as Christians, but rather the opposite they think that we are blasphemers…

That may be – for more than a thousand years, there was a ritual curse pronounced on Christians at synagogue.

But the question is not what they believe, but what WE believe. And the Catholic Church accepts that the Jews worship the same God we worship.

bjcros:

I see that the Jews worship basically the same Godas Christians. It doesn’t matter if they believe in ONE God. That only means that they are monotheistic… it doesn’t mean that is the same God. Muslims are heretics aswell. They think that Jesus was a good man, but deny that he was God’s son. This can’t be true. Each group thinks that they have it the right way. I’m not saying that the Pope is a heretic because of this. But Rather, that he is just being politically correct. I don’t think the Pope has to be politically correct.

The Jews also reject Jesus. But the Pope and the Catholic Church reserve a special respect for Jews and Muslims, who worship the same God we worship.

 

[2Rollin_Stoned]

bjcros:

I don’t think Muslims think they worship the same God. and I don’t think any Jews believe they worship the same God as Christians, but rather the opposite they think that we are blasphemers. I see that the Jews worship basically the same Godas Christians. It doesn’t matter if they believe in ONE God. That only means that they are monotheistic… it doesn’t mean that is the same God. Muslims are heretics aswell. They think that Jesus was a good man, but deny that he was God’s son. This can’t be true. Each group thinks that they have it the right way. I’m not saying that the Pope is a heretic because of this. But Rather, that he is just being politically correct. I don’t think the Pope has to be politically correct.

But your thinking is patently wrong since both groups have indeed so stated. Heretic is an easy word to sling around but the same could be said of all those 20,000 plus non-Catholic denoms that have trickled down from the deformation (a word I picked up from a post I saw on here…) back in 1517.

As for momotheism…if they all say they are worshippers of the God of Abraham, regardless of their errors, doesn’t that pretty much put you in the same shoes as the pharisees when they said pretty much the same thing about the samaritans?

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

That’s because the Baptists were out evangelizing the natives while everyone else was sipping tea or wine and enjoying it.

And weren’t they embarrased to find there were no natives – that’s what "desert island"means – a deserted island.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

That is exactly the position of the Catholic Church and the Pope. Jews, Christians and Muslims worship the God of Abraham.

Our absent friend, having denounced the Pope as a heretic for saying Muslims worship the God of Abraham, was hoist on his own petard when I asked him about Jews – because the same objections he raised also apply to them.

And I wholly concur with the position of the Catholic Church and Pope on this issue.

I personally care much for the current Pope JP2. He’s a great man. I would never call him a heretic myself. For once, you and I agree.
Miracles can happen.

 

[SusanL]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for answering.

Baptist church x, y and z are all Southern Baptist Churches, even though they file separately. They hold the same doctrines. Your contention is that all these supposed 33,000 denoms are basically at war with each other and differ in doctrine. That simply is not true. If they all belong to the Southern Baptist Convention, then they all follow the same “Baptist Faith and Message”. They all pay in money to the cooperative program.

Name calling? I don’t think I called you a name. You seem to get your words mixed up. I said they were slanderous errors. Get a grip.

I assume you have never been a protestant, so that shows your ignorance. Most churches split over petty issues, not theological issues. It’s because their current pastor is rather dry in his sermon or the food fellowship afterwards wasn’t what they would have liked it to be. I’ve seen many church splits over these kinds of things - usually these kinds of things. Rarely is it over theological differences. It’s symptomatic of American freedom of choice. If you don’t like this one, go to another one you like. If you don’t like chocolate ice cream, then by all means buy vanilla ice cream.

They are separate churches, of course. That doesn’t mean they are separate denominations - a distinction you don’t recognize. Denominations are: Baptist, Methodist, Episcopal, Lutheran, etc. Baptist, Valley Baptist and Mount Vernon Baptist Churches are all distinct churches belonging to the same denomination.

I know you hold to one truth, narrow-minded elitist Christian philosophy. I understand. I used to belong to it myself. The blinders are on and nothing is in the peripheral view. I completely understand.

Wow. Narrow-minded elitist? Aw, come on.

I used to be Protestant up until 3 years ago. I’m very qualified to speak, ok? I was raised Methodist (and I mean raised). My dad was a SDA. I have been a church organist for several years and spent long periods of time in different churches playing for them until they could get a permanent replacement. Sometimes more than one church at a time. I’m not an expert on them but I learned differences. I’m still learning.

Churches break up over lots of reasons–all theological in one form or another. People may switch churches based on the reasons you gave but they don’t start them for that reason.

Perhaps if you consider the non-denominational churches that would explain things a bit. They are unattached to any other church. There are also a lot of inner city churches that are strictly by themselves. You know, the “Peace, Love, Joy Tabernacle” or whatever they choose to name themselves.

Please. Can you argue over something with a little more substance? You are spending way too much time on this if you’re really trying to discover the truth. (Whether it’s our beliefs or something else).