Why won’t all other Christians recognize the Roman Catholic Pope as their leader?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jimmy_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
:twocents: Hi,All

Matthew 16: 18-19

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In the above verses you really have to tear it apart to get any other meaning out of it but what it truly says, Peter is the rock which the church will be built on.]

My Opinion: If the Catholic Church is wrong and Non-Catholics are correct, then we as Catholics are in big trouble ! On the other hand if they are wrong. Guess what ?

Also in verse 19, Jesus says and whatever YOU bind on earth.
Whatever YOU loose on earth. Jesus cannot be talking about himself here it just would not make any sense.

The only church doing any binding and looseing as far as see, is indeed the C.C. for apprx 2000yrs …:twocents:

Peace,OneNow1
 
:twocents: Hi,All

Matthew 16: 18-19

18 And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
19 I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

In the above verses you really have to tear it apart to get any other meaning out of it but what it truly says, Peter is the rock which the church will be built on.]

My Opinion: If the Catholic Church is wrong and Non-Catholics are correct, then we as Catholics are in big trouble ! On the other hand if they are wrong. Guess what ?

Also in verse 19, Jesus says and whatever YOU bind on earth.
Whatever YOU loose on earth. Jesus cannot be talking about himself here it just would not make any sense.

The only church doing any binding and looseing as far as see, is indeed the C.C. for apprx 2000yrs …:twocents:

Peace,OneNow1
I must lay all of my hope on Jesus alone as the “chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.” (1Peter 2:6)

In other words: The Rock, that my faith rests on, will always be Jesus alone Who is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” as Peter also claimed.

When I stand before God on judgement day, it will be entirely between the Lord Jesus and me. There will be no Pope, church or even Peter that has any say in the matter, and I trust my eternal life to no other than Jesus and His promise “That whosoever (truly) believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
 
I must lay all of my hope on Jesus alone as the “chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.” (1Peter 2:6)

In other words: The Rock, that my faith rests on, will always be Jesus alone Who is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” as Peter also claimed.

When I stand before God on judgement day, it will be entirely between the Lord Jesus and me. There will be no Pope, church or even Peter that has any say in the matter, and I trust my eternal life to no other than Jesus and His promise “That whosoever (truly) believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
Preach it brother!!!
 
I must lay all of my hope on Jesus alone as the “chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on Him shall not be confounded.” (1Peter 2:6)

In other words: The Rock, that my faith rests on, will always be Jesus alone Who is “the Christ, the Son of the living God.” as Peter also claimed.

When I stand before God on judgement day, it will be entirely between the Lord Jesus and me. There will be no Pope, church or even Peter that has any say in the matter, and I trust my eternal life to no other than Jesus and His promise “That whosoever (truly) believeth in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.”
As a former protestant, I believed exactly as you. As I learned what the Catholic church taught and why, I had no choice but to become Catholic. You say the Rock that your faith rest on, will always be Jesus alone. Do you not care that Jesus said Peter was the rock he would build his church on. and most importantly what Jesus said in John 6:48-58 especially verse 53. As the Catholic church is the only place I know to get this special bread.
 
As a former protestant, I believed exactly as you. As I learned what the Catholic church taught and why, I had no choice but to become Catholic. You say the Rock that your faith rest on, will always be Jesus alone. Do you not care that Jesus said Peter was the rock he would build his church on. and most importantly what Jesus said in John 6:48-58 especially verse 53. As the Catholic church is the only place I know to get this special bread.
In (John 6:53), Jesus was misunderstood as saying that one must physically eat His blood and flesh.
Many rejected Jesus because of this saying.
Jesus was not telling them to eat Him as a cannibal would.
He was using the words “eateth my flesh” in reference to believing that God hath prepared Jesus a physical body, by which He could offer Himself as a Redeemer for all of our sins, once and for all, on the cross.
Only those, who were given God’s gift of truly understanding and believing this, could be considered spiritually eating of that Sacrifice of our Saviour. That eating is not limited to just observing the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Jesus and what He did to save us eternally. Eating of His flesh and blood should be a constant spiritual state of mind of everyone that God has granted the eternal Gift of Salvation.
(John 6:63) “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

Eat God’s Word, for in them you will find life eternal when the Holy Spirit guides you.
JESUS alone. Faith alone. The Bible alone.
I praise and thank God for His Word.
 
In (John 6:53), Jesus was misunderstood as saying that one must physically eat His blood and flesh.
Many rejected Jesus because of this saying.
Jesus was not telling them to eat Him as a cannibal would.
He was using the words “eateth my flesh” in reference to believing that God hath prepared Jesus a physical body, by which He could offer Himself as a Redeemer for all of our sins, once and for all, on the cross.
Only those, who were given God’s gift of truly understanding and believing this, could be considered spiritually eating of that Sacrifice of our Saviour. That eating is not limited to just observing the Lord’s Supper in remembrance of Jesus and what He did to save us eternally. Eating of His flesh and blood should be a constant spiritual state of mind of everyone that God has granted the eternal Gift of Salvation.
(John 6:63) “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.”

Eat God’s Word, for in them you will find life eternal when the Holy Spirit guides you.
JESUS alone. Faith alone. The Bible alone.
I praise and thank God for His Word.
In John 6 Jesus eliminates any symbolic meaning by equating the flesh he is referring to as the same flesh that will be crucified. If this is true and Jesus was speaking symbolically, does this mean that Jesus death on the cross was only symbolic?
 
In John 6 Jesus eliminates any symbolic meaning by equating the flesh he is referring to as the same flesh that will be crucified. If this is true and Jesus was speaking symbolically, does this mean that Jesus death on the cross was only symbolic?
The Passover meal was a symbolic remembrance of the first real physical Passover, when Israel was saved from Egyptian bondage.
During the Passover meal, before His actual physical sacrifice for our sins, Jesus instituted the Last Supper saying “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)
You can play with the “IS” word all you want, but there is still no such thing as doing something “in remembrance”, if you are doing the actual thing itself.
The actual sacrifice before you requires no remembrance.
If the RCC interpretation of the Last Supper were correct, Jesus would have said something such as: “This do in re-sacrifice of me.” Such a re-sacrifice would not be supported by (Hebrews 9:28) “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; …”
 
The Passover meal was a symbolic remembrance of the first real physical Passover, when Israel was saved from Egyptian bondage.
During the Passover meal, before His actual physical sacrifice for our sins, Jesus instituted the Last Supper saying “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)
You can play with the “IS” word all you want, but there is still no such thing as doing something “in remembrance”, if you are doing the actual thing itself.
The actual sacrifice before you requires no remembrance.
If the RCC interpretation of the Last Supper were correct, Jesus would have said something such as: “This do in re-sacrifice of me.” Such a re-sacrifice would not be supported by (Hebrews 9:28) “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; …”
Hi,brkn

We do not resacrifice Jesus on the Cross ! We offer the body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice back to the Father. Its all about Jesus Love for us; brkn, you cannot seperate the body of Jesus from his divinity, he took his body with him when he ascended into heaven. We may not understand how Jesus could provide us with this reality, but then again can we undestand how God could become flesh, but more importantly if we have the faith that indeed he did become flesh, its not so hard to believe he could provide us with his whole self,as he did when he walked among us.

Brkn, it is a spiritual reality, you are sbsolutely correct, but don’t take away his humanity, in which he loved us so much, he lowered himself to our level that we may have life through Him, as he relates in the bread of life discourse.

Luke 24
30 When he was at table with them, he took the bread and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to them.
31 And their eyes were opened and they recognized him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Quote= Brkn.You can play with the “IS” word all you want, but there is still no such thing as doing something “in remembrance”, if you are doing the actual thing itself. The actual sacrifice before you requires no remembrance.

Quote =OneNow1. In Jewish thought remembrance= make present now.
So according to you were not supposed to remember the words of Jesus.:confused:

Afew more things: Jesus celebrated the passover when they slew the lamb and afterward ate the lamb. John the baptist called Jesus the lamd of God.

Revelation 5.
6 And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders, I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and with seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth;

Revelation 17.
14 they will make war on the Lamb, and the Lamb will conquer them, for he is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those with him are called and chosen and faithful."

Revelation 21
27 But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb’s book of life.

Last but not least: Luke 16: 17, " It is easier for heaven and earth to disapper than for one little stroke to drop out of the Law.

Peace. OneNow1
 
Hi,brkn

We do not resacrifice Jesus on the Cross ! We offer the body Blood Soul and Divinity of Jesus, the ultimate sacrifice back to the Father. Its all about Jesus Love for us; brkn, you cannot seperate the body of Jesus from his divinity, he took his body with him when he ascended into heaven. We may not understand how Jesus could provide us with this reality, but then again can we undestand how God could become flesh, but more importantly if we have the faith that indeed he did become flesh, its not so hard to believe he could provide us with his whole self,as he did when he walked among us.

Brkn, it is a spiritual reality, you are sbsolutely correct, but don’t take away his humanity, in which he loved us so much, he lowered himself to our level that we may have life through Him, as he relates in the bread of life discourse.

Quote= Brkn.You can play with the “IS” word all you want, but there is still no such thing as doing something “in remembrance”, if you are doing the actual thing itself. The actual sacrifice before you requires no remembrance.

Quote =OneNow1. In Jewish thought remembrance= make present now.
So according to you were not supposed to remember the words of Jesus.:confused:

Peace. OneNow1
Hi OneNow1,
The word used is remembrance, which means bringing to memory a person, thing, or event. It does not translate as making physically present now.
 
The Passover meal was a symbolic remembrance of the first real physical Passover, when Israel was saved from Egyptian bondage.
During the Passover meal, before His actual physical sacrifice for our sins, Jesus instituted the Last Supper saying “This is my body which is given for you: this do in remembrance of me.” (Luke 22:19)
God never equated the Jewish Passover to His actual flesh and blood that would be sacrificed on the cross. 🙂

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51
 
Hi OneNow1,
The word used is remembrance, which means bringing to memory a person, thing, or event. It does not translate as making physically present now.
OneNow1> Of course he is going to say do this in remembrance of me, this does not downplay the word is, if anything it increases the meaning of the word, > IS < its not either or, its both.

Jesus appeared to the apostles out of thin air, now we know thats impossible ! But ! Not for God ! So yes he can become the Eucharist. Brk1 You don’t think God can do this ?

So I repeat in Jewish thought remembrance is much more then bringing to mind, it is making it present at the moment. For God this is an eternal event past, present and future.

John 6: 51, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Peace, OneNow1
 
The actual sacrifice before you requires no remembrance.
If the RCC interpretation of the Last Supper were correct, Jesus would have said something such as: “This do in re-sacrifice of me.” Such a re-sacrifice would not be supported by (Hebrews 9:28) “So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; …”
In the Eucharist, the Most Holy Trinity invites us into Eternity in the Mass. In the Mass, we enter in to the eternal now. How amazing and incomprehensible. No wonder we have a hard time wrapping our finite minds around the concept.

If you read Frank Sheed’s Theology and Sanity, you get a glimmer of the relationship of our finite senses of space and time to the infinite God. He also makes sense of why God, to be Love, must be a trinity of Persons.
 
God never equated the Jewish Passover to His actual flesh and blood that would be sacrificed on the cross. 🙂

“I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.” John 6:51
The quote from (John 6:51) would indicate that a one-time eating of the living bread (True faith in Jesus’ Sacrifice, once and for all) is sufficient for eternal life.
 
OneNow1> Of course he is going to say do this in remembrance of me, this does not downplay the word is, if anything it increases the meaning of the word, > IS < its not either or, its both.

Jesus appeared to the apostles out of thin air, now we know thats impossible ! But ! Not for God ! So yes he can become the Eucharist. Brk1 You don’t think God can do this ?

So I repeat in Jewish thought remembrance is much more then bringing to mind, it is making it present at the moment. For God this is an eternal event past, present and future.

John 6: 51, “I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread which I shall give for the life of the world is my flesh.”

Peace, OneNow1
The Greek word, that remembrance is translated from, does not indicate “making it present at the moment”.
 
The Greek word, that remembrance is translated from, does not indicate “making it present at the moment”.
HI,brkn
Why do you ignore the word is ? You know of course you are essentially removing is, from the word of the Lord.

The greek word is ANAMNESIS and the Hebrew word is ZIKARON, essentially the same meaning that of, making heavenly things present.

Peace, OneNow1
 
The quote from (John 6:51) would indicate that a one-time eating of the living bread (True faith in Jesus’ Sacrifice, once and for all) is sufficient for eternal life.
That’s more of a stretch than just taking His word for it. There is nothing in the text that indicates He was speaking symbolically. I’m sure you could bring up the spirit/flesh comparison that Jesus makes at the end of the chapter, but the word “spirit” never equals “symbolic” anywhere in scripture.

I’m trying to figure out where you come to the conclusion that a “one time eating of the bread” is found anywhere in John 6; or that just eating of it one time is sufficient for eternal life. Where does it say this?
 
QUOTE=moondweller;3425389]You continue to assert dominion rule over Christ’s universal church to the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Latin (western) church. Even implying that such a dominion was, from the beginning, everywhere accepted and taught be Christ Himself and His Apostles.

(Gabriel of 12)** Yes, the Roman Catholic Church can trace her Popes from present Pope to St. Peter. Do you have an unbroken succession leading back to any Apostle? No, you can not make an historical factual claim to Apostolic succession, There is only the Catholic church, anything else is man made religion and man’s own authority to Sacred Scripture interpretation.

It is not an assertion that Jesus has never left his church that is a promise from Jesus.**

(Moondweller) In the early church the Jewish canon, or the Hebrew Scriptures, were universally received, but the O.T. Apocrypha, which was added to the Greek Septuagint, were at that time only in a general way considered as books suitable for church reading.

(Gabriel of 12)The Septuagint was accepted by the Jew’s, Jesus and the Apostles up till the 1st century, and there are 70+ quotations from the Septuagint in the New Testament. The Jewish council in Jamnia in 100 a.d. in order to discredit Jesus and tried to prove him as a false teacher, by removing the (7) Apocrypha books from the old testament, to which Jesus quoted from these books, prove him a false messiah, because they had no Hebrew counterparts to these books. Thus making Jesus out to be a false messiah because Jesus quoted from the Greek text of the Septuagint with no Hebrew counterparts to the Greek text.
(Gabriel of 12)** Martin Luther used the same argument that the Jamnia Jews did to remove the (7) Apocrypha books, no Hebrew counterparts to these scriptures. The Catholic Church canonized these 7 Apocrypha books as inspired of God, because Jesus did quote from these books. Update! The Hebrew counter parts to these Apocrypha books, were found in 1947 in Quramn part of the dead sea scrolls.**

( Gabriel of 12) After all said what bible would you want, the Holy Bible the Catholic church canonized since the 3rd century that includes the 7 books that Jesus quoted from in the New Testament. Or a version of the Holy Bible less 7 books, because to discredit Jesus, and his teachings, for the reason of no Hebrew counterparts, to which 1900 years later, the Hebrew counterparts were found.

(Moondweller) Protestantism, of course, retained the accepted N.T. canon, but sided with the early church and the orthodox Jewish view by excluding the O.T. Apocrypha.

(Gabriel of 12) Moondweller, before I call you a liar, check your history again, the early Catholic church is the only one in existence at this time. The Jews never accepted the New testament, and the early Catholic church did not remove the O.T. Apocrypha books of the bible, The Catholic church canonized them. Secondly your N.T. cannon was canonized by the Catholic Church Councils and Popes, not St. Augustine.

(Moondweller) A very wise decision, indeed. No Christian doctrine suffered from that decision.Yet none of my translations/versions insert that word.

(Gabriel of 12)** Christian doctrine from the Catholic standpoint did not suffer, but from Protestantism Christian doctrine suffered much and continues to change in protestant circles. Example, your bible does not contain the added word “alone” many others do, did you change your protestant bible again? Acceptance of gay priests, and woman priests, are being accepted in protestant circles, including gay marriages. The Catholic church has remained the Rock and authority for Christian doctrine against these secular movements that have now infiltrated the protestant churches, because of lack of authority.**

(Moondweller) However, Pauline theology clearly presents divine justification as God’s gift through faith in Christ alone
Rom 3:22-24 "…even {the} righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus;

(Gabriel of 12) The Catholic church believes in the faith doctrine, but where we differ is when protestants say “Only faith saves you” this has never been taught by Jesus and Apostles. Your scriptures support Catholic doctrine, not Protestantism. Here is one that teaches against the “Only faith saves doctrine”

James 2: 14 6 What good is it, my brothers, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can that faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister has nothing to wear and has no food for the day, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, keep warm, and eat well,” but you do not give them the necessities of the body, what good is it? 17 **So also faith of itself, if it does not have works, is dead. **18 **Indeed someone might say, “You have faith and I have works.” Demonstrate your faith to me without works, and I will demonstrate my faith to you from my works. **19 You believe that God is one. You do well. Even the demons believe that and tremble. 20 **Do you want proof, you ignoramus, that faith without works is useless? 24 See how a person is justified by works and not by faith alone. 26 For just as a body without a spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead. **​
 
moondweller;3425389(Moondweller) But no council is infallible said:
Your authority on your above statement proves contrary to Sacred Scripture. In Acts15 clearly defines an infallible authority being used here in the council of Jerusalem, vs. 17b “Thus says the Lord who accomplishes these things known from old.”…vs.28 It is the decision of the HOLY SPIRIT AND OF US ( INFALLIBILITY) not to place you any burden beyond these necessities.

(Moondweller) And if they were infallible why then did your church have to give final sanction to its canon at the council of Trent? Why would something infallibly determined in earlier councils have to be sanctioned in a much later one?

(Gabriel of 12) Because these canonized books of the bible, were being under attacked, by sometimes Catholics themselves, and so Supreme Councils were headed in order to hear these accusations out, notice although, at the conclusion of each counsel, the canonized books remained the same, they never changed. Council of Trent is saying, no more discussion will be heard of the cannon, “Thus says the Lord”, it is the decision of the Holy Spirit and of Us (the church council the successors of the Apostles)

(Moondweller) (LoL) Nowhere in Christ’s recorded words do I read that He gave over, or left, His authority to anyone on earth, but that He Himself alone is still “head of the body, the church.”

(Gabriel of 12)** Laugh all you want, but here is your proof, that Jesus left on earth a teaching authority, and a body on earth, to exercise this given authority, to which he is the head in heaven of the body on earth. This complete body, is one faith, One Holy Catholic Apostolic church, One baptism , under one Lord.

The following scriptures dispute your claim that Jesus did not give authority to his body on earth to exercise his authority on earth.

Matthew 16:17 Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood 12 has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 18
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, 13 and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. 19 I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. 14 Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Luke 22:31 “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat,
32 but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers.”

Matthew 18: 15 "If your brother 12 sins (against you), go and tell him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have won over your brother. 16 If he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, so that ‘every fact may be established on the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ 17 If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church. 14 If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. 18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

John 21: 15 When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Feed my lambs.” 16 He then said to him a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” He said to him, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” He said to him, “Tend my sheep.” 17 He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love me?” Peter was distressed that he had said to him a third time, “Do you love me?” and he said to him, “Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you.” (Jesus) said to him, "Feed my sheep.

Mark 3: 14 He appointed twelve (whom he also named apostles) that they might be with him 6 and he might send them forth to preach 15 and to have authority to drive out demons and gave them authority over unclean spirits.**

Luke 10: 8 Whatever town you enter and they welcome you, eat what is set before you, 9 cure the sick in it and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God is at hand for you.’ 10 Whatever town you enter and they do not receive you, go out into the streets and say,
11 ‘The dust of your town that clings to our feet, even that we shake off against you.’ Yet know this: the kingdom of God is at hand. 12 I tell you, it will be more tolerable for Sodom on that day than for that town.

Matthew 10: 32 Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. 33 But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father. 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.

John 15: 26 "When the Advocate comes whom I will send 12 you from the Father, the Spirit of truth that proceeds from the Father, he will testify to me. 27 And you also testify, because you have been with me from the beginning.

Matthew 28: 18 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, 20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”

Ephesians 4: 4 one body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top