the POPE

Home Forums All Things Catholic the POPE

This topic contains 15 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  Uncertaindrummer 9 years, 12 months ago.

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1116

    dobberda
    Member

    If Jesus is the one and only Son of God, I and most of you believe, then their is no reason for the pope. The pope is merely a man voted into a position by other men. Jesus is the mediator, not some idol called the pope. The Pope and his constituents make rules to govern a catholic life when Jesus said all that is need is in the bible.

    #5332

    Victor
    Member

    Hi there. <img src=” title=”Smile” />
    Perhaps you would like to introduce yourself in the Intro section.

    [quote:1gybzwgh]The pope is merely a man voted into a position by other men.[/quote:1gybzwgh]

    He certainly is just a man. But it is incorrect to say that his office is man-made. Christ himself instituted this office. By saying:

    “And I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock 1 will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18 ) .

    “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you loose on Earth shall be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:19).

    “I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers” (Luke 22:33) .

    God sent an angel to Peter to announce the Resurrection of Jesus (Mark 6:7).

    The risen Jesus first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34) .

    Peter headed the meeting which elected Matthias as replacement for Judas (Acts 1:13-26) .

    Peter led the apostles in preaching on Pentecost (Acts 2:14) .

    Peter led the meeting which decided on which terms Gentiles would be allowed into the Church (Acts 15) .

    Peter was the judge of Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11) .

    Jesus entrusted Peter with his flock, making him too a Good Shepherd (John 21:15-17) .

    Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3 ) .

    After his conversion Paul went to see Peter, the chief apostle (Gal. 1:18 ) .

    I would recommend that you come here to learn and understand rather then come in attack mode.

    The Least
    ~Victor

    #5333

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    [quote:22q6tuxa]Jesus said all that is need is in the bible.[/quote:22q6tuxa]
    When did Jesus say that? How could Jesus have said that if the Bible wasn’t completed until 100+ years after Jesus’ death?

    #5343

    Benedict
    Member

    [quote:37p27lx1]But it is incorrect to say that his office is man-made. Christ himself instituted this office.[/quote:37p27lx1]
    It would be incorrect to say that his office is “only” man-made. Christ was fully man and fully God. But your point stands, of course.

    [quote:37p27lx1]Jesus is the mediator, not some idol called the pope.[/quote:37p27lx1]
    For the pope to be an idol, would not someone have to worship him? I have never heard of anyone worshipping the pope, nor have I ever encountered Catholic teaching that pits the pope against Christ.

    #5345

    dobberda
    Member

    I apologize for being in attack mode. And these post about the Pope only come in reference to things I have read on this site. such as, it says on this site that the Pope IS Jesus on earth. we as catholics know that Jesus came once, and will return once again, that he is not currently on earth as most catholics believe. at least according to this site.

    #5346

    [quote:qezu3xcy]If Jesus is the one and only Son of God, I and most of you believe, then their is no reason for the pope. The pope is merely a man voted into a position by other men. Jesus is the mediator, not some idol called the pope. The Pope and his constituents make rules to govern a catholic life when Jesus said all that is need is in the bible.[/quote:qezu3xcy]

    Some christains claim, “The Bible is all I need.” but this notion is not taught in the Bible itself. In fact, the Bible teaches the contrary idea (2 Pet. 1:20-21, 3:15-16). the “Bible alone” therory was not believed by anyone in the early Church.

    It is new, having arisin only in the 1500s during the Protestant reformation. The theroy is a “tradition of of Men” that nullifies the Word of God, distorts the true role of the Bible, and undermines the authority of the Church Jesus established (Mark 7:1-8 ) .

    Although popular with many “Bible Christains” churches, the Bible alone” theory simply does not work in practice. Historical experience disproves it. Each year we see additional splintering among “Bible-believing” religions.

    Today there are tens of thousands of compeating denominations, each insisting its interpertation of the Bible is the correct one. The resulting divisions have caused untold confusion among millions of sincere but mislead Christains. Just open up the Yellow Pages of your telephone book and see how many different denominations re listed, each claiming to go by the “Bible alone,” but no two of them agreeing on exactly what the Bible means. We know this for sure: The Holy Spirit cannot be the author of this confusion (1 Cor. 14:33). God cannot lead people to contradictory beliefs because his truth is one. The conclusion? The “Bible alone” theory must be false.

    The above was taken from Pillar of Fire Pillar of Truth booklet. For more Catholic Answers and to obtain this booklet, please go to http://www.catholic.com.

    #5348

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    [quote:3eg8splo]I apologize for being in attack mode. And these post about the Pope only come in reference to things I have read on this site. such as, it says on this site that the Pope IS Jesus on earth. we as catholics know that Jesus came once, and will return once again, that he is not currently on earth as most catholics believe. at least according to this site.[/quote:3eg8splo]
    Ummm…point out references please.

    If you have any issues about particular articles on this site please put them in this forum[/url:3eg8splo].

    Also, when replying, please do not start a new topic unless you are going to post about a totally different topic. Thank you.

    #5349

    Fred
    Member

    Peace be with you Victor and all present!!

    Let start by apologizing for my long disappearance. I have been in study for many months and have years left on my path to become a Deacon, further my Master Program in Theology is quite demanding too. So I am sorry for being AWOL.

    Victor,

    You replies are the standard and only justify the Papacy of Peter not a successor. (BTW, I’m not attacking you, I hope to help your proof!) Here is some quick background (hold on to your hats!):

    Issues concerning the Papacy started around 313 AD, Constantine recognized Christians hence endowing the Church as a legal body. This gave us rights to buildings, property, public security, civic privileges, etc… Rome’s primacy in the world was moral and now it was also legal. So we adopted Roman Law and methods. But we fell under the Pontifex Maximus or Constantine himself. Knowing this, Constantine evoked the Council of Arles in 314 AD. This kind of medaling of Emperors went on for many years and in 380 AD Emperor Theodosius I created an edict stating that the orthodoxy of a bishop was ensured and judged by the Emperor himself. So in 381 AD Constantinople decided to take the See from Alexandria (remember Rome was not the Holy See at this time) with the support of the Emperor. Further they decided that no other bishop could interfere with any other diocese, thus securing the Holy See in Constantinople. This was also to curb the mingling of the Arian bishops but had the same effect on Rome.

    Got your Hats still? Break for coffee maybe? Onward!

    So Rome answered all of this in 382 AD by Pope Damasus who introduced the Petrine Theme at the Roman synod. This was a fimilar theme to many in Rome because Cyprian had called Rome the See of Peter in the 3rd Century. Now Tertullian wrote the frame work for the primacy of Rome about the same time.

    Now to help with the Roman Primacy several key issues and points were made:

    1. The Bible was translated into Latin.

    2. Because Christ granted ligare and solvere (to bind and loose) to the Apostles and St. Peter, in particular, and was one of the most influential transmitters of Roman law ideas to the European Middled Ages, it was felt that St. Peter intended Rome as his Holy See from the beginning.

    3. Pope Clement wrote to St. James that St. Peter bestowed upon him [Pope Clement] his [St. Peter’s] succession.

    4. The Romans pretty much abandoned Rome upon the Barbarian invasions. This left the Church pretty much running the show in Rome.

    iesh! So where do all this lead to, you may find yourselves asking!? Well we are on the downward slope now kids!

    Leo I (The Great), Bishop of Rome 440-461 AD, claimed that a Pope inherits the office, the legal status and powers, of St. Peter not his personal merits and that the person of the Pope is separate from the office of the Pope. Under Roman Law the pope as office-holder was indistinguishable from St. Peter. The Pope followed St. Peter directly and he did not follow his predecessor directly. Thus the pope’s office was a direct divine act.

    Leo went on to say that there was a distinction between the principatus of Church and State. A pope’s authority was not inherited from a predecessor nor was it charismatic. It was based on the succession to office by Christ to Peter and the Emperor was clearly inferior. The Pope and Emperor were co-terminus bodies, the Pope of the Church and the Emperor over the State. Of which both were members. This began the Emperor and Pope going separate ways and eventually lead to the Papal Schisms (for a later time).

    So what does this all mean and how does it prove Papal Primacy?

    1. Christ commissioned Peter to lead the church on earth.

    2. The Early Church created bishops to govern dioceses.

    3. Early Church bishops sought the advice of the Bishop of Rome to decided matters of faith.

    4. Rome was considered to be the See of St. Peter the first Pope.

    5. The fall of Rome cause great confusion and human politics interfered in the Church and help other Emperors and City States to seize the Holy See.

    6. Europe held on to Roman law and dictates which supported biblical papal status.

    7. Leo I (The Great) used existing law, precedence, and biblical arguments to return the Holy See to Rome where it has been since. This also help to lead to the division of the Eastern and Western Churches.

    8. The State and Church realize separation of powers and for a time they hold to it. A short time.

    By understanding the history, the laws and personalities at the time, and following the biblical text one can only assume the Primacy of the Pope and why the Holy See is rightfully in Rome.

    This by no means ends the arguments but it is our basis for the Pope.

    #5350

    Holy friggin crud dude… Confusing (but good) post!

    At first I thoguht you were attacking the Primacy of Peter, and Apostolic Succession!

    By the way, the reason we deal more with “Was PETER Pope” than “Were the people AFTER him Pope” is becasue Protestants generally admit that if Peter was the leader of the Church then that power would be passed on, so if you can prove Peter, you can prove the Church.

    #5351

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:1ogpg8m4]It would be incorrect to say that his office is “only” man-made. Christ was fully man and fully God. But your point stands, of course.[/quote:1ogpg8m4]

    Obviously I agree and thanks for the addition.

    [quote:1ogpg8m4]You replies are the standard and only justify the Papacy of Peter not a successor. (BTW, I’m not attacking you, I hope to help your proof!) Here is some quick background (hold on to your hats!): [/quote:1ogpg8m4]

    Hey Fred!!! Missed you. It’s cool man, I rarely go all out on my first post.. <img src=” title=”Wink” />

    Besides, I do not think [b:1ogpg8m4]dobberda[/b:1ogpg8m4] was asking for that much.

    Where were you when we needed you during the Papal debates with the Orthodox? :shock: Great post!!
    Perhaps next time.

    The Least
    ~Victor

    #5352

    Ah, those pesky Orthodox :shock: <img src=” title=”Very Happy” />

    #5353

    Fred
    Member

    Peace be with you Drummer and all present,

    [quote:2n031z1p]Holy friggin crud dude… Confusing (but good) post! [/quote:2n031z1p]

    I curious to what part was confusing? I practice my apologetics here and want to be a clear as possible :shock:

    [quote:2n031z1p]At first I thoguht you were attacking the Primacy of Peter, and Apostolic Succession![/quote:2n031z1p]

    Never! I’m a strong believer and supporter of both. The reason I provided a meaty reply is to support Apostolic Succession. <img src=” title=”Very Happy” />

    [quote:2n031z1p]By the way, the reason we deal more with “Was PETER Pope” than “Were the people AFTER him Pope” is because Protestants generally admit that if Peter was the leader of the Church then that power would be passed on, so if you can prove Peter, you can prove the Church.[/quote:2n031z1p]

    Funny you should say this <img src=” title=”Smile” /> I was going there next. :!: In all my research and debates these two topics are the most hotly debated. So I did some deep research and will have a post on it soon <img src=” title=”Smile” />

    Please let me know where I can improve my style. I tried to do it in a Thomism method as possible. Gob bless all!

    #5354

    Fred
    Member

    Peace be with you Victor and all present,

    [quote:1anhuz52] Hey Fred!!! Missed you. It’s cool man, I rarely go all out on my first post.. <img src=” title=”Wink” /> [/quote:1anhuz52]

    You know me <img src=” title=”Wink” /> I can hold my breath for a good long time lol! I missed you guys too!

    [quote:1anhuz52]Besides, I do not think [b:1anhuz52]dobberda[/b:1anhuz52] was asking for that much. [/quote:1anhuz52]

    I myself find it hard to reply to this topic in few words. I probably need to work on that lol!

    [quote:1anhuz52]Where were you when we needed you during the Papal debates with the Orthodox? :shock: Great post!!
    Perhaps next time.[/quote:1anhuz52]

    Family, work, and school take most all my spare time. But I will try to be more active. I enjoyed this!

    #5355

    Victor
    Member

    How’s it going pesky Ted? :mrgreen:
    Good to see you man.

    ~Victor

    #5356

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:34vk3apn]Family, work, and school take most all my spare time. But I will try to be more active. I enjoyed this![/quote:34vk3apn]

    Gotcha.. <img src=” title=”Wink” />

    ~Victor

    #5357

    [quote:1a9v8f7g]Peace be with you Drummer and all present,

    I curious to what part was confusing? I practice my apologetics here and want to be a clear as possible :shock: [/quote:1a9v8f7g]

    I wasn’t confused by the end. At first though, like I said, I thought you were attacking Apostolic succession by claiming that Victor had not shown that is passed on.

    [quote:1a9v8f7g]Never! I’m a strong believer and supporter of both. The reason I provided a meaty reply is to support Apostolic Succession. <img src=” title=”Very Happy” /> [/quote:1a9v8f7g]

    Glad to hear it. lol

Viewing 16 posts - 1 through 16 (of 16 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.