Pope, King of the world?

[WarriorAngel]

Do you know that is taken from Psalm 22:22?

Reve 3:7 And to the Messenger of the in filadelfeia Outcalled write! now this is saying the Holy the True the One-having the Key of-the David, the one opening and no-one shall be locking and locking and no-one is opening.

Textus Rec.) Revelation 3:7 kai tw aggelw thV en filadelfeia ekklhsiaV grayon tade legei o agioV o alhqinoV o ecwn thn kleida tou dauid o anoigwn kai oudeiV kleiei kai kleiei kai oudeiV anoigei

Isaiah 22:22 And I give key of house of David on shoulder-blade of him and he opens and no one is locking and he locks and is no one opening.

http://christianforums.com/t7151096-7-churches-in-revelation-study.html
7-churches-in-revelation-study

Again - the entire passage makes no sense if it is Christ saying this to Himself...
AND if you read it - it says 'The ONE saith....'
And then goes on to speak to Himself in 3rd person??

That is equivalent to Him saying...

"Thou can open and shut and You have kept the patience and strength and faith and didn't deny My name- and you will be kept from the trials of the earth that shall come..

Behold I come to so that no man may take My crown...?"

Seriously - read it.



And i believe taking the imperfect translations not meant to be given in undertsandable English from a direct translation of Greek only makes your task harder.

Its like taking the Sentence...
'Los vaqueros de rojo ares tu.'

If i were to translate [being i havent taken Spanish in 20 years ]
But it would say...
The pants of red yours are.

So find the best English translation - which understands the grammatical correctness and contextual form.

Ages BTW are generations - eras.

 

[WarriorAngel]

EHHH? And this coming from a RC no less!!!

NM

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

And i believe taking the imperfect translations not meant to be given in undertsandable English from a direct translation of Greek only makes your task harder.

The hard part isn't translating it but determining which Greek texts to use I had to use 5 different greek texts to determine which ones agreed and I generally used the majority that agreed even though that still may not be correct.......

3 And they are singing the song of Moses the bond-servant of the God and the song of the lambkin saying "great and marvelous the works of Thee Lord! the God the Almighty, just and true the ways of Thee the King of the *saints/*ages/*nations."

TexRec)
Revelation 15:3 kai adousin thn wdhn mw*sewV *** doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o basileuV twn agiwn

W-H)
Revelation 15:3 kai adousin thn wdhn mwusewV tou doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o basileuV twn aiwnwn

ByzMaj)
Revelation 15:3 kai adousin thn wdhn mwusewV tou doulou tou qeou kai thn wdhn tou arniou legonteV megala kai qaumasta ta erga sou kurie o qeoV o pantokratwr dikaiai kai alhqinai ai odoi sou o basileuV twn eqnwn

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There were primitive first century churches throughout North Africa, the Middle East and southern Europe, that had their origins traced back to the Apostles, and yet were not governed by Rome. Rome ended up being the most dominant because it adopted the use of force and secular power to suppress all those who differed or would not join her. In other words, it not like all of the Christians of the ancient times gladly called themselves Roman Christians.

You must not forget to add that they ALL are Catholic.

They had no denominations for there were no Protestant churches.

 

[Rick Otto]

Some people think they get to say whatever they want & it means whatever they want, whenever they want it to.

 

[Rick Otto]

"Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.

from "Unam Sanctum"

 

[namericanboy]

You must not forget to add that they ALL are Catholic.

They had no denominations for there were no Protestant churches.

Jack bro., they were "catholic" as an adjective not a noun as in Roman Catholic denomination....Protestant developed from a church that was going astray...One thing amazes me why the split from from the early days happened to the RC rather that the Orthodox..Possibly because the Roman church was in error and chose not to fix it...Then another chance was given and ignored and another split developed.....Not to say the Othodox church is without error... Just a thought ...nab

 

[Trento]

One thing amazes me why the split from from the early days happened to the RC rather that the Orthodox..Possibly because the Roman church was in error and chose not to fix it...Then another chance was given and ignored and another split developed.....Not to say the Othodox church is without error... Just a thought ...nab

Catholic-Orthodox Declaration

 

[Mikeb85]

Equally noteworthy is the action of Emperor Aurelian in 270. A synod of bishops had condemned Paul of Samosata, Patriarch of Alexandria, on a charge of heresy, and had elected Domnus bishop in his place. Paul refused to withdraw, and appeal was made to the civil power. The emperor decreed that he who was acknowledged by the bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome, must be recognized as rightful occupant of the see. The incident proves that even the pagans themselves knew well that communion with the Roman See was the essential mark of all Christian Churches. That the imperial Government was well aware of the position of the pope among Christians derives additional confirmation from the saying of St. Cyprian that Decius would have sooner heard of the proclamation of a rival emperor than of the election of a new pope to fill the place of the martyredFabian (Ep. 55:9).

Ummm, Paul of Samosata was a heretical Patriarch of Antioch, not Alexandria. The rest of the story you posted is incorrect as well.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/447010/Paul-of-Samosata
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Paul_of_Samosata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_of_Samosata

The primacy of St. Peter and the perpetuity of that primacy in the Roman See are dogmaticallydefined in the canons attached to the first two chapters of the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus":

• "If anyone shall say that Blessed Peter the Apostle was not constituted by Christ our Lord as chief of all the Apostles and the visible head of the whole Church militant: or that he did not receive directly and immediately from the same Lord Jesus Christ a primacy of true and proper jurisdiction, but one of honour only: let him be anathema."
• "If any one shall say that it is not by the institution of Christ our Lord Himself or by divinely established right that Blessed Peter has perpetual successors in his primacy over the universalChurch, or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of Blessed Peter in this same primacy. -- let him be anathema" (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1823, 1825).

~Emperor Aurelian

I'm confused here... Are you saying Emperor Aurelian wrote this document, where does his name figure here? The document 'Pastor Aeternus' is from Vatican I, in the year 1870... I'm really not sure what you're trying to prove here. That the Roman church believed in the Papacy in the 19th century?

 

[BrightCandle]

What's disgusting is playing the Anti-Catholic card every time any criticism is voiced and never, ever voicing any legitimate criticism except among other conspirators.

Amen!! Its the trump card of Catholics.

 

[BrightCandle]

You must not forget to add that they ALL are Catholic.

They had no denominations for there were no Protestant churches.

There was no ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH as well. Come on get real, can anyone in this forum picture Peter, or any of the other Apostles trumping themselves up by wearing an ornate pagan outfit patterned after pagan priests, and asking their brethren to bow before them and kiss their hand! That clearly took place in the church of Rome when it joined up forces with Pagan Rome during the time of Constantine the Great.

 

[WarriorAngel]

St. Chrysostom:

He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the head of the choir. For this reason Paul went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James who received the See of Jerusalem?", I should reply that He made Peter the teacher not of that see but of the whole world.
[St. John Chrysostom, Homily 88 on John, 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; Leo I, "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].

St. Cyprian


In the middle of the third century St. Cyprian expressly terms the Roman See the Chair of St. Peter, saying that Cornelius has succeeded to "the place of Fabian which is the place of Peter" (Epistle 51:8; cf. 75:3). Firmilian of Caesarea


Firmilian of Caesarea notices that Stephen claimed to decide the controversy regarding rebaptism on the ground that he held the succession from Peter (Cyprian, Epistle 75:17). He does not deny the claim: yet certainly, had he been able, he would have done so. Thus in 250 the Roman episcopate of Peter was admitted by those best able to know the truth, not merely at Rome but in the churches of Africa and of Asia Minor. Tertullian


In the first quarter of the century (about 220) Tertullian (On Modesty 21) mentions Callistus's claim that Peter's power to forgive sins had descended in a special manner to him. Had the Roman Church been merely founded by Peter and not reckoned him as its first bishop, there could have been no ground for such a contention. Tertullian, like Firmilian, had every motive to deny the claim. Moreover, he had himself resided at Rome, and would have been well aware if the idea of a Roman episcopate of Peter had been, as is contended by its opponents, a novelty dating from the first years of the third century, supplanting the older tradition according to which Peter and Paul were co-founders, and Linus first bishop. Hippolytus


About the same period, Hippolytus (for Lightfoot is surely right in holding him to be the author of the first part of the "Liberian Catalogue" -- "Clement of Rome", 1:259) reckons Peter in the list of Roman bishops. "Adversus Marcionem"


We have moreover a poem, "Adversus Marcionem", written apparently at the same period, in which Peter is said to have passed on to Linus "the chair on which he himself had sat" (P.L., II 1077). St. Irenaeus


These witnesses bring us to the beginning of the third century. In the second century we cannot look for much evidence. With the exception of Ignatius, Polycarp, and Clement of Alexandria, all the writers whose works we possess are apologists against either Jews or pagans. In works of such a character there was no reason to refer to such a matter as Peter's Roman episcopate.
Irenaeus, however, supplies us with a cogent argument. In two passages (Against Heresies I.27.1 and III.4.3) he speaks of Hyginus as ninth Bishop of Rome, thus employing an enumeration which involves the inclusion of Peter as first bishop (Lightfoot was undoubtedly wrong in supposing that there was any doubt as to the correctness of the reading in the first of these passages. In III:4:3, the Latin version, it is true, gives "octavus"; but the Greek text as cited by Eusebius reads enatos.
Irenaeus we know visited Rome in 177. At this date, scarcely more than a century after the death of St. Peter, he may well have come in contact with men whose fathers had themselves spoken to the Apostle. The tradition thus supported must be regarded as beyond all legitimate doubt.
Lightfoot's suggestion (Clement 1:64), that it had its origin in the Clementine romance, has proved singularly unfortunate. For it is now recognized that this work belongs not to the second, but to the fourth century. Nor is there the slightest ground for the assertion that the language of Irenaeus, III:3:3, implies that Peter and Paul enjoyed a divided episcopate at Rome -- an arrangement utterly unknown to the Church at any period. He does, it is true, speak of the two Apostles as together handing on the episcopate to Linus. But this expression is explained by the purpose of his argument, which is to vindicate against the Gnostics the validity of the doctrine taught in the Roman Church. Hence he is naturally led to lay stress on the fact that that Church inherited the teaching of both the great Apostles. Epiphanius ("Haer." 27:6) would indeed seem to suggest the divided episcopate; but he has apparently merely misunderstood the words of Irenaeus. Those who succeed Peter in Rome succeed him also in the supreme headship

St. Clement


The first witness is St. Clement, a disciple of the Apostles, who, after Linus and Anacletus, succeeded St. Peter as the fourth in the list of popes. In his "Epistle to the Corinthians", written in 95 or 96, he bids them receive back the bishops whom a turbulent faction among them had expelled. "If any man", he says, "should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger" (Ep. 59). Moreover, he bids them "render obedience unto the things written by us through the Holy Spirit". The tone of authority which inspires the latter appears so clearly that Lightfoot did not hesitate to speak of it as "the first step towards papal domination" (Clement 1:70). Thus, at the very commencement of church history, before the last survivor of the Apostles had passed away, we find a Bishop of Rome, himself a disciple of St. Peter, intervening in the affairs of another Church and claiming to settle the matter by a decision spoken under the influence of the Holy Spirit. Such a fact admits of one explanation alone. It is that in the days when the Apostolic teaching was yet fresh in men's minds the universal Church recognized in the Bishop of Rome the office of supreme head. St. Ignatius of Antioch


A few years later (about 107) St. Ignatius of Antioch, in the opening of his letter to the Roman Church, refers to its presiding over all other Churches. He addresses it as "presiding over the brotherhood of love [prokathemene tes agapes] The expression, as Funk rightly notes, is grammatically incompatible with the translation advocated by some non-Catholic writers, "pre-eminent in works of love". St. Irenaeus


The same century gives us the witness of St. Irenaeus -- a man who stands in the closest connection with the age of the Apostles, since he was a disciple of St. Polycarp, who had been appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St. John. In his work "Adversus Haereses" (III:3:2) he brings against the Gnosticsects of his day the argument that their doctrines have no support in the Apostolic tradition faithfully preserved by the Churches, which could trace the succession of their bishops back to the Twelve. He writes:

Because it would be too long in such a volume as this to enumerate the successions of all the churches, we point to the tradition of that very great and very ancient and universally knownChurch, which was founded and established at Rome, by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul: we point I say, to the tradition which this Church has from the Apostles, and to her faith proclaimed to men which comes down to our time through the succession of her bishops, and so we put to shame . . . all who assemble in unauthorized meetings. For with this Church, because of its superior authority, every Church must agree -- that is the faithful everywhere -- in communion with which Church the tradition of the Apostles has been always preserved by those who are everywhere [Ad hanc enim eoclesiam propter potentiorem principalitatem necesse est omnem convenire ecclesiam, hoc est eos qui sunt undique fideles, in qua semper ab his qui sunt undique, conservata est ea quâ est ab apostolis traditio].
​

He then proceeds to enumerate the Roman succession from Linus to Eleutherius, the twelfth after the Apostles, who then occupied the see.

St. Victor

During the pontificate of St. Victor (189-98) we have the most explicit assertion of the supremacy of the Roman See in regard to other Churches. A difference of practice between the Churches of Asia Minor and the rest of the Christian world in regard to the day of the Paschal festival led the pope to take action. There is some ground for supposing that the Montanist heretics maintained the Asiatic (or Quartodeciman) practice to be the true one: in this case it would be undesirable that any body of Catholic Christians should appear to support them. But, under any circumstances, such a diversity in the ecclesiastical life of different countries may well have constituted a regrettable feature in the Church, whose very purpose it was to bear witness by her unity to the oneness of God (John 17:21). Victor bade the Asiatic Churches conform to the custom of the remainder of the Church, but was met with determined resistance by Polycrates of Ephesus, who claimed that their custom derived from St. John himself. Victor replied by an excommunication. St. Irenaeus, however, intervened, exhorting Victor not to cut off whole Churches on account of a point which was not a matter of faith. He assumes that the pope can exercise the power, but urges him not to do so. Similarly the resistance of the Asiatic bishops involved no denial of the supremacy of Rome. It indicates solely that the bishops believed St. Victor to be abusing his power in bidding them renounce a custom for which they had Apostolic authority. It was indeed inevitable that, as the Church spread and developed, new problems should present themselves, and that questions should arise as to whether the supreme authority could be legitimately exercised in this or that case. St. Victor, seeing that more harm than good would come from insistence, withdrew the imposed penalty. Inscription of Abercius

Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hierapolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the Roman Church: "To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See.

etc

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
​

 

[WarriorAngel]

There was no ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH as well. Come on get real, can anyone in this forum picture Peter, or any of the other Apostles trumping themselves up by wearing an ornate pagan outfit patterned after pagan priests, and asking their brethren to bow before them and kiss their hand! That clearly took place in the church of Rome when it joined up forces with Pagan Rome during the time of Constantine the Great.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8nm1NPNsXPQ

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Not many years since a new and important piece of evidence was brought to light in Asia Minor dating from this period. The sepulchral inscription of Abercius, Bishop of Hierapolis (d. about 200), contains an account of his travels couched in allegorical language. He speaks thus of the Roman Church: "To Rome He [Christ] sent me to contemplate majesty: and to see a queen golden-robed and golden-sandalled." It is difficult not to recognize in this description a testimony to the supreme position of the Roman See.

You'll pardon if I am sceptical of this .
I could also say "Christ sent me to Austin"

 

[Trento]

There was no ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH as well. Come on get real, can anyone in this forum picture Peter, or any of the other Apostles trumping themselves up by wearing an ornate pagan outfit patterned after pagan priests, and asking their brethren to bow before them and kiss their hand! That clearly took place in the church of Rome when it joined up forces with Pagan Rome during the time of Constantine the Great.

You might want to get real. Your and my opinions are not worth a wit. Here is what a Christian early church scholar says about thechurch and a Protestant one at that in order not to be bias.


History of the Christian Church Philip Schaff Protestant History Scholar


From Chaper 10 Schaff wrote--

The ministerial office was instituted by the Lord before his ascension, and solemnly inaugurated on the first Christian Pentecost by the outpouring of the Holy Ghost, to be the regular organ of the kingly power of Christ on earth in founding, maintaining, and extending the church. It appears in the New Testament under different names, descriptive of its various functions:—the "ministry of the word," "of the Spirit," "of righteousness," "of reconciliation." It includes the preaching of the gospel, the administration of the sacraments, and church discipline or the power of the keys, the power to open and shut the gates of the kingdom of heaven, in other words, to declare to the penitent the forgiveness of sins, and to the unworthy excommunication in the name and by the authority of Christ. The ministers of the gospel are, in an eminent sense, servants of God, and, as such, servants of the churches in the noble spirit of self-denying love according to the example of Christ, for the eternal salvation of the souls intrusted to their charge. They are called—not exclusively, but emphatically—the light of the world, the salt of the earth, fellow-workers with God, stewards of the mysteries of God, ambassadors for Christ.


From the beginning of Chapter 4--41. Progress in Consolidation.
In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the Catholic episcopal system.

Chapter 4 next paragraph.

42. Clergy and Laity.

The idea and institution of a special priesthood, distinct from the body of the people, with the accompanying notion of sacrifice and altar, passed imperceptibly from Jewish reminiscences and analogies into the Christian church.

 

[GuardianShua]

Catholic doctrine does not hold any weight with Christians. If you are to make a point, then try scripture or non Catholic history.

 

[Thekla]

There was no ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH as well. Come on get real, can anyone in this forum picture Peter, or any of the other Apostles trumping themselves up by wearing an ornate pagan outfit patterned after pagan priests, and asking their brethren to bow before them and kiss their hand! That clearly took place in the church of Rome when it joined up forces with Pagan Rome during the time of Constantine the Great.

Source citation for "pagan outfit" etc charges, please.

 

[GuardianShua]

Source citation for "pagan outfit" etc charges, please.

I think he may be talking about the fish hat the Pope wares. It has it's origins in Paganism.

 

[GuardianShua]

Pagan Fish Hat.​

http://images.search.yahoo.com/sear...fish+hat&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=utf-8&x=wrt&y=Search

 

[GuardianShua]

Pontifex Maximus.​

http://images.search.yahoo.com/sear...+maximus&fr=yfp-t-501&ei=utf-8&x=wrt&y=Search