Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[NewMan99]

nm

 

[D'Ann]

Not everything that is claimed to be true history is.

For instance, the Roman Catholic churc claims that the bishops of Rome were the supreme rulers of the entire church from the beginning, and it was taught historically by the early church fathers.


When an objective, comprehensive survey of early church history is embarked on, we find the claims of Rome concerning the Roman papacy are completely foreign to the patristics and early church fathers, making those claims of "history" made by Rome to be false.

They are so false, that during the medieval period Rome manufactured forgeries, made to look as if they were from antiquity and from the early church, but were in fact, medieval frauds. The "Donation of Constantine" and "Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore" are just two examples of Roman Catholic fabricated "history".





Best thing to do is to do the work yourself and check the historical records themselves.

I have always been interested in history and I spent most of my life studying history.

I'll trust and embrace the Catholic Church teachings on history.

God bless

Deb

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Not everything that is claimed to be true history is.

For instance, the Roman Catholic churc claims that the bishops of Rome were the supreme rulers of the entire church from the beginning, and it was taught historically by the early church fathers.


When an objective, comprehensive survey of early church history is embarked on, we find the claims of Rome concerning the Roman papacy are completely foreign to the patristics and early church fathers, making those claims of "history" made by Rome to be false.

They are so false, that during the medieval period Rome manufactured forgeries, made to look as if they were from antiquity and from the early church, but were in fact, medieval frauds. The "Donation of Constantine" and "Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore" are just two examples of Roman Catholic fabricated "history".





Best thing to do is to do the work yourself and check the historical records themselves.
​

I have always been interested in history and I spent most of my life studying history.

I'll trust and embrace the Catholic Church teachings on history.

God bless

Deb

Jesus, nor Scripture advises such blind faith.

 

[Joachim]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Not everything that is claimed to be true history is.

For instance, the Roman Catholic churc claims that the bishops of Rome were the supreme rulers of the entire church from the beginning, and it was taught historically by the early church fathers.


When an objective, comprehensive survey of early church history is embarked on, we find the claims of Rome concerning the Roman papacy are completely foreign to the patristics and early church fathers, making those claims of "history" made by Rome to be false.

They are so false, that during the medieval period Rome manufactured forgeries, made to look as if they were from antiquity and from the early church, but were in fact, medieval frauds. The "Donation of Constantine" and "Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore" are just two examples of Roman Catholic fabricated "history".





Best thing to do is to do the work yourself and check the historical records themselves.
​

Jesus, nor Scripture advises such blind faith.

No, acually, the historical record is pretty clear that the Bishop of Rome was the key leader of the church. It is also clear that many of the practices that are now essential to all of Christianity were formalized by the early popes due to the guidance they received from the Lord.

 

[Trento]

No, acually, the historical record is pretty clear that the Bishop of Rome was the key leader of the church. It is also clear that many of the practices that are now essential to all of Christianity were formalized by the early popes due to the guidance they received from the Lord.

The fact that the Donation of Constantine was, at one time, wrongly assumed to be legitimate is irrelevant. What makes the Donation even more irrelevant to this issue is that even if it were not a forgery, it still wouldn't qualify as an official Catholic document. At best, it would have been an official state document, emanating from the Roman imperial government. That's because whoever forged it purported to be the Emperor Constantine, decreeing a series of land grants and various other temporal advantages to the bishop of Rome. So, unfortunately for, the forged Donation of Constantine cannot qualify, on two counts: A) it's bogus and B) even if it weren't, it would only be a civil document.

. If the Donation of Constantine was forged for Pepin and used to mislead him, no word or act of his reflects it. Neither he nor Popes Stephen III or Paul I ever claimed all of Italy for the Papacy, nor referred to Constantine or any other Roman emperors as the source of their claims.

 

[sunlover1]

Now, it is fair to ask ourselves if this is the kind of unity we see today in modern Christianity? Have we maintained the unity of faith - the oneness of mind - we have been called to?

Hardly. We live in a time when THOUSANDS of different bodies (plural) and groups (plural) exist *outside* of communion with each other, not only institutionally, but ALSO doctrinally.

We all read from the same Bible, and yet we interpret it in contradictory and mutually exclusive ways...and not just in "non-essentials" - but rather in some VERY important and essential issues. Thus, we see before us extensive DISUNITY where the error of heterodoxy lies at its core and hence Christianity today is guilty of the very thing condemned in the Scriptures cited above.

This state of affairs begs the question: WHERE are we to find the unity we are called to? I will submit that it certainly isn't found in church splits, sectarianism, division, and denominationalism.

One can only wonder where it can be found?
Hi Newman. Good to see you here again.
Unfortunately, even the Apostles had this problem of factions:
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not
able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for
whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisionsa, are ye not
carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another,
I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
a divisions: or, factions
Nothing new under the sun really.
But as we will see, Jesus handles this issue superbly.

I am sure we can all agree that this was not a problem when Jesus and the Apostles were around.

Scripture says otherwise (see above), so no, I can't agree.

Since Jesus left us a PHYSICAL mechanism in place to teach the faith (in other words, we didn't just learn Christianity via osmosis - God didn't just "zap" Christian knowledge into us - unless your name is Saul and you are on the road to Damscus - LOL), that is to say, since He left us physical men (the Apostles) to physically teach the nations, doesn't it make sense to wonder if Jesus also appointed a "vicarious" shepherd - a substitute teacher in a manner of speaking while the True Teacher is away - who could settle doctrinal disputes within the flock? This would be someone who would be authorized to preserve the flock in unity and orthodoxy in Christ's place until He returned?

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Authorized to 'preserve the flock in unity". Hmmm...
There is only one road to 'oneness'.

Thanks to Jesus, we have been given the power to become one. (See below)
HE prayed the Father for that very thing. Certainly the Father answered His prayer.
There is no mention of any other mediator or "vicarious" shepherd.

14 I have given them your word. And the world hates them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 15 I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. 16 They do not belong to this world any more than I do. 17 Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. 19 And I give myself as a holy sacrifice for them so they can be made holy by your truth.

20 “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. 21 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
22 “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. 23 I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me. ​

As you can see in v 22, Jesus has given us the glory to become one.
It's up to us to allow Him to live and manifest through us.
I think this passage is just so incredible and filled with information so...

14 I have given them your word. And the world hates them because they do not belong to the world, just as I do not belong to the world. 15 I’m not asking you to take them out of the world, but to keep them safe from the evil one. 16 They do not belong to this world any more than I do. 17 Make them holy by your truth; teach them your word, which is truth. 18 Just as you sent me into the world, I am sending them into the world. 19 And I give myself as a holy sacrifice for them so they can be made holy by your truth.
20 “I am praying not only for these disciples but also for all who will ever believe in me through their message. 21 I pray that they will all be one, just as you and I are one—as you are in me, Father, and I am in you. And may they be in us so that the world will believe you sent me.
22 “I have given them the glory you gave me, so they may be one as we are one. 23 I am in them and you are in me. May they experience such perfect unity that the world will know that you sent me and that you love them as much as you love me. ​

sunlover

 

[NewMan99]

Hi Sunlover

Nice to see you too.

One can only wonder where it can be found?
Hi Newman. Good to see you here again.
Unfortunately, even the Apostles had this problem of factions:
2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not
able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able. 3 For ye are yet carnal: for
whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisionsa, are ye not
carnal, and walk as men? 4 For while one saith, I am of Paul; and another,
I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?
a divisions: or, factions
Nothing new under the sun really.
But as we will see, Jesus handles this issue superbly.

Scripture says otherwise (see above), so no, I can't agree.

I know where you are coming from, but my point was not that there was a lack of disputes when Jesus was on earth - but rather that when disagreements arose there was an authrority (Jesus Himself) they could turn to to settle the dispute and provide answers to new questions. I agree that disputes arose (which is one reason why a Shepherd of the flock is necessary to begin with). At that point in time - they could turn to Jesus for a final answer...therefore division within the group was not really a problem because they were able to point their differences INWARD to Jesus and authoritatively settle it. The fact that some disciples and believers broke away doesn't mean there wasn't unity among the flock - all it means is that they chose to remove themselves from the flock and take their chances on the outside (which, of course, is a sadly fatal mistake), while those who remained in the flock were willing to submit to the authority of the Shepherd to lead and teach them.

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

Authorized to 'preserve the flock in unity". Hmmm...
There is only one road to 'oneness'.

Of course there is only one road - Jesus Himself...which is why it is important to be obedient to the leaders He gave the Church to watch over us in His absence on earth. Remember that Jesus did command them to teach the nations (giving THEM authority to teach us), and that He also said to them, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" in Luke 10:16. Therefore when we obey THEM and allow them to shepherd us, we ARE obeying Jesus and we are learning from Jesus...we are on the road to oneness.

Thanks to Jesus, we have been given the power to become one. (See below)
HE prayed the Father for that very thing. Certainly the Father answered His prayer.
There is no mention of any other mediator or "vicarious" shepherd.

Of course Jesus is the only Mediator, and I never said otherwise...but if you deny that the Apostles are all vicarious shepherds (especially Peter), then you are denying that Jesus commissioned them to a ministry overseeing His flock. Jesus told Peter to feed and tend His flock. Right? Who feeds and tends a flock? Truck drivers? Firemen? Electricians? No - shepherds feed and tend the sheep of a flock. Therefore Peter was being made a shepherd and he remained a shepherd until the day he died.

As you can see in v 22, Jesus has given us the glory to become one.
It's up to us to allow Him to live and manifest through us.

I quite agree that Jesus has given us the glory to become one...but we have to bear in mind that He also gave us a Church by which our unity can become visibly manifest - where we can be fed and tended - where we can hear Jesus when we hear them. So it is by grace that we experience this tugging of the heart, whereby we cry out "Abba Father!", and it is by grace we are led to His Church - tended to by His vicarious shepherds in His absence - to be fed by the Word.

God's Peace,

NewMan

 

[Rick Otto]

The fact that the Donation of Constantine was, at one time, wrongly assumed to be legitimate is irrelevant.[/SIZE]

LOL! How convenient!

What makes the Donation even more

More? Already? You've "established" it so by saying it is. How could it be more so? - Wait, don't tell me,... you're going to "say so", right?

irrelevant to this issue is that even if it were not a forgery, it still wouldn't qualify as an official Catholic document.

OOOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHhhhhhhh, NOW I get it.
More important than authenticity is officiality.

At best, it would have been an official state document, emanating from the Roman imperial government.

The Imperial State was falling apart at the seams. Legalizing Christianity was a desperate attempt to hold it together. When even that didn't work, the Pope replaced the emperor as a figurehead, a symbol of the power & unity that was fading from reality.

That's because whoever forged it purported to be the Emperor Constantine, decreeing a series of land grants and various other temporal advantages to the bishop of Rome. So, unfortunately for, the forged Donation of Constantine cannot qualify, on two counts: A) it's bogus and B) even if it weren't, it would only be a civil document.

Funny how it worked as what it purported to be even tho it didn't meet Trento's qualifications.

. If the Donation of Constantine was forged for Pepin and used to mislead him, no word or act of his reflects it. Neither he nor Popes Stephen III or Paul I ever claimed all of Italy for the Papacy, nor referred to Constantine or any other Roman emperors as the source of their claims.

Does that make it or The Vatican's part in it legitimate? No.
And yet The Vatican politicaly controlled Italy until the 1870s.
So knowing it was a forgery didn't seem to warrant any corrective action as far as The Vatican, which remans a secular political state & power, is concerned.

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=NewMan99;I know where you are coming from, but my point was not that there was a lack of disputes when Jesus was on earth - but rather that when disagreements arose there was an authrority (Jesus Himself) they could turn to to settle the dispute and provide answers to new questions.

And yet the dispute over who was greatest among them recurred.

I agree that disputes arose (which is one reason why a Shepherd of the flock is necessary to begin with). At that point in time - they could turn to Jesus for a final answer...therefore division within the group was not really a problem because they were able to point their differences INWARD to Jesus and authoritatively settle it.

I would characterize that as "spiritualy" settled it. The power of His authority was in the truth of what He said, not in the position of an institutional office.

The fact that some disciples and believers broke away doesn't mean there wasn't unity among the flock - all it means is that they chose to remove themselves from the flock and take their chances on the outside (which, of course, is a sadly fatal mistake), while those who remained in the flock were willing to submit to the authority of the Shepherd to lead and teach them.

Or so you would think until Pope Anicetus rejected Polycarp's teaching on the celebration of Easter. At that point, apostolic tradition took a back-seat to papal personal preference, but Polycarp didn't anethmatize Anicetus.

Of course there is only one road - Jesus Himself...which is why it is important to be obedient to the leaders He gave the Church to watch over us in His absence on earth.

Unless they are themselves not being obedient.

Remember that Jesus did command them to teach the nations (giving THEM authority to teach us), and that He also said to them, "He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me" in Luke 10:16.

Like when Anicetus rejected Polycarp?

Therefore when we obey THEM and allow them to shepherd us, we ARE obeying Jesus and we are learning from Jesus...we are on the road to oneness.

Pope Anicetus had reservations.

Of course Jesus is the only Mediator, and I never said otherwise...

You don't have to. I don't expect you to speak for the RCC. It claims Mary as Mediatrix, so you don't have to.

but if you deny that the Apostles are all vicarious shepherds (especially Peter), then you are denying that Jesus commissioned them to a ministry overseeing His flock.

OK, but NOT especialy Peter.

Jesus told Peter to feed and tend His flock. Right?

Peter needed a lot more direction. He was more likely to go off on a satanic tangent. Don't make Peter's weaknesses out to be strengths.

Who feeds and tends a flock?

Not the owner.

Truck drivers?

They bring food everywhere to everybody.

Firemen?

Can't eat if your burned; especialy wioth your hands tied to a stake.

I quite agree that Jesus has given us the glory to become one...but we have to bear in mind that He also gave us a Church by which our unity can become visibly manifest

I don't need a building or men in costume either to unite or show it.

- where we can be fed and tended - where we can hear Jesus when we hear them. So it is by grace that we experience this tugging of the heart, whereby we cry out "Abba Father!", and it is by grace we are led to His Church - tended to by His vicarious shepherds in His absence - to be fed by the Word.

We are led to Him, not to a Church. Church is an effect of being led, not the purpose of it, & not the leader.

God's Unity,

Rick Otto

 

[TraderJack]

Originally Posted by TraderJack

Not everything that is claimed to be true history is.

For instance, the Roman Catholic churc claims that the bishops of Rome were the supreme rulers of the entire church from the beginning, and it was taught historically by the early church fathers.


When an objective, comprehensive survey of early church history is embarked on, we find the claims of Rome concerning the Roman papacy are completely foreign to the patristics and early church fathers, making those claims of "history" made by Rome to be false.

They are so false, that during the medieval period Rome manufactured forgeries, made to look as if they were from antiquity and from the early church, but were in fact, medieval frauds. The "Donation of Constantine" and "Decretals of Pseudo-Isidore" are just two examples of Roman Catholic fabricated "history".





Best thing to do is to do the work yourself and check the historical records themselves.
​

Jesus, nor Scripture advises such blind faith.

No, acually, the historical record is pretty clear that the Bishop of Rome was the key leader of the church. It is also clear that many of the practices that are now essential to all of Christianity were formalized by the early popes due to the guidance they received from the Lord.

That is the claim of the church of Rome, but it simply does not fit the facts, not even close.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-



We are led to Him, not to a Church. Church is an effect of being led, not the purpose of it, & not the leader.

God's Unity,

Rick Otto

I would like to reiterate that point.

Romans 8:16-17 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with [him], that we may be also glorified together.

 

[NewMan99]

snip-



We are led to Him, not to a Church. Church is an effect of being led, not the purpose of it, & not the leader.


I would like to reiterate that point.

That would be fine if I was talking about "A" Church. I wasn't. I was talking about HIS Church. Big difference. When we are led to Christ we are led to His Church. By GOD'S GRACE we are led to HIS Church to be fed and tended to - EXACTLY as Jesus commanded. It isn't me and Jesus - it's WE and Jesus. We needn't impose a false dichotomy between Jesus and His Church. There's room for both.

 

[sunlover1]

That would be fine if I was talking about "A" Church. I wasn't. I was talking about HIS Church. Big difference. When we are led to Christ we are led to His Church.

Hi NewMan.
Not to be nitpicky,
but wouldnt it be correct to say we 'are" His church,
rather than we are 'led' to His church?

 

[Standing Up]

That would be fine if I was talking about "A" Church. I wasn't. I was talking about HIS Church. Big difference. When we are led to Christ we are led to His Church. By GOD'S GRACE we are led to HIS Church to be fed and tended to - EXACTLY as Jesus commanded. It isn't me and Jesus - it's WE and Jesus. We needn't impose a false dichotomy between Jesus and His Church. There's room for both.

Hi NewMan.
Not to be nitpicky,
but wouldnt it be correct to say we 'are" His church,
rather than we are 'led' to His church?

I figure that at this point we should look to see how the word "church" or "Church" is used in the Bible.

Here's Vines:

Assembly:
from ek, "out of," and klesis, "a calling" (kaleo, "to call"), was used among the Greeks of a body of citizens "gathered" to discuss the affairs of State, Act 19:39. In the Sept. it is used to designate the "gathering" of Israel, summoned for any definite purpose, or a "gathering" regarded as representative of the whole nation. In Act 7:38 it is used of Israel; in 19:32, 41, of a riotous mob. It has two applications to companies of Christians,
(a) to the whole company of the redeemed throughout the present era, the company of which Christ said, "I will build My Church," Mat 16:18, and which is further described as "the Church which is His Body," Eph 1:22; 5:23,
(b) in the singular number (e.g., Mat 18:17, RV marg., "congregation"), to a company consisting of professed believers, e.g., Act 20:28; 1Cr 1:2; Gal 1:13; 1Th 1:1; 2Th 1:1; 1Ti 3:5, and in the plural, with reference to churches in a district.
There is an apparent exception in the RV of Act 9:31, where, while the AV has "churches," the singular seems to point to a district; but the reference is clearly to the church as it was in Jerusalem, from which it had just been scattered, Act 8:1. Again, in Rom 16:23, that Gaius was the host of "the whole church," simply suggests that the "assembly" in Corinth had been accustomed to meet in his house, where also Paul was entertained.

I suppose everyone would agree on that definition, yes?

Yet, we do not agree. Why? His Church versus we are His Church. How can this be? Where are those definitions when we need them?

Here's John who faced the same issue at 3 John:

I wrote something to the church; but Diotrephes, who loves to be first among them, does not accept what we say. For this reason, if I come, I will call attention to his deeds which he does, unjustly accusing us with wicked words; and not satisfied with this, he himself does not receive the brethren, either, and he forbids those who desire {to do so} and puts {them} out of the church.

Same word. There's John writing to the called-out ones, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first (ouch) was putting them out of the Church. So, the dichotomy started about 2,000 years ago and continues to this day.

 

[NewMan99]

Hi NewMan.
Not to be nitpicky,
but wouldnt it be correct to say we 'are" His church,
rather than we are 'led' to His church?

Both are correct depending on the context.

 

[Eucharistic Adoration]

Hi NewMan.
Not to be nitpicky,
but wouldnt it be correct to say we 'are" His church,
rather than we are 'led' to His church?

It depends on who "we" is.

 

[Eucharistic Adoration]

Same word. There's John writing to the called-out ones, but Diotrephes, who loves to be first (ouch) was putting them out of the Church. So, the dichotomy started about 2,000 years ago and continues to this day.

Perhaps Diotrephes is like these unauthorized rabble rousers:

Acts 15
The apostles and elders, your brothers, To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia: Greetings. 24We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said.

 

[sunlover1]

Both are correct depending on the context.

Amen.

It depends on who "we" is.

YouTube - Who's on first?

 

[NewMan99]

Thanks Sunlover, I needed that. Who's on first, What's on second...LOL...classic.

 

[sunlover1]

Thanks Sunlover, I needed that. Who's on first, What's on second...LOL...classic.

I'd listened to it, but had never seen it before.
It's funnier to watch.