The Papacy: The ultimate insult to the Apostle Peter?

[patricius79]

You can believe whatever you wish, but that does not necessarily mean that it is true.

That's why I believe in the Papacy: because I want to have a faith that is more than just my opinions about the Scriptures or about Tradition.

 

[Grafted In]

There are sometimes people who go from legalism to idolitry and simply don't have time for such nonsense. Let it be.

 

[jerry kelso]

I believe that the Pope is the Successor of St. Rock. It makes perfect faithful sense that Christ would have a Vicar to represent him physically while he is "away" from us, preserving the unity of the one historic Church.

patricius79,

1. Pope successor of St. Rock? The only successor Christ talked about was the Holy Spirit who would lead and guide and direct us to the truth.
There was no pope in Jesus day when he said this and it sure wasn't prophetic either.
The unity of the one historic church has had it's share of disunity and does not speak for the whole body of Christ. It can't even have unity in it's own church across the world.

2. Apostolic succession is based on the thwarted idea of Jesus building on the rock called Peter and having keys to the kingdom.

3. Peter's name was rock and Christ is the solid rock as the sure foundation. Paul said the church was built on the foundation of Jesus Christ the only foundation. Each christian builds on the church foundation of Christ. Paul didn't even mention Peter with the church building on the rock. He mentioned how he had watered and Apollos watered and God gave the increase.

4. In Matthew 16:16-19 was Peter responding to the question of Jesus; whom say ye that I am? Peter replies, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. Jesus answers; Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Peters name means rock and Christ used this to show he would be a mainstay in the church that Christ would use to build on the church which is Christ himself. This did not mean he was the only one for all the apostles built on Christ the foundation and so does everyone who is a christian. Peter used the term lively stone and never called himself the main stone for Paul and Peter both believed the husbandbry was all about building on the cornerstone which was Jesus Christ.

5. The keys to kingdom of heaven in verse 19 is not the church today. The KoH is in the future on earth when Israel will become the head of the nations in the earthly kingdom and the apostle will rule the 12 tribes, Matthew 19:28.

6. The apostolic succession is a farce in the long run of Catholic history because there is no biblical history showing that Peter was even an apostle of Rome and neither Paul even though Paul desired to go to them and he would never had done it without going through Peter first because Paul never mentioned he was their personal apostle either. Romans 16:23 Gaius mine host, and of the whole church, saluteth you. This was specifically from Tertius wrote the epistle. Pope is no vicar but to the catholic church on earth. Jerry kelso

 

[patricius79]

patricius79,

1. Pope successor of St. Rock? The only successor Christ talked about was the Holy Spirit who would lead and guide and direct us to the truth.
There was no pope in Jesus day when he said this and it sure wasn't prophetic either.
The unity of the one historic church has had it's share of disunity and does not speak for the whole body of Christ. It can't even have unity in it's own church across the world.

Sure it can. All one has to do to be in union with the whole historic Church is to accept and try to live out all the teachings of the Magisterium (the Papacy and Bishops in communion with it).

I hear you making a number of assertions. But I don't find them in the Word of God, whether given orally or in writing.

 

[jerry kelso]

Sure it can. All one has to do to be in union with the whole historic Church is to accept and try to live out all the teachings of the Magisterium (the Papacy and Bishops in communion with it).

I hear you making a number of assertions. But I don't find them in the Word of God, whether given orally or in writing.

patricius79,
It is hard to be in union with a church that mixes the traditions of men in with doctrine. The pharisees did the same thing.
Whatever assertions you think I am making that you believe are not scriptural you are welcome to post them to me and I will be glad to address them fairly. Jerry Kelso

 

[patricius79]

patricius79,
It is hard to be in union with a church that mixes the traditions of men in with doctrine. The pharisees did the same thing.
Whatever assertions you think I am making that you believe are not scriptural you are welcome to post them to me and I will be glad to address them fairly. Jerry Kelso

For example, I'm hearing you say, "There was no pope in Jesus day when he said this and it sure wasn't prophetic either."

The Bible doesn't say that.

The Bible is part of the Word of God. Catholic Tradition--of which the Bible is a part--is the whole Word of God.

The Papacy is central to the Word of God, being the unifying, authoritative center of the Church which Protestantism lacks.

Protestants rely on oral traditions as much as Catholics, but historically the Church has always believed as Catholics do. The Catholic Church is the historic source of the N.T. Canon, which is not in the Bible, but was defined in communion with the Papacy.

There are many true elements in Protestantism and many Protestants are more faithful to Catholic teaching that many Catholics.

But everyone is called to full communion in the Papacy.

 

[Job8]

But everyone is called to full communion in the Papacy.

Then why do the Orthodox (who are closest) reject this? They must have very sound reasons, since they came first.

 

[Job8]

That's why I believe in the Papacy: because I want to have a faith that is more than just my opinions about the Scriptures or about Tradition.

In other words you don't really believe that the Holy Spirit can guide you into all truth, including the truth that "Climate Change" and its ramifications are a hoax?

 

[Sword of the Lord]

In other words you don't really believe that the Holy Spirit can guide you into all truth, including the truth that "Climate Change" and its ramifications are a hoax?

Well after all, the Pope says that evolution isn't at odds with Christianity.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Well after all, the Pope says that evolution isn't at odds with Christianity.

The Pope(s) have said innumerable things, many of which contradict other statements by other Popes. Catholic doublespeak has been refined to a high art.

 

[patricius79]

Then why do the Orthodox (who are closest) reject this? They must have very sound reasons, since they came first.

They didn't come first. The early Church was the Catholic Church. As far as why they reject the Papacy, I suppose you could ask them. I know that even the famous Eastern Orthodox Scholar, Alexander Schmeman wrote openly that the early Fathers and Councils unanimously acknowledge Rome as the center of Ecumenical Agreement. I, similarly, believe that the Papacy is the center of Ecumenical agreement.

 

[patricius79]

In other words you don't really believe that the Holy Spirit can guide you into all truth, including the truth that "Climate Change" and its ramifications are a hoax?

I don't know much about "Climate Change", etc, but I believe that the Holy Spirit guides into the truth not merely in an individualistic way, but as a unified Body of Christ, in union with the Vicar of Christ. Popes can of course be wrong, especially when they are speaking on matters which are not necessarily matters of faith or morals. But they are infallible when they speak definitively on matters of faith or morals, based on the Christ's promise to guide us into all the Truth, through the Holy Spirit.

 

[patricius79]

Well after all, the Pope says that evolution isn't at odds with Christianity.

I don't know that there has a been a definitive Papal statement on evolution.

 

[patricius79]

The Pope(s) have said innumerable things, many of which contradict other statements by other Popes. Catholic doublespeak has been refined to a high art.

I don't think it is doublespeak. I think it is paradox. Even Protestants have at times marvelled at the way Papists have kept the paradoxial balance between things--such as predestination and free will--when Protestants have gone to either one extreme or the other.

Some would say that it is doublespeak to say that there is only One God, and then say that God is Three Persons. But really it is a paradox and a mystery, not doublespeak.

And it was the early Catholic Church, in union with the Papacy, that defined this doctrine, along with the N.T. Canon and the Incarnation (Hypostatic Union), long before Protestantism and its disunity arose.

 

[Job8]

I don't know that there has a been a definitive Papal statement on evolution.

Check this. Pope says "God did not wave a magic wand".
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pope-francis-evolution-is-real-god-did-not-wave-a-magic-wand-1.2076772

 

[patricius79]

Check this. Pope says "God did not wave a magic wand".
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/pope-francis-evolution-is-real-god-did-not-wave-a-magic-wand-1.2076772

"Francis said God “created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

There's nothing there about a definitive statement on faith or morals.

Popes can even be in error in matters of faith or morals, except when they are speaking ex cathedra.

 

[Job8]

"Francis said God “created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfillment.”

That's a side issue. You said you were not aware that the Pope promotes evolution. Now that you have the evidence that he does, are you going to ask for his resignation? By rights you and every Catholic should do so, since evolution denies the creation account. Francis is a left-liberal socialist who is confused and creating confusion. Many conservative Catholics are fed up.

 

[patricius79]

That's a side issue. You said you were not aware that the Pope promotes evolution.

I said I don't know that there has been a definitive Papal statement on evolution. What the Pope says on a day to day basis is not definitive. As I understand it, the Vicar of Christ is infallible when he defines doctrine as the Successor of St. Rock (ex cathedra) The Bishops are infallible when they teach authoritatively on a matter of faith or morals in communion with the Pope (ordinary magisterium)


Infallibility is something the Pope: "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

 

[bbbbbbb]

I don't think it is doublespeak. I think it is paradox. Even Protestants have at times marvelled at the way Papists have kept the paradoxial balance between things--such as predestination and free will--when Protestants have gone to either one extreme or the other.

Some would say that it is doublespeak to say that there is only One God, and then say that God is Three Persons. But really it is a paradox and a mystery, not doublespeak.

And it was the early Catholic Church, in union with the Papacy, that defined this doctrine, along with the N.T. Canon and the Incarnation (Hypostatic Union), long before Protestantism and its disunity arose.

I suppose it is a paradox that the earth is completely and utterly flat, and yet spherical. We have Papal Bulls, no less, expressing the absolute truth of these matters. Do you happen to believe both are true?

 

[patricius79]

I suppose it is a paradox that the earth is completely and utterly flat, and yet spherical. We have Papal Bulls, no less, expressing the absolute truth of these matters. Do you happen to believe both are true?

I take it you are claiming that the Papacy definitively stated that the earth is not spherical? Could you post that?

In any case, how would that be a matter of faith or morals?