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.
patricius79,
1. There is only one potentate recorded in scripture and that is God. 1 Timothy 6:15.
2. The bible is the whole word of God given to men inspired by the Holy Spirit before the papacy ever came around. 2 Peter 1:20-21.
3. Apostolic succession according to the Catholic church is not found in the word of God.
The landmark baptist say they have a history dating back to John the baptist which was farther than the Catholic Church and they can prove Jesus was a baptist. That is about as nonsensical as the RCC trying to prove that Peter was the pope at Rome.
4. Paul wrote the Romans and never said anything about Peter and was wanting to go to Rome to minister to them. Paul would have never done this without Peter's permission because he didn't believe in encroaching on another's ministry. He would have to be made a bishop in order to preach in Peter's church.
Paul or Peter neither were the apostle to Rome. The roman believers were at the Day of Pentecost Acts 2:10; strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes. These were proselytes before the Day of Pentecost and the church actually began. There is no hint of Peter starting this church no matter what you think your history says or Paul either one.
5. Peter's name was rock but he was a lively stone like any other because the true Rock of the foundation of the church is Jesus Christ, then the prophets and the apostles and every man thereafter.
Jesus said, upon this rock I will build my church because Peter's names meant rock and because of the fact that Peter answered Christ question, whom say he that I am and he said, Thou art the Christ, the son of the living God. and Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
6. Jesus was revealing Peter's nature from being weak and changeable as the weather and as one who denied him three times to a strong stalwart as a rock in the church. This had nothing to do with apostolic succession and yet a whole doctrine has been made out of it. Peter and the apostles never taught apostolic doctrine to the extreme of the RCC. Apostle means one sent with the true message. The disciples were before the resurrection hand picked by Christ. Paul was an apostle of the resurrection after the fact and by revelation and not picked by the apostles as Matthias was. If anything, Paul talked more about passing the faith to a faithful person than the others. There is said to be around 20 or so apostles in the church in that day of Paul and his ministry to the gentiles. Gaius is mentioned as being baptized under Paul's ministry 1 Corinthians 1:10 and he was Paul's host and of the whole church at Rome Romans 16:23. You can interpret that how you want but in that day a host would have been most likely a representative and not just a mere host. Either way, there is no mention of Peter in the least bit.
7. The RCC gave us much good of doctrine but they corrupted it from time to time as their history shows. This is what the Pharisees and the Scribes in Jesus did and they were hypocrites as well.
Apostolic doctrine and the papacy exalts the papacy and the RCC above God. It takes principles of passing the faith along to faithful men and then mix traditions of men in to totally control the converts.
8. Pope Francis seems to be a good man with a good heart. He got the evangelicals together of which there has always been a trying of the meeting of minds. The most recent event came because of bishop Tony who preached at Kenneth Copland's church for years. Now I am not against Kenneth Copland and the pope and world wide unity. But, the pope still has the mindset of the RCC being the universal church and thinks the protestants can come back into the fold with the pope as the shepherd and the protestant as his flock.
9. I don't second guess James Robinson and Kenneth Copland and I love them as well as the pope but they need to be careful not to fall into a big pitfall of deception of what his intentions may be whether he really realizes it or not. The pope and the president I am sure have concocted this story about climate change which is connected to the NWO and that is trouble because this is the agenda both are pushing.
This is a weak point in the RCC and the many things surrounding it and the way they carry on business. Bishop Tony got killed in a motorcycle accident and hopefully it wasn't foul play even though there have been hints or rumors to that effect. So do I trust the RCC for doctrine across the board? Only the part that they tell the truth and don't go to the extreme and make God's doctrine man's doctrine.
10. There history is well known for different things they have observed that were pagan and in the pagan spirit and Rome is where Satan's seat was in the book of Revelation and it's traditions that are of the extreme nature came from Babylon and Nimrod and his wife.
11. This doesn't mean there are no good true believers in the RCC but those wrong doctrines are dangerous just like AS. Peter was given the keys to the KoH and this is said to be the church which is not true. The keys and the authority are the Kingdom reign on earth which Jesus offered the jews because of their covenants to be at the head of the nations, (Isaiah 2:2-4) if they would repent (Matthew 4:17). Matthew 19:28 shows the authority Jesus was talking about when the Son of Man, Jesus Christ would sit on the throne of his glory and the twelve were sitting on their thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. This is context of the future Kingdom reign and not the church age. The binding and loosing are in the future context when what we speak will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
12. The pope has no more authority in Christ than any other christians who yields and cultivates his relationship to God. Apostles do have certain authority concerning the church as Paul showed but it wasn't in this romantic kiss my hand and bow down before me in a worship mindset which many do.
This may sound harsh but there is no biblical basis in the whole essence of what the papacy is about and even the perception no matter what he may say contrary to deflect criticism away from these things.
There is no way you can show biblical context of Peter being the apostle to Rome or Paul either. This is why I don't trust the history of the RCC and the teaching of AS in their context. Jerry kelso
