Is The Pope the figure of an Apostle??

[c1ners]

I was just wondering your views about this?

 

[Always in His Presence]

way too general of a question.

In what way?

Can't read your mind - share some thoughts.

 

[JimB]

Depends on the pope, doesn’t it? Papal history is a mixed bag of saints and charlatans.

~Jim

​

Among all of God’s creatures, man is the only one which, when he has enough, wants more.​

​

 

[Always in His Presence]

Depends on the pope, doesn’t it? Papal history is a mixed bag of saints and charlatans.

~Jim

Among all of God’s creatures, man is the only one which, when he has enough, wants more, unlike animals that would eat themselves to death if they had an unlimited food supply.

​

Ain't dat the truth.

 

[millerrod]

This is a dumb questian but what defines an apostle ??

 

[Adammi]

I was just wondering your views about this?

Well, as the successor to St. Peter, yes I believe that the pope is a "modern day apostle ". As are all apostolic bishops.

 

[New_Wineskin]

I was just wondering your views about this?

In no way , shape , or form .

 

[Rhamiel]

Jim posted "Depends on the pope, doesn’t it? Papal history is a mixed bag of saints and charlatans."

well said Jim.
H.H. Pope Benedict XVI has preached on the importance of the importance of reason in the Christian faith, how true freedom can only be when we are in friendship with Christ and the evils of moral relitivism. He has put a lot of enphasis on the need for humanitarian aid in Africa and the evils of war.
Upon_This_Rock, I am interested to hear more on what your views on apostolic Bishops

 

[flyingsum0]

Anyone that can help spread God's word as he does is blessed...but whether hes the figure of an apostle or not, Im really not sure of the definiation of a "figure of an apostle" i guess...

 

[Peaceful Dove]

I think the Vicar of Christ is a false Christ. The Catholic Church does not stem from Peter. The church is built on what Peter said that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The Popes, in the past, excommunicated, burned at the stake, and tortured those who found true grace. How are these men said to hold the office of Peter. They also put thousands to the sword. Peter cut off Malchus's ear, and Jesus healed that ear, and told Peter and the others that if they live by the sword, they will die by the sword.

Not very kind way to describe a brother in Jesus, part of the Body of Christ. You offend many brothers and sisters with that sort of talk.

 

[ProAmerican]

Well, as the successor to St. Peter, yes I believe that the pope is a "modern day apostle ". As are all apostolic bishops.

First of all, the absolute earliest known written historical documents from the Early Church Fathers has the part in the Bible where Jesus says that Peter is the Rock and that on this rock I will build my church as being interpreted to Christ building the rock upon Himself and not upon Peter.

Even St. Augustine, later down the road, reinforced this belief by saying that Christ there is saying "...I will build it upon me, and not upon thee."

Additionally, one cannot rely upon Oral Tradition as proof of Apostolic Succession. Relying upon Oral Tradition makes one rely upon circular reasoning.

An Eastern Orthodox fellow one time said to me "We know that what we teach now is what they taught then, because that is what we teach now."

I pointed out that this is circular reasoning: I.E. "We know what they taught the is what we teach now, becasue we teach it now. And we teach it now because they taught it then."...etc, etc, Ad Infinitum.

One cannot rely upon Oral Tradition to establish Apostolic Succession and Papal Supremacy.

Additionally, there is no written historical proof that can be traced back from century to century - all the way back to the first century A.D. - that shows that Peter was the first pope of Rome.

 

[Adammi]

First of all, the absolute earliest known written historical documents from the Early Church Fathers has the part in the Bible where Jesus says that Peter is the Rock and that on this rock I will build my church as being interpreted to Christ building the rock upon Himself and not upon Peter.

Even St. Augustine, later down the road, reinforced this belief by saying that Christ there is saying "...I will build it upon me, and not upon thee."

Additionally, one cannot rely upon Oral Tradition as proof of Apostolic Succession. Relying upon Oral Tradition makes one rely upon circular reasoning.

An Eastern Orthodox fellow one time said to me "We know that what we teach now is what they taught then, because that is what we teach now."

I pointed out that this is circular reasoning: I.E. "We know what they taught the is what we teach now, becasue we teach it now. And we teach it now because they taught it then."...etc, etc, Ad Infinitum.

One cannot rely upon Oral Tradition to establish Apostolic Succession and Papal Supremacy.

Additionally, there is no written historical proof that can be traced back from century to century - all the way back to the first century A.D. - that shows that Peter was the first pope of Rome.

I emphatically agree that St. Peter is not the rock on which the Church is built and I do not at all believe in Papal Supremacy either.

 

[Simon_Templar]

The question of Petrine supremacy is entirely different than the question "is the pope like an apostle".

In answer to the question, yes the pope is supposed to be something like an apostle.

The word apostle means "one who is sent". Its actually the same as the latin word "missionary" although that word has taken on a little different meaning in the modern world than the idea of the Apostles.

The capital A Apostles (as in the 12 originals plus paul) were sent by God both to establish churches (like a modern day missionary) but also to oversee the church and maintain the true teaching of the gospel across the entire church.
The original apostles also had the special mandate and inspiration which enabled them to write the scriptures.

The church needs apostles to maintain unity and to preserve the purity of doctrine that has been handed down. That is what the pope, and bishops in general are supposed to do, as the heirs of the apostles. Sadly bishops got tied up in politics and power and still are in many cases.
The result has been that they frequently neglected their true work.

 

[Father Rick]

As some have previously stated... What do you mean by apostle?

In scripture we see various types of apostles. We see "the Twelve" (often referred to as "apostles of the Lamb"). We also see other apostles, called such by name, who came later-- such as Paul and Apollos.

We see some apostles who served primarily to pioneer new churches (Paul's missionary journeys), and others who served mainly to provide governance to churches already established (James in Jerusalem).

Certain things, however, do seem to be consist of all apostles:
1) They either pioneered new churches or governed the existing churches.
2) They trained, developed, and appointed leadership within the churches.
3) They were responsible for maintaining proper doctrine within the churches.

Current bishops certainly fulfill these same roles. While not all bishops serve as "pioneers" in the sense of traveling to undeveloped areas (as there are few undeveloped areas at this point in history), most will be responsible for the pioneering of new churches/missions/ministries within their diocese. All bishops oversee/train/develop/appoint leadership in the local churches (in fact this is one of their primary duties). All bishops also are to serve as defenders of doctrine.

So.. the pope, like any other bishop, would certainly fit the definition of an apostle.

 

[Always in His Presence]

And you sir - Fr. Rick have just demonstrated love.

God bless you!!!

 

[stray bullet]

Mr. Rick also denies that which was claimed at the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD)- that the pope is the head of all churches and his decrees are infallible on matters of faith.

Saint Cyprian made it clear, in 251 AD, that all who abandon the See of Peter, on which the Church is founded, are not of the Church.

The Bishop of Rome is more than a bishop or an apostle, he is the head of the Church, who was commanded to confirm his brethren. The Bishop of Rome is indeed an apostle, the successor of Saint Peter, upon whom Christ built the authority of His Church.

Rick relies on the authority of apostolic authority, rather than the authority of a single figure head, who Christ commanded to lead.

 

[SuperDuperMan]

I must say right at the outset that Father Rick would have the best information about Apostolic Succession, and whether the Pope would fit into that principle.

We at the First Apostolic Church of Oneness and Agreeability have a very high respect for Father Rick, and along with another very highly respected person, Quaffer, have appointed them to the exalted and honoured position of Extremely Respected and Admired Knight of the Holy Cross of St Tacticus, in view of their utter agreeability in all their dealings with people and in the way they have conducted themselves on this forum.

Members of our church visited Father Rick's church, and found it a wonderful place where the Holy Spirit was permitted to move freely. One member was visibly moved by the Spirit and has never been quite the same since.

Now, as far as the Pope is concerned, we have attempted to get information, but understand that the important documents, previously buried in a vault in the vatican, were eaten by rats in the 9th Century AD, and therefore are lost to us forever.

We did find some fragments of documents in the ice cave at Mt Erebus, but they are inconclusive. What we have speaks of a general council of the Church of the Divine Consciousness, as it was named in those ancient times, where discussion was held about whether our church should join with the Roman Catholic Church and accept the Pope as the Vicar of Christ. It was noted that there were those in favour, and those in heavy opposition to it. Unfortunately the piece of the document which contained the decision accidently found its way out of the sealed container and perished to dust on the floor of the ice cave. So we have no way of knowing what happened.

However, the earliest document we do have of the structure of the church is one by Paulus Ultimus Keyholesurgerarium who gives an account of the church going underground in the 10th Century AD to escape persecution by the then official church. It gives an insight of why the church was relocated to Antarctica. It was fortunate that there was the pocket of temperate climate and fertile ground in Antarctica at the time when the Great Migration from Italy took place in the 11th Century AD. This pocket of habitable land was lost when the Great Meteor slammed into the steppes of Russia in 1543, flattening great areas of forest, tilting the earth on its axis, and completing the frozenality of the Antarctic Continent.

So, this is all the information I can give you all on this subject. Good luck and agreeability for your continued search for the truth on this matter.

 

[Coder]

In my personal views-- no. These men are self-appointed from within a closed-door assembly, a virtual nation unto themselves. I suppose this is correct for a Catholic to view as plausible if they choose to but beyond that it means nothing.

 

[youthwalk]

To be honest, I don't know. I'd like to hear more though.

 

[nephilimiyr]

Depends on the pope, doesn’t it? Papal history is a mixed bag of saints and charlatans.

This is pretty much true but the Pope is more of an office then a person. The office of the Pope is supposed to be like the office of an Apostle but in a more important way IMO. Catholics believe the Pope represents Jesus Christ as being the head of the Church here on earth. Jesus Christ still reigns but for the purposes of having one in charge (sort of speak), the Pope is the man with authority here on earth. Men may abuse that office, and a few of them have, but the man who is Pope can very well be seen as taking the office of an apostle, at least by those of the Catholic faith.