Peter the First Pope?

[Optimax]

1) Did Christ revoke his gifts to Peter? No why because popes can still sin however the powers of binding and loosing gurantees Peter ability teach without error...he cant bind and loose error in heaven.

The power to bind or/and loose was not given exclusively to Peter. It is given to every Christain.

2) Note how Satan attempts to attack Peter. But Christ drove it away...divine protection of the office. Thats why the papacy has survived for 2000yrs with all our teachings intact.

Satan's attacks are not limited to Peter, he attacks us all. Christ did not drive it away. He told us to resist the devil and he would flee.


3) To further reinforce my pt, look at this quote

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus also prays that Peter's faith may not fail and charges Peter to be the one to strengthen the other apostles - "Simon, satan demanded to have you (plural, referring to all the apostles)

I do not understand where you get that the word "you" is plural, referring to all the apostles.
The word is # 5209 in Strongs.

NT:5209
humas (hoo-mas'); accusative case of NT:5210; you (as the objective of a verb or preposition):

KJV - ye, you (+-ward), your (+own).
(Biblesoft's New Exhaustive Strong's Numbers and Concordance with Expanded Greek-Hebrew Dictionary. Copyright © 1994, 2003 Biblesoft, Inc. and International Bible Translators, Inc.)

It use is singular not plural.

to sift you (plural) like wheat, but I prayed for you (singular) that your (singular) faith may not fail, and when you (singular) have turned again, strengthen your brethren.

It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.

Where did this "perfectly efficacious" come from. Probably not Bible.

Why dont u go even further and say the Peter denied Christ thrice. But did Jesus take away the gift...NO. Instead he told him to feed his sheep thrice.

Well, you got some right here. Peter did deny three times. Jesus did tell him to feed His sheep three time.

Seems to me also that:

Scripture says that the Gospel was sent by Peter to the cicumcision, which is the Jews.

The Gospel was sent by Paul to the uncircimcision, which is the rest of us.

If Peter was the first "Pope", which scripture does not confirm, then he was "Pope" to the Jew.

Gal 2:7-8
7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

8(For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles.

 

[DArceri]

I'M TIRED OF REHASHING THIS BUT ....

Jesus gives Simon the new name πητρος. However he refers to the "rock" as πητρα. The inspired New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic. What Jesus might have said in Aramaic is conjecture. In Greek, there is a distinction between the two words, πητρα being a "rock" but πητρος being a "small stone" or "pebble". (James G. McCarthy translates the two as "mass of rock" and "boulder or detached stone", respectively.) Jesus is not referring to Peter when talking about "this rock", but is in fact referring to Peter's confession of faith in the preceding verses. Jesus thus does not declare the primacy of Peter, but rather declares that his church will be built upon the foundation of the revelation of and confession of faith of Jesus as the Christ.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

I'M TIRED OF REHASHING THIS BUT ....

Jesus gives Simon the new name πητρος. However he refers to the "rock" as πητρα. The inspired New Testament Scriptures were written in Greek, not Aramaic. What Jesus might have said in Aramaic is conjecture. In Greek, there is a distinction between the two words, πητρα being a "rock" but πητρος being a "small stone" or "pebble". (James G. McCarthy translates the two as "mass of rock" and "boulder or detached stone", respectively.) Jesus is not referring to Peter when talking about "this rock", but is in fact referring to Peter's confession of faith in the preceding verses. Jesus thus does not declare the primacy of Peter, but rather declares that his church will be built upon the foundation of the revelation of and confession of faith of Jesus as the Christ.

Amen.

Jesus saves. Peter does not.

 

[Trento]

That doesn't make him the first Pope. Nor does it change what Jesus said.

“The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.”​

This, my friends, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him. And anything more than that --such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church. And, by these challenges I, of course, mean things like:

The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.), in which the Church was transformed from a persecuted, underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire; thus requiring the Popes to operate within the perimeters of imperial Roman law (e.g. the first Ecumenical Councils), and to deal with other secular influences creeping into the Church.


The fall of the Western Roman Empire (in 476 A.D.), in which the Papacy acquired the awesome responsibility for holding Western civilization together.


700 years of struggle (c. 342-1054 A.D.) between the Roman Papacy and the Emperors of Constantinople for control over the universal Church. In this, the Byzantine Emperors (the successors of Constantine) saw themselves as “the Christ on earth,” who wielded final authority over the Church (especially in the East). Thus, it was through “competing” with these emperors (many of whom were heretics) that the Popes of Rome were forced to acquire their “emperor-like trappings.” “Emperor-like trappings” which were equally useful in maintaining peace and relative unity among the warlike kingdoms of medieval Europe; and thus preserving Christian Europe from invasion by the Muslims.


Fiirst of all, I'm sure we can all agree that Christ desired His Church to be one --united in Faith; and that He intended His Church to remain united for all time. This is quite clear in Scripture, as when the Lord prays over the Apostles in John 17:20-21, saying:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”​

And this kind of unity continued throughout the Apostolic age:

Acts 4:32: "The community of believers was of one heart and one mind ..."​

1 Corinth 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."​

Philippians 1:27: "...that you are standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the Gospel, not intimidated in any way by your opponents."​

Philippians 2:2: "...complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing."​

Ephesians 4:1-6 -- “...bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one Body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; one God and Father of all ...”​

1 Peter 3:8: "Finally, all of you, be of one mind ..."​

So, does this describe the state of Christianity today? Do all those who claim the name “Christian” share such unity with one another? Far from it. We are living in a time when there exist well over 28,000 separate Christian denominations --all with the same Bible, yet all interpreting it differently. Thus, the problem of Christian disunity has, at its core, the error of heterodoxy --the very thing condemned in the Scripture quotes above.

But what about after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven? At this point, anyone and their brother could claim that they were speaking for Christ and for orthodoxy (e.g. Acts 15:1-2). Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that Christ would appoint a vicarious shepherd --a final authority, who could settle such disputes among Christians? ...That is, someone who could stand in Christ’s physical place, and so continue to preserve unity and orthodoxy among the faithful. Well, that’s exactly what the Scriptures present to us.
In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, in the midst of the Apostles, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.” Now, earlier in this same Gospel (John 10:11-16), Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says how there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep????
Now, clearly, Jesus can. After all, He is God. Yet, if that’s the case, why is He commissioning Peter to do it? Clearly, in John 21:15-19, Christ is speaking in an earthly, vicarious sense. Notice, for example, how the sheep do not cease to belong to Jesus. They are still “my sheep.” Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. He is, therefore, being commissioned to act as Christ’s “stand-in” after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
And we can see this quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is “boskein” --a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is actually the Greek “poimanao” --the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Therefore, like Jesus, Peter is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

​

 

[DArceri]

There is NO salvation outside the RCC.

Can someone please find this in scripture or at least support for this statement in scripture. I could personally give you scripture to support a statement that says there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ:


The Apostle Peter made that clear in Acts 4:12 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved'.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

“The ministry of a supreme pastor with the power of jurisdiction to maintain universal unity and orthodoxy within the Christian Church.”​

This, my friends, was the ministry of the fisherman named Simon Peter and that of the Roman bishops who succeeded him. And anything more than that --such as the Pope’s princely manner or temporal (i.e., political) authority --is not intrinsic to the Papacy as Christ created it at all. Rather, these things were added on to the Papacy via its historical experience throughout the first millennium of the Christian era, which (whether rightly or wrongly) forced the Popes to adapt their style of ministry in order to meet the challenges which presented themselves to the Church. And, by these challenges I, of course, mean things like:

The legalization of Christianity by the Roman government (c. 313 A.D.), in which the Church was transformed from a persecuted, underground society to the official religion of the Roman Empire; thus requiring the Popes to operate within the perimeters of imperial Roman law (e.g. the first Ecumenical Councils), and to deal with other secular influences creeping into the Church.


The fall of the Western Roman Empire (in 476 A.D.), in which the Papacy acquired the awesome responsibility for holding Western civilization together.


700 years of struggle (c. 342-1054 A.D.) between the Roman Papacy and the Emperors of Constantinople for control over the universal Church. In this, the Byzantine Emperors (the successors of Constantine) saw themselves as “the Christ on earth,” who wielded final authority over the Church (especially in the East). Thus, it was through “competing” with these emperors (many of whom were heretics) that the Popes of Rome were forced to acquire their “emperor-like trappings.” “Emperor-like trappings” which were equally useful in maintaining peace and relative unity among the warlike kingdoms of medieval Europe; and thus preserving Christian Europe from invasion by the Muslims.


Fiirst of all, I'm sure we can all agree that Christ desired His Church to be one --united in Faith; and that He intended His Church to remain united for all time. This is quite clear in Scripture, as when the Lord prays over the Apostles in John 17:20-21, saying:

“I pray not only for them, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, so that they may be one, as You, Father, are in me and I in You, that they also may be in us, that the world may believe that you sent me.”​

And this kind of unity continued throughout the Apostolic age:

Acts 4:32: "The community of believers was of one heart and one mind ..."​

1 Corinth 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose."​

Philippians 1:27: "...that you are standing firm in one Spirit, with one mind struggling together for the faith of the Gospel, not intimidated in any way by your opponents."​

Philippians 2:2: "...complete my joy by being of the same mind, with the same love, united in heart, thinking of one thing."​

Ephesians 4:1-6 -- “...bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace: one Body and one Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; one God and Father of all ...”​

1 Peter 3:8: "Finally, all of you, be of one mind ..."​

So, does this describe the state of Christianity today? Do all those who claim the name “Christian” share such unity with one another? Far from it. We are living in a time when there exist well over 28,000 separate Christian denominations --all with the same Bible, yet all interpreting it differently. Thus, the problem of Christian disunity has, at its core, the error of heterodoxy --the very thing condemned in the Scripture quotes above.

But what about after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven? At this point, anyone and their brother could claim that they were speaking for Christ and for orthodoxy (e.g. Acts 15:1-2). Therefore, is it not reasonable to assume that Christ would appoint a vicarious shepherd --a final authority, who could settle such disputes among Christians? ...That is, someone who could stand in Christ’s physical place, and so continue to preserve unity and orthodoxy among the faithful. Well, that’s exactly what the Scriptures present to us.
In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, in the midst of the Apostles, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.” Now, earlier in this same Gospel (John 10:11-16), Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says how there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep????
Now, clearly, Jesus can. After all, He is God. Yet, if that’s the case, why is He commissioning Peter to do it? Clearly, in John 21:15-19, Christ is speaking in an earthly, vicarious sense. Notice, for example, how the sheep do not cease to belong to Jesus. They are still “my sheep.” Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. He is, therefore, being commissioned to act as Christ’s “stand-in” after the Lord’s Ascension into Heaven. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
And we can see this quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is “boskein” --a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is actually the Greek “poimanao” --the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Therefore, like Jesus, Peter is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.

​

1. Jesus commands Peter - 3 times - to "feed my sheep" (loose translation, in light of the fact that Jesus doesn't ask the same question 3 times, nor does he give the same command 3 times) partly because Peter had denied even knowing Jesus 3 times.
- This has NOTHING to do with Peter as Pope or the supposed Bishop of Rome.

2. One reason for the many, many denominations is CULTURE & LANGUAGE. I've had wonderful Christian Hispanic friends who worship elsewhere (and are of a different denomination), because they speak a different language. They are NOT "dividing the body of Christ". I have African-American friends who worship elsewhere (and are of a different denomination), because their style of worship is so vastly different. They are NOT "dividing the body of Christ".

3. The Roman Catholic Church dogma that you are the ONLY church is wrong. THAT is "dividing the body of Christ". Remember, it wasa the RCC that ex-communicated Martin Luther - not vice versa. And why was he ex-communicated? Because he didn't agree with everything the Pope mandated.

While I respect Catholics as Christians, I do not agree with many things about Catholicism. The number of offenses and grievances is not limitted to 95.

Jesus said "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life". He did NOT say "Peter & I are the Way, the Truth, the Life."

 

[DArceri]

Which "Church" saves?

HMMM...When you die and meet Jesus, is He going to ask you what "church" you came from? Is He going to judge you on your heart or is He going to judge you on your denomination?

My

 

[DArceri]

.

 

[Trento]

That doesn't make him the first Pope. Nor does it change what Jesus said.

There is NO salvation outside the RCC.

Can someone please find this in scripture or at least support for this statement in scripture. I could personally give you scripture to support a statement that says there is no salvation outside of Jesus Christ:


The Apostle Peter made that clear in Acts 4:12 'Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved'.

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus, whom you persecute." Then trembling and astonished Saul asked, "Lord, what would you have me do?

Saul was persecuting the Christian Church but Jesus said why are you persecuting me? The Church is the body of Christ.


When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:1-16; interestingly, in these two chapter of Romans St. Paul summarizes Wisdom 13-19)

The ``law unto themselves'' is man's participation in God's eternal law, sometimes known as the natural law. Significantly, St. Paul has not mentioned faith in Christ as a condition for knowledge of this natural law: it is a law knowable by all men without respect to creed. As St. Paul says, it is written on men's hearts, though it can be clouded by sin.

St. Luke, who was a disciple of St. Paul, reports in his gospel the words of Jesus:

And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Lk 12:47-48, cf. Lk 19:26, Mt 25:29, Mk 4:25)

It is finally God alone who sees into men's hearts and what truth they have been given in life, and it is he who will judge on this basis. It is not for human judges to divide the sheep from the goats.

 

[DArceri]

Which "Church" saves?

HMMM...When you die and meet Jesus, is He going to ask you what "church" you came from? Is He going to judge you on your heart or is He going to judge you on your denomination?

My guess it's the genuine beleiver who accepts Christ as Lord and SAVIOR, not the Pope.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus, whom you persecute." Then trembling and astonished Saul asked, "Lord, what would you have me do?

Saul was persecuting the Christian Church but Jesus said why are you persecuting me? The Church is the body of Christ.


When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:1-16; interestingly, in these two chapter of Romans St. Paul summarizes Wisdom 13-19)

The ``law unto themselves'' is man's participation in God's eternal law, sometimes known as the natural law. Significantly, St. Paul has not mentioned faith in Christ as a condition for knowledge of this natural law: it is a law knowable by all men without respect to creed. As St. Paul says, it is written on men's hearts, though it can be clouded by sin.

St. Luke, who was a disciple of St. Paul, reports in his gospel the words of Jesus:

And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Lk 12:47-48, cf. Lk 19:26, Mt 25:29, Mk 4:25)

It is finally God alone who sees into men's hearts and what truth they have been given in life, and it is he who will judge on this basis. It is not for human judges to divide the sheep from the goats.

I'm really sorry, my friend, but I honestly have no idea what you're saying here...

 

[DArceri]

"Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? Saul asked, "Who are you, Lord?" The Lord answered, "I am Jesus, whom you persecute." Then trembling and astonished Saul asked, "Lord, what would you have me do?

Saul was persecuting the Christian Church but Jesus said why are you persecuting me? The Church is the body of Christ.


When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom 2:1-16; interestingly, in these two chapter of Romans St. Paul summarizes Wisdom 13-19)

The ``law unto themselves'' is man's participation in God's eternal law, sometimes known as the natural law. Significantly, St. Paul has not mentioned faith in Christ as a condition for knowledge of this natural law: it is a law knowable by all men without respect to creed. As St. Paul says, it is written on men's hearts, though it can be clouded by sin.

St. Luke, who was a disciple of St. Paul, reports in his gospel the words of Jesus:

And that servant who knew his master's will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more. (Lk 12:47-48, cf. Lk 19:26, Mt 25:29, Mk 4:25)

It is finally God alone who sees into men's hearts and what truth they have been given in life, and it is he who will judge on this basis. It is not for human judges to divide the sheep from the goats.

"Saul was persecuting the Christian Church but Jesus said why are you persecuting me? The Church is the body of Christ."


I AGREE.

 

[Wisdom's Child]

It is clear to me that there is no possible mediation here.
The beliefs on both sides are far too galvanized, and nobody can profit from further discussion.
All that has been proved here in my eyes is that RCC has elevated both themselves (the Church) and the Pope (Vicar of Christ) to the position of God.

My Faith is in GOD ALONE, and not in any INSTITUTION OF MAN.
I AM A CHILD OF GOD
JESUS CHRIST IS MY SAVIOR!
That I will never deny or renounce.
Accept that or not....

Salvation is not Dependant upon bowing knee to the Bishop of Rome.

 

[PaulAckermann]

On Papal infallibilty.




"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


These are the points I like to make.


1. Clearly Clement viewed himself a having infallibility from God. For one thing, he used the majestic plural ("we", "us"), as an emperor or king would use. Also, he say that God was speaking through him. Also, he said that there was no small danger to disobey him. Clement did not view himself just giving his opinion and his reader were free to disagree with him.

2. Although the Apostle John was closer to the Corinth than Clement, the Corinthians went to Clement for help. This seems to show that the Eary Church viewed Clement, the bishop of Rome, with more authority over other church than that of John.

3. The very fact that Clement, the bishop of Rome, would get invloved in the affairs of another church in a distant village shows that Clement viewed that his jurisdiction extended far beyond his church in Rome.

4. We know that this letter became widely circulated among other churches within the Roman Empire. It was even publicly read on Sunday. When the Bible was canonized, there was serious debate on whether this letter be in the Bible. Why such deep respect for this letter, unless the early church viewed Clement, being the bishop of Rome, as speaking from God?


(This is from another thread that I had posted)

 

[ParsonJefferson]

On Papal infallibilty.




"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


These are the points I like to make.


1. Clearly Clement viewed himself a having infallibility from God. For one thing, he used the majestic plural ("we", "us"), as an emperor or king would use. Also, he say that God was speaking through him. Also, he said that there was no small danger to disobey him. Clement did not view himself just giving his opinion and his reader were free to disagree with him.

2. Although the Apostle John was closer to the Corinth than Clement, the Corinthians went to Clement for help. This seems to show that the Eary Church viewed Clement, the bishop of Rome, with more authority over other church than that of John.

3. The very fact that Clement, the bishop of Rome, would get invloved in the affairs of another church in a distant village shows that Clement viewed that his jurisdiction extended far beyond his church in Rome.

4. We know that this letter became widely circulated among other churches within the Roman Empire. It was even publicly read on Sunday. When the Bible was canonized, there was serious debate on whether this letter be in the Bible. Why such deep respect for this letter, unless the early church viewed Clement, being the bishop of Rome, as speaking from God?


(This is from another thread that I had posted)

Paul...

Do you believe the Pope is infallible?

This isn't a trick question in any way. However, I'm wondering how - if you feel that the Pope really is infallible - you explain all the horrors of the Papacy over the centuries.

Thanks!

 

[DArceri]

On Papal infallibilty.




"Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy" (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]).


These are the points I like to make.


1. Clearly Clement viewed himself a having infallibility from God. For one thing, he used the majestic plural ("we", "us"), as an emperor or king would use. Also, he say that God was speaking through him. Also, he said that there was no small danger to disobey him. Clement did not view himself just giving his opinion and his reader were free to disagree with him.

2. Although the Apostle John was closer to the Corinth than Clement, the Corinthians went to Clement for help. This seems to show that the Eary Church viewed Clement, the bishop of Rome, with more authority over other church than that of John.

3. The very fact that Clement, the bishop of Rome, would get invloved in the affairs of another church in a distant village shows that Clement viewed that his jurisdiction extended far beyond his church in Rome.

4. We know that this letter became widely circulated among other churches within the Roman Empire. It was even publicly read on Sunday. When the Bible was canonized, there was serious debate on whether this letter be in the Bible. Why such deep respect for this letter, unless the early church viewed Clement, being the bishop of Rome, as speaking from God?


(This is from another thread that I had posted)

Mere specualtion AGAIN. The fact is it is NOT in the Bible....Obviously it was left out for a bigger reason you or I might ever know. Peter never claimed infallibility. My best guess is that is why it got canned (not canonized).

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

*haha talk about redundant...it double posted too*

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

I'm not sure how you expect me to know that.

I'm feeling a strange sense of redundancy here. David's Kingdom has not, can not and will not ever end.

"Of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever.The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this." Isaiah 9:7

Is that clear enough? I'm curious how one might shoe-horn a different meaning into this.

 

[albertmc]

Does the fact the canon was onli settled in the Council of Rome under Pope Damacus in 382AD change ur thiking?

Just an historical note. The Western councils that settled the canon such as Carthage, Hippo, etc., whether signed by a pope or not, were not binding on the whole church. They were local councils of a part of the Church. This is verified by the fact that most local councils would not be so considered unless their findings were endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. Eastern churches continued to argue over certain books for centuries (so much for everyone acknowledging the pope's authority) until the canon endorsed by Carthage and Hippo was verified by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) in 787 A.D.

 

[Trento]

Just an historical note. The Western councils that settled the canon such as Carthage, Hippo, etc., whether signed by a pope or not, were not binding on the whole church. They were local councils of a part of the Church. This is verified by the fact that most local councils would not be so considered unless their findings were endorsed by an Ecumenical Council. Eastern churches continued to argue over certain books for centuries (so much for everyone acknowledging the pope's authority) until the canon endorsed by Carthage and Hippo was verified by the Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea II) in 787 A.D.

The New Testament canon was settled at the Council of Rome in the year 382 under Pope Damasus I. Up to this point, its specific books were not firmly settled. Either you will have have to agree that the men at the Council of Rome included all of the right books and only the right books in the canon or you have to to disagree. If you disagree, then your going to have to disagree with the New Testament canon in the very Bible you use, because it was the Council of Rome that established that canon.
If you agree that the Council of Rome included all the right books and only the right books in the New Testament canon then you are going to have to say that the early Church made an infallible decision (infallible because they included all the right and only the right books, thus making an inerrant decision under God's providential guidance which is infallible guidance).
They made this infallible decision three hundred years after the death of the last apostle. But if Church councils are capable of arriving at infallible decisions three hundred years after the death of the last apostle, you have no reason to claim they are incapable of this later on in Church history. This is significant, but no less significant is the fact that when it made the decision it did so on the basis of tradition.