Peter the First Pope?

[DArceri]

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.

The scriptures they chose to include in the bible are based on the certain tests of the nature of God's character. They did a good job of picking them out. That doesn't imply they themselves are infallible beings, just that the scriptures chosen are proven to be infallible Words of God.

 

[Trento]

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!

When someone says, “I would rather be wrong with the pope than right without him,” they are saying in effect, “I would rather turn away from God, and by the way, the office of the papacy, to follow the person of the man who is occupying the chair of Peter.” It elevates the man above the office of the papacy and is an affront to the Holy Ghost. Not only is that not Catholic, it is in direct violation of the First Commandment.



Infallibility solemnly defined, places definitive limits on infallibility with the notions of subject, object, and act, explaining that all three must be present for infallible teaching.the Pope speaks ex cathedra “only when” he speaks as pastor and doctor of all Christians. The Pontiff does some things as a man, some things as a prince, some as doctor, some as Pope, that is, as head and foundation of the Church; and it is only to these [last-named] actions that we attribute the gift of infallibility. The others we leave to his human condition. As then as not every action of the Pope is papal, so not every action of the Pope enjoys papal privilege.

The definition, therefore, carefully excludes all ordinary and common acts of the Pontiff as a private person, and also all acts of the Pontiff as a private theologian, and again all his acts which are not in matters of Faith and Morals; and further, all acts in which he does not define a doctrine, that is, in which he does not act as the supreme Doctor of the Church in defining doctrines to be held by the whole Church.
The doctrine of infallibility has limitations. The current attempt to extend infallibility to all things that the Holy Father does, says, or writes is not only intellectually dishonest, it borders on heresy.

Infallibility must not be used to defend actions that cause great harm to the Mystical Body of Christ. To do so is more than dishonest. To do so is to blaspheme!

​

 

[ParsonJefferson]

When someone says, “I would rather be wrong with the pope than right without him,” they are saying in effect, “I would rather turn away from God, and by the way, the office of the papacy, to follow the person of the man who is occupying the chair of Peter.” It elevates the man above the office of the papacy and is an affront to the Holy Ghost. Not only is that not Catholic, it is in direct violation of the First Commandment.



Infallibility solemnly defined, places definitive limits on infallibility with the notions of subject, object, and act, explaining that all three must be present for infallible teaching.the Pope speaks ex cathedra “only when” he speaks as pastor and doctor of all Christians. The Pontiff does some things as a man, some things as a prince, some as doctor, some as Pope, that is, as head and foundation of the Church; and it is only to these [last-named] actions that we attribute the gift of infallibility. The others we leave to his human condition. As then as not every action of the Pope is papal, so not every action of the Pope enjoys papal privilege.

The definition, therefore, carefully excludes all ordinary and common acts of the Pontiff as a private person, and also all acts of the Pontiff as a private theologian, and again all his acts which are not in matters of Faith and Morals; and further, all acts in which he does not define a doctrine, that is, in which he does not act as the supreme Doctor of the Church in defining doctrines to be held by the whole Church.
The doctrine of infallibility has limitations. The current attempt to extend infallibility to all things that the Holy Father does, says, or writes is not only intellectually dishonest, it borders on heresy.

Infallibility must not be used to defend actions that cause great harm to the Mystical Body of Christ. To do so is more than dishonest. To do so is to blaspheme!

​

That kind of sounds like, "It depends on what your definition of is is..."

 

[DArceri]

What year was the pope's doctrinal decisions declared infallible by the RCC.?

 

[Trento]

The scriptures they chose to include in the bible are based on the certain tests of the nature of God's character. They did a good job of picking them out. That doesn't imply they themselves are infallible beings, just that the scriptures chosen are proven to be infallible Words of God.

Protestant early Church historian J. N. D. Kelly writes:
"Unless a book could be shown to come from the pen of an apostle, or at least to have the authority of an apostle behind it, it was peremptorily rejected, however edifying or popular with the faithful it might be" <(Early Christian Doctrines,> 60).
But how could one know which books were apostolic? Certainly not by a book's claim to be apostolic, since there were many false gospels and epistles circulating under the names of apostles. Neither did the Holy Spirit promise a revelation to each individual Christian of what books belonged in the Bible. But how was the test for apostolicity carried out in the early Church? Basically, there were two tests, both of them involving tradition.
First, those books were reckoned as apostolic which agreed with the teachings the apostles handed on to the Church. Gnostic scriptures and other writings which did not agree with the apostolic tradition were rejected out of hand. This is something Evangelical scholars admit.


Protestant scripture scholar F. F. Bruce writes that,
"[The early Fathers] had recourse to the criterion of orthodoxy.... This appeal to the testimony of the churches of apostolic foundation was developed especially by Irenaeus.... When previously unknown Gospels or Acts began to circulate... the most important question to ask about any one of them was: What does it teach about the person and work of Christ? Does it maintain the apostolic witness to him...?" <(The Canon of Scripture,> 260).
Second, those books were regarded as apostolic which were preached in the various churches as being from the pen of an apostle or the associate of an apostle—not just its doctrines, but the book itself. If a given work was not regarded as apostolic and was not preached as such in the churches, then it was rejected. This was also an appeal to tradition because it looked to the tradition of the churches as a guide for apostolicity. If the tradition of the Churches did not recognize a book as apostolic, it was not canonized.


again F. F. Bruce writes:
"It is remarkable, when one comes to think of it, that the four canonical Gospels are anonymous, whereas the 'Gospels' which proliferated in the late second century and afterwards claim to have been written by apostles and other eyewitnesses. Catholic churchmen found it necessary, therefore, to defend the apostolic authenticity of the Gospels.... The apostolic authorship of Matthew and John as well established in tradition. But what of Mark and Luke? Their authorship was also well established in tradition" <(ibid.,> 257).

 

[DArceri]

IS THIS TRUE?

When did the Church of Rome first discover that the Pope was Infallible?
The Church of Rome did not discover that the Pope was infallible until the year 1870 - just a century and a quarter ago. In 1870 the First Vatican Council decreed that the Pope was infallible when 'in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church'. However, he is not preserved from liability to err when he speaks as a private teacher.

 

[Trento]

IS THIS TRUE?

When did the Church of Rome first discover that the Pope was Infallible?
The Church of Rome did not discover that the Pope was infallible until the year 1870 - just a century and a quarter ago. In 1870 the First Vatican Council decreed that the Pope was infallible when 'in discharge of the office of pastor and teacher of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, he defines a doctrine regarding faith or morals to be held by the universal Church'. However, he is not preserved from liability to err when he speaks as a private teacher.

This is an excellent example of the development of doctrine, whereby the Church, having received the fullness of divine revelation at her birth, grows in her understanding of that revelation over the ages.

Irenaeus AD 180


"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition" (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Evidence for this with regard to infallibility is not lacking. Almost a century before the divinity of Christ was dogmatically established, Cyprian of Carthage had this to say of the Church, "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come" (Epistulae 59 (55), 14, [256 A.D.]).

In 433 Pope Sixtus III said that "all know that to assent to [the Bishop of Rome’s] decision is to assent to St. Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith fails not." While there are many other passages from the early Church Fathers that demonstrate the infallibility of the Church, these should suffice to prove that the doctrine was not "invented" in 1870 when Vatican I defined it formally.

Before delving into papal infallibility in particular, we know that Scripture speaks of the Church as the "pillar and bulwark of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15). This term "bulwark" isn’t something that we use in everyday conversation, so take a look at what the original Greek means. The word originally written by Paul was hedraioma (o has a line over it), which literally means a foundation. Kittle’s Theological Dictionary of the New Testament explains in its article on edraioma, "A Church is established which protects and defends the truth against the confusion of myths. It gives the faith and thinking of individuals a sure ground in confession. No longer God alone, but also the Church of God, now guarantees the permanence of the aletheia [truth] (first e has a line over it). The steadfastness of faith has now become loyalty to the Church and the confession" (vol. II, p. 364). For a Protestant work, this sounds remarkably Catholic.

The early Christians knew that they could turn to the apostolic teaching of the Church as a norm for the truth (2 Tim. 1:13). For whoever heard the Church heard Christ (Luke 10:16), and Christ cannot teach error. So the question should not be "where is infallibility in the Bible," but where in the Bible is the idea that Christ’s Church would teach error? It seems to be taken for granted that by promising to guide the Church into all truth by the power of the Holy Spirit (John 16:13), Christ would guard his flock from erroneous teaching.

We know from Christ’s words to Peter and to the apostles in Matthew 16 and 18 that there would be a profound and dynamic union between heaven and the teaching authority of the Church. When Jesus said to the apostles, "whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven," he was promising a divine ratification of the Church’s teachings. In the original Greek, the tense of the binding and loosing, "shows that a binding occurs in heaven either prior to or simultaneous with the binding performed on earth. In addition, the Greek verb is in the passive voice which indicates that heaven is receiving the binding, not initiating it" (Robert A Sungenis, "The Precedent for Infallibility," letter to authors, November 1993, 5. As quoted in Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, p. 74).

The only way that God would promise this union with heaven is if he intended to protect his Church from falsehood. After all, God is truth and he would not lead his flock into error, much less allow heaven to be bound by it. With this in mind, Christ prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail (Luke 22:32), built the Church upon him (Matt 16), and ordered him to tend and feed Christ’s sheep (John 21:15-17).

 

[ParsonJefferson]

This is an excellent example of the development of doctrine, whereby the Church, having received the fullness of divine revelation at her birth, grows in her understanding of that revelation over the ages.

With all due respect, it also is an excellent example of using pious words for "making up the rules as you go".

If Jesus is the same "yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), why does the Catholic Church keep changing its doctrine and dogmas about Him?

 

[DArceri]

The Church of Rome uses tradition and the teaching of the Church to propagate and defend doctrines and practices which have absolutely no Scriptural authority whatsoever. For example, her dogmas of the Mass, Papal Infallibility and Mariolatry.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

The Church of Rome uses tradition and the teaching of the Church to propagate and defend doctrines and practices which have absolutely no Scriptural authority whatsoever. For example, her dogmas of the Mass, Papal Infallibility and Mariolatry.

I agree completely.

Unfortunately, we'll both get warned by the Moderators here for saying that.

 

[hsilgne]

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!

What horrors are you speaking of? Do you really want to get into this debate? Have you researched this, even a little?

I have a feeling you have not. And what you are doing is something I see commonly amongst anti-catholics. You're slingin out generalizations that have become the ant--Catholic rhetoric accustomed to people who really have no idea of the truth behind the history of these "horrors".

Start a new thread and sling these "horrors"at us. I suggest you do a lil googlin before you make your post.

..., why does the Catholic Church keep changing its doctrine and dogmas about Him?

What has changed?

Peace.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

What has changed?

Hellllloo...? Bah...nvm...go back to sleep.

 

[DarkLord]

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." Isaiah 22:20-24

"My servant" means "Faithful to GOD". "Eliakim" means "GOD will establish". Here we have a figure who is faithful to GOD and someone whom GOD will exalt. In several verses in Scripture, whenever this "Eliakim" is mentioned, he is also shown to be "Over the Household", 2Kings 18:18, 2Kings 18:37, 2Kings 19:2, Isaiah 36:3, Isaiah 36:22, Isaiah 37:2.
In Isaiah 36:3, he is described as being "Over the House". The Pope is certainly "Faithful to GOD", and he is "Over the House of GOD", the visible Church on earth.

So what do we have here? We have an OFFICE, a SASH, a ROBE, a THRONE, a KEY, a PEG, and a SURE PLACE.

The House of David is the Davidic Kingdom. David is a figure of Christ.

The OFFICE is the Papacy, the Holy Father, the Pope, to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the House of Judah, (the Church), the Vicar of Christ, the Bishop of Rome, the successor of Saint Peter, the visible head of the Catholic Church on earth.

The SASH, The ROBE, the THRONE, and the KEYS are symbols of his authority.

The SASH is what separates the prime priest from the other priests,
"Therefore, to the various expert workmen whom I have endowed with skill, you shall give instructions to make such vestments for Aaron as will set him apart for his sacred service as My priest. These are the vestments they shall make; a breastpiece , an ephod, a Robe, a brocaded tunic, a miter, and a SASH." Ex 28:3-4.
"He(Aaron) shall wear the sacred linen "Tunic", with the linen drawers next to his flesh, gird himself with the linen Sash and put on a linen Miter (the Pope wears a Miter)." Lev 16:3

The ROBE symbolizes his authority as The Bishop of Rome, the Supreme Pontiff, the High Priest of the Visible Church on earth.
"As an olive tree budding forth, and a cypress tree rearing itself on high, when he put on the ROBE of Glory, and was clothed with the perfection of POWER. When he went up to the Holy Altar, he honored the vesture of Holiness. And when he took the portions out of the hands of the priests, he himself stood by the Altar. And about him was the ring of his brethren: and as the cedar planted in mount Libanus, and as branches of palm trees, they stood round about him, and all the sons of Aaron in their glory. And the Oblation of the Lord (the Holy Eucharist) was in their hands before all the Congregation (Church) of Israel. And finishing his service on the Altar, to honor the offering of the Most High King, he stretched forth his hand to make a libation, and offered the Blood of the grape (wine transformed into the Blood of Christ)." Sir 50:11-16
"Now therefore we make thee this day High Priest (Vicar of Christ) of thy nation, and that thou be called the King's friend (and he sent them a Purple ROBE, and a CROWN OF GOLD (Miter)), and that thou be of one mind with us in our affairs, and keep friendship with us." 1Macc 10:20

The THRONE is the Chair (Seat) of Saint Peter from which the Vicar of Christ proclaims to the whole world, infallible statements on faith and morals.
Moses, the Leader of GOD's chosen people had a Seat of Authority.
"The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the Chair of Moses." Matt 23:2
"This Propitiatory (Mercy Seat) you shall then place on top of the Ark. In the Ark itself you are to put the Commandments which I will give you. There I will meet you and there, from above the Propitiatory, between the two cherubim on the Ark of the Commandments, I will tell you all of the commands that I wish you to give the Israelites (Ex-Cathedra)." Ex 25:20-22
"He took the Commandments and put them in the Ark; he placed poles alongside the Ark and set
the Propitiatory upon it." Ex 40:20
"...the Lord spoke to Moses and said to him, "Tell your brother Aaron that he is not to come whenever he pleases into the sanctuary, inside the veil, in front of the Propitiatory on the Ark; otherwise, when I reveal myself in a cloud above the Propitiatory, he will die (GOD will speak to His chosen Visible Leader on earth only, His Vicar)." Lev 16:2
"When Moses entered the Meeting Tent to speak with Him, he heard the voice addressing him from above the Propitiatory on the Ark of the Commandments, from between the two cherubim; and it spoke to him...(Ex-Cathedra)" Num 7:89
The Mercy Seat thus becomes the protector of the Ark and its contents. In the Ark were the Stone Tablets handed to Moses, Aaron's staff, and the Manna from Heaven. These are prefigurements of the New Ark of the Covenant, the Blessed Virgin Mary, as she carried within her womb, the Word of GOD, the Power of GOD, and the Body of Christ, the Manna from Heaven.

"But if thy brother sin against thee, go and show him his fault, between thee and him alone. If he listen to thee, thou hast won thy brother. But if he do not listen to thee, take with thee one or two more so that on the word of two or three witnesses every word may be confirmed. And if he refuse to hear them, appeal to the CHURCH, but if he refuse to hear even the CHURCH, let him be to thee as the heathen and the publican. Amen I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound also in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed also in Heaven." Matt 18:15-18


Here, right out of Holy Scripture is an outline for a system of appeal. How do you appeal to the Church unless there is a system of arbitrators pre-existing in that Church? To whom does one appeal in civil life? We appeal to a higher court of our government. What do you suppose would have happened if our founding fathers had not set up a system of checks and balances; a system with lots of laws, but no 'hierarchy' to interpret those laws for us? What would happen if our founding fathers wrote our constitution and made no provision for a Supreme Court to have the final say on interpretation of the laws within it? What would have happened if they left it up to the people and said, "Interpret the law of the land as you see fit?" Immediately, there would be conflicts and chaos and splits in the unity of the country. Isn't this exactly what our Protestant brothers and sisters did to the 'Law of GOD', the Bible? The reformers rejected the authority of the Catholic Church and immediately there began conflicts and chaos, infighting within their ranks, and splits in the Body of Christ which number over 28,000 in Protestantism today.


Where is the 'supreme court' of Protestantism? Who or what is the authority in their ranks which arbitrate disputes in Bible interpretation? The prefigurement of final authority of such matters was recorded in detail in the Old Testament, and it fits perfectly with Papal authority and the Magisterium of today in the Catholic Church.

"The next day Moses sat in judgment for the people, who waited about him from morning until evening. When his father-in-law saw all that he was doing for the people he inquired, "What sort of thing is this that you are doing for the people? Why do you sit alone while all the people have to stand about you from morning till evening?"
Moses answered his father-in-law, "THE PEOPLE COME TO ME TO CONSULT GOD. Whenever they have a disagreement, THEY COME TO ME TO HAVE ME SETTLE THE MATTER (MOSES HAD SPOKEN, THE ISSUE WAS SETTLED) BETWEEN THEM AND MAKE KNOWN TO THEM GOD'S DECISIONS AND REGULATIONS."
"You are not acting wisely," his father-in-law replied. "You will surely wear yourself out, and not only yourself but also these people with you. The task is too heavy for you; you cannot do it alone. Now, listen to me, and I will give you some advice, that GOD may be with you. ACT AS THE PEOPLE'S REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE GOD, BRINGING TO HIM WHATEVER THEY HAVE TO SAY. ENLIGHTEN THEM IN REGARD TO THE DECISIONS AND REGULATIONS, SHOWING THEM HOW THEY ARE TO LIVE AND WHAT THEY ARE TO DO. BUT YOU SHOULD ALSO LOOK AMONG ALL THE PEOPLE FOR ABLE AND GOD-FEARING MEN, TRUSTWORTHY MEN WHO HATE DISHONEST GAIN, AND SET THEM AS OFFICERS (CARDINALS AND BISHOPS, THE MAGISTERIUM) OVER GROUPS OF THOUSANDS, OF HUNDREDS, OF FIFTIES, AND OF TENS. LET THESE MEN RENDER DECISIONS FOR THE PEOPLE IN ALL ORDINARY CASES. MORE IMPORTANT CASES THEY SHOULD REFER TO YOU (PAPAL AUTHORITY. ROME HAS SPOKEN, THE ISSUE IS SETTLED), BUT THE LESSER CASES THEY CAN SETTLE THEMSELVES. THUS YOUR BURDEN WILL BE LIGHTENED, SINCE THEY WILL BEAR IT WITH YOU. IF YOU DO THIS, WHEN GOD GIVES YOU ORDERS YOU WILL BE ABLE TO STAND THE STRAIN, AND ALL THESE PEOPLE WILL GO HOME SATISFIED."

Moses followed the advice of his father-in-law and did all that he had suggested. HE PICKED OUT ABLE MEN FROM ALL ISRAEL AND PUT THEM IN CHARGE OF THE PEOPLE AS OFFICERS OVER GROUPS OF THOUSANDS , OF HUNDREDS , OF FIFTIES, AND OF TENS (CARDINALS, ARCHBISHOPS, AND BISHOPS, AS WE HAVE IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY). THEY RENDERED DECISIONS FOR THE PEOPLE IN ALL ORDINARY CASES. THE MORE DIFFICULT CASES THEY REFERRED TO MOSES, BUT ALL THE LESSER CASES THEY SETTLED THEMSELVES."
Exodus 18:13-26

Rome has truly spoken.

If Exodus 18:13-26 isn't enough proof, here is another reference which reinforces it.

Moses said,
"I cannot carry all this people by myself for they are too heavy for me. If this is the way you will deal with me, then please do me the favor of killing me at once, so that I need no longer face this distress."
Then the Lord said to Moses, "Assemble for Me seventy of the elders of Israel, men you know for true elders and authorities among the people, and bring them to the Meeting Tent. When they are in place beside you, I will come down AND SPEAK WITH YOU THERE. I WILL ALSO TAKE SOME OF THE SPIRIT THAT IS ON YOU AND WILL BESTOW IT ON THEM, THAT THEY MAY SHARE THE BURDEN OF THE PEOPLE WITH YOU. YOU WILL THEN NOT HAVE TO BEAR IT BY YOURSELF."
Numbers 11:14-17


Exodus 18 and Numbers 11 depict a "type" of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church of today. We see a system of arbitration and a final authority to settle inevitable disputes which arise from time to time. We see a 'type' of the Magisterium in the seventy elders. Rome has truly spoken. The blueprint was drawn in the Old Testament.

"Now you are the Body of Christ, member for member. And GOD indeed has placed some in the Church, first Apostles, secondly prophets, thirdly TEACHERS (The Pope is the foremost teacher); after that miracles, then gifts of healing, services of help, POWER OF ADMINISTRATION, and the speaking of various tongues." 1Cor 12:27-28

ADMINISTRATION: Management, especially of business affairs. The activity of a sovereign state in the exercise of its powers or duties. This is how one dictionary defines the word.
This is a good description of the hierarchy of the Catholic Church, which certainly does include the Pope and the Magisterium, and over 3500 Bishops.

Every government, every corporation, and every institution, has a POWER OF ADMINISTRATION.
The Federal Government has an Executive Branch, a Legislative Branch, and a Judicial Branch.
Corporations have a Chief Executive Officer, a Board of Directors, and Stockholders.
Why then, should the largest and oldest institution on earth, the Catholic Church, not have a Pope, a Magisterium, and thousands of Bishops, all guided in truth by the Holy Spirit?

"If in your community there is a case at issue which proves too complicated for you to decide, in a matter of bloodshed or of civil rights or of personal injury, you shall then go up to the place which the Lord your GOD chooses, to the Levitical priests (Magisterium) or to the JUDGE (Pope) who is IN OFFICE (the Papacy) at that time. They shall study the case and then hand down to you their decision. According to this decision that they give you in the place which the Lord chooses, you shall act, BEING CAREFUL TO DO EXACTLY AS THEY DIRECT. YOU SHALL CARRY OUT THE DECISIONS WHICH THEY GIVE YOU AND THE VERDICT THEY PRONOUNCE FOR YOU, WITHOUT TURNING ASIDE TO THE RIGHT OR TO THE LEFT FROM THE DECISION THEY HAND DOWN TO YOU. ANY MAN WHO HAS THE INSOLENCE TO REFUSE TO LISTEN TO THE PRIEST WHO OFFICIATES THERE IN THE MINISTRY OF THE LORD, YOUR GOD, OR TO THE JUDGE, SHALL DIE (now, Spiritual death). THUS SHALL YOU PURGE THE EVIL FROM YOUR MIDST." Deut 17:8-12

"In this breastpiece of decision you shall put the Urim and Thummim, that they may be over Aaron's heart whenever he enters the presence of the Lord. Thus HE SHALL ALWAYS BEAR THE DECISIONS FOR THE ISRAELITES OVER HIS HEART IN THE LORD'S PRESENCE."
Ex 28:30

Now, just what do these verses prefigure? This is exactly how the Pope and the Magisterium work in conjunction with the Holy Spirit today.

 

[Optimax]

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah.

NOT a reference to the Pope. Eliakim was a real person that was being spoken of. To try to relate this as proof for anything other than the incident being spoken of is quite a stretch.

B. A Corrupt Official Replaced by a Godly Public Servant. 22:15-25.

In the light of the preceding context, it is fair to assume that Shebna, the royal chamberlain, was a leader of the pro-Egypt faction in the councils of state. In the confidence that his position was secured, he had ordered a sumptuous tomb for himself, not realizing that he would be demoted from his office and die a pauper in a far country. (In 701 he was already replaced by Eliakim, according to 2 Ki 18:18, though he was still a secretary in government service.) But Eliakim (God will establish) was a truly devoted follower of God, and therefore he represents the remnant of true believers who opposed alliance with idolatrous Egypt.

(from The Wycliffe Bible Commentary, Electronic Database. Copyright © 1962 by Moody Press. All rights reserved.)

Don't you hate it when this happens.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

NOT a reference to the Pope. Eliakim was a real person that was being spoken of. To try to relate this as proof for anything other than the incident being spoken of is quite a stretch.

No kidding...


There are no references whatsoever in God's Holy Word to the Infallible Pope, the Bishop fo Rome, the "Vicar of Christ," or the Roman Catholic Church.


Thank you.


Pax!


- Josiah


.

 

[ShammahBenJudah]

Absurd as well it is to conceive that God chose Rome for His throne in opposition to all other references that His Kingdom would be established in Jerusalem. Just another one of those things that make you say "Hmmmm...".

 

[DarkLord]

Well Juerasalem was to be destroyed according to Revelations. The early fathers built the church in Rome. And notice how Elikiam no matter how sinful, still possesed such powers.

And pope is papa which is father. Elikiam and his successors are called FATHER (Pope in Latin).

 

[Optimax]

Well Juerasalem was to be destroyed according to Revelations. The early fathers built the church in Rome. And notice how Elikiam no matter how sinful, still possesed such powers.

Jerusalem destroyed according to Revelation? I do not remember where it says that. Could you help out by posting Chapter & Verse? Thanks

And pope is papa which is father. Elikiam and his successors are called FATHER (Pope in Latin).

May be, however that does not stretch to being about the pope.

 

[ParsonJefferson]

What horrors are you speaking of? Do you really want to get into this debate? Have you researched this, even a little?

I have a feeling you have not. And what you are doing is something I see commonly amongst anti-catholics. You're slingin out generalizations that have become the ant--Catholic rhetoric accustomed to people who really have no idea of the truth behind the history of these "horrors".

Start a new thread and sling these "horrors"at us. I suggest you do a lil googlin before you make your post.

What has changed?

Peace.

Let's start with the Spanish Inquisition. Please explain that away as anything but abusive and horrific.

Shall we move on to the fact that Pope Clement VIII was murderous and brutal - burning at the stake (among others) Giordano Bruno, and was openly anti-semitic. I really love his following writing:

All the world suffers from the usury of the Jews, their monopolies and deceit. They have brought many unfortunate people into a state of poverty, especially the farmers, working class people and the very poor. Then as now Jews have to be reminded intermittently anew that they were enjoying rights in any country since they left Palestine and the Arabian desert, and subsequently their ethical and moral doctrines as well as their deeds rightly deserve to be exposed to criticism in whatever country they happen to live.

Pope Pious IX was also openly anti-semitic. In fact, he called the Jews "dogs of which there are too many present in Rome, howling and disturbing us everywhere". In truth, it can be well argued that the Roman Catholic Church's anti-semitism played a role in the rise of the Nazi Holocaust.


I'll let you chew on those ones, and try to explain them away as "no problem". Or... you could just admit that the Papacy has a history of abuses and horrors.

 

[Trento]

With all due respect, it also is an excellent example of using pious words for "making up the rules as you go".

If Jesus is the same "yesterday, today and forever (Hebrews 13:8), why does the Catholic Church keep changing its doctrine and dogmas about Him?

Testament books are a fragmentary record, and in the last resort the choice is between accepting the principle of development and rejecting the Christian claim to possess a divine revelation.
Every article of the Catholic faith expresses a constituent element of the Christian revelation. But no constituent element of the Christian revelation is an article of the Catholic faith until it has been thus authoritatively defined and imposed. Until an element of the Christian revelation becomes, by such definition, an "article of the Catholic faith" the penalties of heresy are not incurred by those who withhold from it their assent.

Catholic teaching has become more detailed and explicit over the centuries, while later statements of doctrine remain consistent with earlier statements. How did this happen? the Church was forced to define a doctrine more explicitly when ever a heresy pop up.
Various Catholic doctrines not accepted by Protestants had a developmental history analogous to doctrines that were accepted by Protestants (such as the Trinity or the divinity and humanity of Christ. Such developments were, , the natural and beneficial consequences of reason working on the original revealed truth to draw out consequences that were not obvious at first thus become dogma.

These two verses clearly say that everything is NOT in the Bible, and that understanding and discernment by the Church will increase over time.

Matt 10:26, "Therefore, do not be afraid of them. FOR THERE IS NOTHING CONCEALED THAT WILL NOT BE DISCLOSED, AND NOTHING HIDDEN THAT WILL NOT BE REVEALED."

John 16:12-13, "Many things yet I have to say to you, but you cannot bear them now. BUT WHEN HE, THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH, HAS COME HE WILL TEACH YOU ALL THE TRUTH. FOR HE WILL NOT SPEAK ON HIS OWN AUTHORITY, BUT WHATEVER HE WILL HEAR HE WILL SPEAK, AND THE THINGS THAT ARE TO COME HE WILL DECLARE TO YOU."