Question 4 Catholics: What is going on in side the RCC with the Pope.

[Ivan Hlavanda]

in Acts. There was a delegation from Rome that heard Peter, received the Holy Spirit, and went back to Rome and preached the gospel. Priscilla & Aquilla were converted and then were kicked out of Rome when the Emperor banned the Jews for rioting over some guy named "Chrestus", most people think that was a mispronouncing of the word "Christ"

Luke makes no mention of Peter in Rome and he only notes “visitors” from Rome, both Jews and proselytes were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. In Rom 16:7, a reference appears to Andronicus and Junia possibly implying that they played a part in the founding of the church. According to Paul’s own testimony in Romans, it appears that the church did not have an apostolic foundation – hence his own ministry there. Later church tradition, through Ambrosiaster notes that it was from Jewish believers already living in Rome and Clement makes no mention of Peter.

And even if Peter founded the Church in Rome, the papacy is far from Peter's teachings.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Still, it is not accurate to imagine that Peter founded the church in Rome. After all, he was hardly the only believer preaching in tongues on the day of Pentecost. It could have just as likely that someone else among the 120 was preaching in Latin.

this is wishing away the evidence. Peter is the one recorded preaching that day and Romans were there. There is a direction from Peter to Rome. That fact is not in dispute. your acceptance of the importance and impact are what is in dispute. if they want to say that Peter founded the church in Rome then they have a case. You cannot deny that.

In the same manner, we cannot assert that the Ethiopian church was founded by Philip, although God used Philip to preach the gospel to the treasurer of Ethiopia. There is a significant difference between the spiritual gift of evangelism and that of an apostle.

Um, yes we can. you are wrong here. they had direct contact with the apostles. that is the claim. That is valid, same with Rome.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Luke makes no mention of Peter in Rome and he only notes “visitors” from Rome, both Jews and proselytes were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. In Rom 16:7, a reference appears to Andronicus and Junia possibly implying that they played a part in the founding of the church. According to Paul’s own testimony in Romans, it appears that the church did not have an apostolic foundation – hence his own ministry there. Later church tradition, through Ambrosiaster notes that it was from Jewish believers already living in Rome and Clement makes no mention of Peter.

And even if Peter founded the Church in Rome, the papacy is far from Peter's teachings.

paul statement were?

 

[bbbbbbb]

He was in Antioch. After the persecution in Jerusalem. So he did move.

Yes, and History says that Peter came there in the 60s when he was the eyewitness to the life of Jesus and introduced the Gospel of Luke. For the Gentille would not accept Luke without an eyewitness. Peter gave 5 lectures which became the book of Mark and they mean of introducing the gospel of Luke.

The problem with your assertion is that we do not know exactly when Peter was in Antioch, not that it relates to him founding the church in Rome. Based on what I read in Galatians, Paul's letter significantly postdates his trip to Rome and subsequent imprisonment. We simply don't know much about Peter's time in Antioch other than the fact that he fell back into Jewish legalism to appease the church there which apparently was composed primarily, if not exclusively, of Jewish believers.

Where do you come up with the idea that Peter gave five lectures that became the book of Mark? I have never encountered any concept like that in my reading of Mark, or the other parts of the New Testament.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Luke makes no mention of Peter in Rome

never said he did. That is the church's history.

and he only notes “visitors” from Rome, both Jews and proselytes were in Jerusalem on the day of Pentecost. In Rom 16:7, a reference appears to Andronicus and Junia possibly implying that they played a part in the founding of the church. According to Paul’s own testimony in Romans, it appears that the church did not have an apostolic foundation – hence his own ministry there. Later church tradition, through Ambrosiaster notes that it was from Jewish believers already living in Rome and Clement makes no mention of Peter.

And even if Peter founded the Church in Rome, the papacy is far from Peter's teachings.

no disagreement

 

[bbbbbbb]

this is wishing away the evidence. Peter is the one recorded preaching that day and Romans were there. There is a direction from Peter to Rome. That fact is not in dispute. your acceptance of the importance and impact are what is in dispute. if they want to say that Peter founded the church in Rome then they have a case. You cannot deny that.

Um, yes we can. you are wrong here. they had direct contact with the apostles. that is the claim. That is valid, same with Rome.

It is like saying that Peter founded all the churches everywhere, including all those existing at the present time, simply because he was recorded as being the one who responded to the question on the day of Pentecost about the strange utterances by all of the congregation who had been in the upper room.

One might also leap to the idea that all churches must meet in an upper room because of the clear scriptural evidence that Jesus Christ only recognizes an upper room as the fitting place for His works of sacramental and spiritual grace.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

It is like saying that Peter founded all the churches everywhere, including all those existing at the present time, simply because he was recorded as being the one who responded to the question on the day of Pentecost about the strange utterances by all of the congregation who had been in the upper room.

One might also leap to the idea that all churches must meet in an upper room because of the clear scriptural evidence that Jesus Christ only recognizes an upper room as the fitting place for His works of sacramental and spiritual grace.

again wishing away the evidence. Peter did found a lot of the churches at Pentecost, so they can make the claim too. The only point of the post is to point out the fact that there is a direct connection between Peter & Rome. People forget that. whether you think it is a strong connection or not is not the point.

 

[JSRG]

The problem with your assertion is that we do not know exactly when Peter was in Antioch, not that it relates to him founding the church in Rome. Based on what I read in Galatians, Paul's letter significantly postdates his trip to Rome and subsequent imprisonment. We simply don't know much about Peter's time in Antioch other than the fact that he fell back into Jewish legalism to appease the church there which apparently was composed primarily, if not exclusively, of Jewish believers.

Where do you come up with the idea that Peter gave five lectures that became the book of Mark? I have never encountered any concept like that in my reading of Mark, or the other parts of the New Testament.

Adventist Heretic appears to be referring to statements by various early Christians that the Gospel of Mark was written based on Peter's memoirs. I believe the first we know of who said this is Papias, a writer from around 100 AD that wrote a work called Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord. While we unfortunately no longer have any copy of that work, we do have some portions from it that other writers quoted in their works, and Papias's remarks on Marks were quoted by Eusebius:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”

I am not sure where the claim of there being specifically five lectures is from, though; while Papias's work had five books, that is Papias's work, not anything Peter wrote or said. Perhaps another writer mentioned "five lectures" somewhere and that is what Adventist Heretic refers to.

 

[Adventist Dissident]

Adventist Heretic appears to be referring to statements by various early Christians that the Gospel of Mark was written based on Peter's memoirs. I believe the first we know of who said this is Papias, a writer from around 100 AD that wrote a work called Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord. While we unfortunately no longer have any copy of that work, we do have some portions from it that other writers quoted in their works, and Papias's remarks on Marks were quoted by Eusebius:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”

I am not sure where the claim of there being specifically five lectures is from, though; while Papias's work had five books, that is Papias's work, not anything Peter wrote or said. Perhaps another writer mentioned "five lectures" somewhere and that is what Adventist Heretic refers to.

David Allen Black 4 fold gospel hypothesis.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Adventist Heretic appears to be referring to statements by various early Christians that the Gospel of Mark was written based on Peter's memoirs. I believe the first we know of who said this is Papias, a writer from around 100 AD that wrote a work called Expositions of the Oracles of the Lord. While we unfortunately no longer have any copy of that work, we do have some portions from it that other writers quoted in their works, and Papias's remarks on Marks were quoted by Eusebius:

"Mark, having become the interpreter of Peter, wrote down accurately, though not in order, whatsoever he remembered of the things said or done by Christ. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but afterward, as I said, he followed Peter, who adapted his teaching to the needs of his hearers, but with no intention of giving a connected account of the Lord’s discourses, so that Mark committed no error while he thus wrote some things as he remembered them. For he was careful of one thing, not to omit any of the things which he had heard, and not to state any of them falsely.”

I am not sure where the claim of there being specifically five lectures is from, though; while Papias's work had five books, that is Papias's work, not anything Peter wrote or said. Perhaps another writer mentioned "five lectures" somewhere and that is what Adventist Heretic refers to.

Thank you for the clarification. It is much appreciated.

 

[Buzzard3]

Oh you have to be kidding me.

No, it's true. Jesus gave Peter alone "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

The very first time Jesus met Simon, Jesus told Simon he would be called Kephas, which means "rock" (John 1:42) - that means Jesus had decided to call Simon "rock" even before they met. If you want to know why, read Matt 16:18.

The three most prominent apostles were Peter, James and John. In the book of Acts, James and John are mentioned about six times, whereas Peter is mentioned more than 60 times. Interesting.

Peter =1st leader of the Church = 1st Pope
(Christianity 101)

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

I came across a video by some Big Catholic official Denouncing Bishop Francis. Calling him an Apostate and a Heretic, WOW!!!! As a non-catholic outsider, I find this very interesting. The internal drama of different churches is fascinating, the Methodist Drama, The SDA Drama, and the Scientology drama are all amazing. The Catholic church drama is equally amazing.

Now, the bishop was talking about irregularities in the election of Pope Francis. That his election was illegitimate, implying it was fraudulent. He also states that Francis was trying to "destroy the church" "Hi a a Bergolio I am here to destroy the church vote for me". Those are some pretty hard statements. What is this about? What are the issues? What is the big deal with the TLM. Why does that matter?

The latest issue is the synod. people are afraid it will force changes upon them.

Synodality (from synod which is Greek σύν "together" and ὁδός "way, journey") is in the Catholic Church a term "often used to describe the process of fraternal collaboration and discernment that bodies like the [Synod of Bishops] were created to express".

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Peter =1st leader of the Church = 1st Pope
(Christianity 101)

Pope is not the leader of the Church

 

[Valletta]

Pope is not the leader of the Church

That's correct. Jesus is the leader of the Catholic Church. If you read Isaiah 22, the king gives the keys to his prime minister (chief steward, there is no exact position today) as a sign that the prime minister has authority when the king is absent. The prime minister is not royalty at all, it is a position. You could say the pope is the present authority, even leader ON EARTH.

 

[Valletta]

Jesus is the leader of the Church, that means every born again Christian. The fact that the Catholic church thinks they are the true Church of God is a joke.

The Catholic church that calls Mary the mediator between man and God, the Catholic chuch that kisses the idols, that calls the pope the 'Holy Father' a title which belongs to God alone. That church is meant to be the true Church?

The true Church is the assembly of God's people, and many of them don't go to the Catholic church.
Yes, there are true Christians in the Catholic church alo, but there are also many true Christians who are not in the Catholic church.


The pope is not of God. I'm not going to say what he is because I'll get banned, but even He needs God's mercy, we all do.

Jesus used parallel words to Isaiah 22 when giving Rock (Peter) the keys to the kingdom. Please don't fall for anti-Catholic websites, for example, don't be afraid to call your dad "father." So many Biblical misinterpretations are out there. Abraham was a spiritual father to the people, as was Paul. That's in the Bible, and the Catholic Church believes the Bible is the Word of God.

 

[Buzzard3]

The Catholic church that calls Mary the mediator between man and God

Mary is a mediator between man and her son, Jesus, who is also a man.

The true Church is the assembly of God's people

The true Church is lead by the one man who has "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

The pope is not of God. I'm not going to say what he is because I'll get banned

No matter ... Catholic know who the Pope is .... he's the successor of Peter, and therefore holds the aforementioned "keys" (Matt 16:19)

 

[Buzzard3]

don't be afraid to call your dad "father."

But ... but ... but Jesus said don't call any man on earth "father"!!! (Matt 23:9)

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

Mary is a mediator between man and her son, Jesus, who is also a man.

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Calling anyone else a mediator is a heresy. Mary had no influence on Jesus as God cannot be influenced. Also saying that we need to pray to Mary because she will soften Jesus' heart....yeah because God needs softening.

Yes she was the mother of Jesus, but He was still her God. Even in her womb He held her life together.

Praying to her and/or to other saints is sinful too. Prayers belong to God alone. Yes, it is true that we sometimes asked other to pray for us, but they are here physically on Earth. The dead cannot hear our prayers as only God is omniscient.

The true Church is lead by the one man who has "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt 16:19).

The New Testament makes it abundantly clear that Christ is both the foundation (Acts 4:11, 12; 1 Corinthians 3:11) and the head (Ephesians 5:23) of the church. It is a mistake to think that here He is giving either of those roles to Peter. There is a sense in which the apostles played a foundational role in the building of the church (Ephesians 2:20), but the role of primacy is reserved for Christ alone, not assigned to Peter. So, Jesus’ words here are best interpreted as a simple play on words in that a boulder-like truth came from the mouth of one who was called a small stone. And Christ Himself is called the “chief cornerstone” (1 Peter 2:6, 7). The chief cornerstone of any building was that upon which the building was anchored. If Christ declared Himself to be the cornerstone, how could Peter be the rock upon which the church was built? It is more likely that the believers, of which Peter is one, are the stones which make up the church, anchored upon the Cornerstone, “and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame” (1 Peter 2:6).

No matter ... Catholic know who the Pope is .... he's the successor of Peter, and therefore holds the aforementioned "keys" (Matt 16:19)

Peter nowhere claims supremacy over the other apostles. Nowhere in his writings (1 and 2 Peter) did the Apostle Peter claim any special role, authority, or power over the church. Nowhere in Scripture does Peter, or any other apostle, state that their apostolic authority would be passed on to successors. Yes, the Apostle Peter had a leadership role among the disciples. Yes, Peter played a crucial role in the early spread of the gospel (Acts chapters 1-10). Yes, Peter was the “rock” that Christ predicted he would be (Matthew 16:18). However, these truths about Peter in no way give support to the concept that Peter was the first pope, or that he was the “supreme leader” over the apostles, or that his authority would be passed on to the bishops of Rome. Peter himself points us all to the true Shepherd and Overseer of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Peter 2:25).

 

[Ivan Hlavanda]

." So many Biblical misinterpretations are out there. Abraham was a spiritual father to the people, as was Paul.

Yes, but the title 'Holy Father' belongs to God alone as God alone is Holy.

Please don't fall for anti-Catholic websites

I don't need any websites, I see the heresies Catholic Church teaches.

You call Mary the mediator even the scripture says that Christ is the mediator alone.

You pray to dead even though praying belongs to God alone.

You worship idols, make images of Jesus even though nowhere it is written how He looked like. You kiss pictures of Him and say it is out of respect, but there is no pictutes of Jesus. It's like if I kissed a picture of another woman and say to my mother that's her even though it's someone else and then say 'look mum I'm kissing you' by kissing a picture of a stranger.

 

[Buzzard3]

1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

Calling anyone else a mediator is a heresy

You seem to have missed the point. It's not heresy to say someone is a mediator between man and man - Mary is a mediator between man (us) and Jesus, who is a man.

Mary had no influence on Jesus as God cannot be influenced

Are you saying God doesn't listen to our prayers?

Also saying that we need to pray to Mary because she will soften Jesus' heart....yeah because God needs softening.

Where does the Catholic Church say "God needs softening"? ... or did you make that up?

Mary was, is and will always be the mother of Jesus ... therefore she has a very special and intimate relationship with Jesus that no other human shares. Mary is also the "woman" described in Rev 12.