The Papacy, How did it really come about?

[fated]

Stop right there. Untrue. Generally regarded by who? Catholics account for 1.3 billion of the world's 2.1 billion Christians.

Perhaps your post should read:
"Gregory I 590-604 AD, is generally regarded BY PROTESTANTS as the first real Pope."

Well, according to Synodic decry of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, (who also have properly Apostolic Sees), the line of succession begins with St. Peter, and, in fact, the See of St. Peter in Rome is -at least- the honorary "first See."

That would, obviously, add several million more individuals...

 

[Ormly]

Well, according to Synodic decry of the Eastern Orthodox Churches, (who also have properly Apostolic Sees), the line of succession begins with St. Peter, and, in fact, the See of St. Peter in Rome is -at least- the honorary "first See."

That would, obviously, add several million more individuals...

I feel an argument coming on about "who's on first".

 

[Catholic Christian]

A quote, from St. Augustine:

"[T]here are many other things which most properly can keep me in [the Catholic Church’s] bosom. The unanimity of peoples and nations keeps me here. Her authority, inaugurated in miracles, nourished by hope, augmented by love, and confirmed by her age, keeps me here. The succession of priests, from the very see of the apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after his resurrection, gave the charge of feeding his sheep [John 21:15–17], up to the present episcopate, keeps me here. And last, the very name Catholic, which, not without reason, belongs to this Church alone, in the face of so many heretics, so much so that, although all heretics want to be called ‘Catholic,’ when a stranger inquires where the Catholic Church meets, none of the heretics would dare to point out his own basilica or house" (Against the Letter of Mani Called "The Foundation" 4:5 [A.D. 397]).

 

[Varik]

Well the Bible never really mentions there being any head of the church besides Christ. It always talks about the churches being separate with there own human leaders called bishops/pastors and deacons and says nothing about a pope. Actually the idea of a pope comes from a pagan background. I'm sure you have heard of the pope being called the pontiff. Well I did a research paper comparing Rome and Carthage and one of the aspects I looked at was religion. The Romans had a Senatorial office called Pontifex Maximus which was there high priest to there many gods. Of course this name along with several other pagan ideas carried through to the Catholic Church to be more acceptable for the people of Rome. The primary thought of early Catholicism was that baptism and sacraments save. This of course is pagan inspired, in that paganism put high emphasis in the preforming of rituals, and goes against all the teachings of Jesus and his apostles. Not all were willing to accept the Catholics as the only church and so they were eradicated and forced into hiding. The Catholics also outlawed printing of the Bible in any language other than Latin therefore making it where most people could not read it and had to go through there priest for information. This gave them near absolute control over what the people believed.

If anybody was to be labeled as the first pope I would say it would have to be Emperor Constantine who brought the irregular churches together to form the Catholic Hierarchy. Some of you might have heard that he saw a vision of a cross in the sun and a voice saying something to the tune of in "with this ye shall conquer". He took this to mean that with Christianity the Roman Empire would conquer the whole world.

As far as those verses showing Peter as receiving authority to be the pope from Jesus it is all a metaphor. Peter represents ordinary people who Christ wanted to build his Church on . He is not giving the keys to Peter but the Church. Also when Jesus speaks of the Church he is not talking about all the people from a singular denomination but all the people that believe that he is the only way to heaven and neither they nor any one else can earn it but it is given to them.

[SIZE=-1]"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."-Eph. 2.8

It is very important that we learn what is meant to be literal and what is metaphor in the bible, it can make allot of difference
[/SIZE]

 

[Technocrat2010]

Well the Bible never really mentions there being any head of the church besides Christ. It always talks about the churches being separate with there own human leaders called bishops/pastors and deacons and says nothing about a pope.

Isaiah 22:20-22; compare to Matthew 16:18-19.

Actually the idea of a pope comes from a pagan background. I'm sure you have heard of the pope being called the pontiff. Well I did a research paper comparing Rome and Carthage and one of the aspects I looked at was religion. The Romans had a Senatorial office called Pontifex Maximus which was there high priest to there many gods. Of course this name along with several other pagan ideas carried through to the Catholic Church to be more acceptable for the people of Rome.

Pagan Influence fallacy.

The primary thought of early Catholicism was that baptism and sacraments save. This of course is pagan inspired, in that paganism put high emphasis in the preforming of rituals, and goes against all the teachings of Jesus and his apostles.

So Jesus was performing a pagn ritual when He got baptized? Were the Apostles also performing pagan rituals by baptizing believers?

Not all were willing to accept the Catholics as the only church and so they were eradicated and forced into hiding. The Catholics also outlawed printing of the Bible in any language other than Latin therefore making it where most people could not read it and had to go through there priest for information. This gave them near absolute control over what the people believed.

False. There were multiple prints of the Bible in other languages. LXX, Bede's work on the gospels, Georgian/Armenian translations, Spanish translations... you haven't done your homework, clearly. The reason the Latin version prevailed was due to the fact that Latin, at the time of the Vulgate, was the vernacular, and many laypeople scoffed at the non-Vulgate translations for a long time, considering St. Jerome to be as inspired as the Gospel writers themselves.

If anybody was to be labeled as the first pope I would say it would have to be Emperor Constantine who brought the irregular churches together to form the Catholic Hierarchy. Some of you might have heard that he saw a vision of a cross in the sun and a voice saying something to the tune of in "with this ye shall conquer". He took this to mean that with Christianity the Roman Empire would conquer the whole world.

False.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_II

As far as those verses showing Peter as receiving authority to be the pope from Jesus it is all a metaphor. Peter represents ordinary people who Christ wanted to build his Church on . He is not giving the keys to Peter but the Church.

False again. Peter is a person, a historical person. Jesus gave him the keys, as shown in Matthew 16. This is typologically significant, as only one person, not an entire congregation, has authority over the keys.

Also when Jesus speaks of the Church he is not talking about all the people from a singular denomination but all the people that believe that he is the only way to heaven and neither they nor any one else can earn it but it is given to them.

He is also talking about those who do not have conflicting beliefs. A house divided against itself cannot stand... so who is a part of this Church, then?

[SIZE=-1]"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God."-Eph. 2.8[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]It is very important that we learn what is meant to be literal and what is metaphor in the bible, it can make allot of difference [/SIZE]

It's also important to do one's homework before speaking on a thread.

 

[Ormly]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Varik
Well the Bible never really mentions there being any head of the church besides Christ. It always talks about the churches being separate with there own human leaders called bishops/pastors and deacons and says nothing about a pope.

Isaiah 22:20-22; compare to Matthew 16:18-19.

"And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth "Revelation 3:7

"Behold, he breaketh down, and it cannot be built again; He shutteth up a man, and there can be no opening." Job 12:14 (ASV)

Does this all sound like Peter? I doubt it.

If this can be accomplished why the undue elevating of Peter?

"Again I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father who is in heaven." Matthew 18:19 (ASV)

 

[Technocrat2010]

And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: These things saith he that is holy, he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none openeth:
Revelation 3:7

Makes perfect sense. Christ is the ultimate possessor of the keys, and He can give it to whomever He likes (in our case, Peter).

 

[Ormly]

Makes perfect sense. Christ is the ultimate possessor of the keys, and He can give it to whomever He likes (in our case, Peter).

What makes perfect sense is letting you alone to sink in your willful ignorance.

By your own adolescent reasoning, Jesus must have stripped Peter of the keys to have had them when John wrote the revelation. Peter must have screwed somehow and you guys weren't informed.

 

[Technocrat2010]

What makes perfect sense is letting you alone to sink in your willful ignorance.

By your own adolescent reasoning, Jesus must have stripped Peter of the keys to have had them when John wrote the revelation. Peter must have screwed somehow and you guys weren't informed.

When the King is not present, the Prime Minister has the keys. When the King is present in the Kingdom, the keys of authority were given back to him. Since we are talking eschatology, and about Christ returning, it would make sense from an eschatological viewpoint that Christ retains the keys at that point.

 

[Varik]

1.Isaiah 22:20-22; compare to Matthew 16:18-19.



2.Pagan Influence fallacy.



3.So Jesus was performing a pagn ritual when He got baptized? Were the Apostles also performing pagan rituals by baptizing believers?



4.False. There were multiple prints of the Bible in other languages. LXX, Bede's work on the gospels, Georgian/Armenian translations, Spanish translations... you haven't done your homework, clearly. The reason the Latin version prevailed was due to the fact that Latin, at the time of the Vulgate, was the vernacular, and many laypeople scoffed at the non-Vulgate translations for a long time, considering St. Jerome to be as inspired as the Gospel writers themselves.




5.False.

http://www.scripturecatholic.com/primacy_of_peter.html#tradition_II



6.False again. Peter is a person, a historical person. Jesus gave him the keys, as shown in Matthew 16. This is typologically significant, as only one person, not an entire congregation, has authority over the keys.



7.He is also talking about those who do not have conflicting beliefs. A house divided against itself cannot stand... so who is a part of this Church, then?



8.It's also important to do one's homework before speaking on a thread.

1. Jesus not Simon Barjona

2."Pagan Influence fallacy." Ok............so where did my rebuttal go................still waiting.........well since I don't seem to be getting one anytime soon Ill say this...........DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you start accusing me of not doing mine. Get your sources from somewhere besides the Catholic Church.

The pagans also transported there dates of celebration over to the Catholic Church as well. Easter and Christmas are examples and one even bears the name of a former goddess.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter1.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html

http://de.essortment.com/christmaspagan_rece.htm

http://www.zenzibar.com/articles/christmas.asp

http://www.gotquestions.org/origin-Catholic-church.html

http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/catholic.htm

3. Baptism was not pagan the idea that it saves and that it takes precedence over what Jesus Christ did for us is pagan. You just misread.

4. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/battle_for_the_bible.htm

Then I found this excerpt from the Thomas Chain Reference Study Bible. "During the Dark Ages very little bible translation was attempted. There were a few minor translations made of portions of the Bible. The word of God was locked in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people".

5. Please find another source besides materials from your denomination it would help your argument greatly.

http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy1.php

6. I never stated that he was not a real person but rather Jesus Christ used some symbolism in relation to him Peter is no more significant in the Bible than any of the other apostles. Just like the twelve tribes of Israel the twelve disciples worked together and neither were above the others.

7. As I said before the Church are those that believe the lord Jesus Christ with his death paid for our sins and is the only way to heaven, not baptism, not works or any mixture in between etc. . It does not matter if you are Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., you are part of the Church Jesus Christ speaks of if you believe this. Not everyone in the Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. churches are part of this church for they motions of believing but never believed.

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."-Mat. 7.21-23

If you read Revelations I believe you will find it uses the phrase "to the churches" and not church. These letters were to separate denominations of Christians. It was set up this way so if one failed the rest would not follow. You will also see Paul writes to them and addresses places that they are in error on. I think someone may have already mentioned that.

Christians are not always in agreement with each other and form different denomination for which people that agree with them can come and worship with them but it is not by any human run institution that we are all linked together and strong but by our founder and Saviour Jesus Christ the Rock.

8. I did my homework thoroughly the first time and even more so this time. It's not very nice to jump to conclusions when writing on a thread.

But really it took me hours to put these together and I'v tried my best in both to cross the t's and dot the i's. So please do your homework before accusing me of not doing mine. If i fudged up on anything by accident I'm sorry Ill look into the complaint but the answer may still be the same if i still find the original statement to hold more water than the complaint.

Anyway this is going to be the last post for this thread for me so you don't have to pay attention to me anymore, thats of course assuming you ever did.

These things take up too much time and are way to long to write all the time.

At any rate thanks for reading.

 

[Technocrat2010]

1. Jesus not Simon Barjona

Jesus cannot be the King and the Prime Minister at the same time. Typologically it's nonsensical. Furthermore, it's quite clear in both the Greek and Aramaic that He's referring to Peter.

2."Pagan Influence fallacy." Ok............so where did my rebuttal go................still waiting.........well since I don't seem to be getting one anytime soon Ill say this...........DO YOUR HOMEWORK before you start accusing me of not doing mine. Get your sources from somewhere besides the Catholic Church.

The pagans also transported there dates of celebration over to the Catholic Church as well. Easter and Christmas are examples and one even bears the name of a former goddess.

*links deleted for posting restriction purposes, see original post for the links*

Again, pagan influence fallacy. It doesn't matter if some of the practices have pagan influences - like baptism, the meaning it has for Christians supercedes its pagan origins.

Regarding some of your sources - many are hardly scholarly and are biased by default against the Church, so...

3. Baptism was not pagan the idea that it saves and that it takes precedence over what Jesus Christ did for us is pagan. You just misread.

Two points.

1. Baptism was used by pre-Christian gnostics and has seen use in various pre-Christian pagan animist religions. 2. You claim that the Christian perspective on baptism takes precedent over its pagan origins - that's exactly what I'm claiming for the pagan origins of other practices. How is it different?

4. http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/nobible.htm

http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/battle_for_the_bible.htm

This is the first time I've seen a person who claimed to do their homework use the jesus-is-lord site. I don't think there's a worse, more anti-scholarly site out there, and I've seen countless non-Catholics denounce people for using such a lame excuse of an apologetics site. That aside, their claims are false; the Church didn't ban Bible reading - it banned specific translations of the Bible that had mistranslated portions of scripture. If you came across a Bible translation that mistranslated scripture, would you encourage people to read it?

Then I found this excerpt from the Thomas Chain Reference Study Bible. "During the Dark Ages very little bible translation was attempted. There were a few minor translations made of portions of the Bible. The word of God was locked in the Latin tongue which was unknown to the common people".

False again. Slavic translations existed, and there were English translations of the Gospels during the Dark Ages. Your Thomas Chain will have to explain how "little" really is, especially in light of the various Eastern European translations of the Bible.

5. Please find another source besides materials from your denomination it would help your argument greatly.

http://www.contenderministries.org/Catholicism/papalfallacy1.php

Then it makes sense for you to avoid anti-Catholic sites and stick to neutral, third party ones. Btw, the link I posted has its sources from the ECF's. If you find fault with the site, you can check the original sources from which they came.

It's interesting to note that Gregory I's quote about the papacy is not found in any of his original documents. Not to mention, I'd like to know where that site gets the idea that Calixtus I failed to get control of Christendom, as I find no such claim outside the article. In fact, he cites no sources or references for his claims. Is this what you call homework?

6. I never stated that he was not a real person but rather Jesus Christ used some symbolism in relation to him Peter is no more significant in the Bible than any of the other apostles. Just like the twelve tribes of Israel the twelve disciples worked together and neither were above the others.

Jesus Christ used the typology of the Prime Minister of the Davidic Kingdom, who had the keys of authority. Only ONE Minister. Only ONE set of keys.

7. As I said before the Church are those that believe the lord Jesus Christ with his death paid for our sins and is the only way to heaven, not baptism, not works or any mixture in between etc. . It does not matter if you are Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc., you are part of the Church Jesus Christ speaks of if you believe this. Not everyone in the Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. churches are part of this church for they motions of believing but never believed.

So then it's those who all agree on the same beliefs - am I correct?

"Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity."-Mat. 7.21-23

Not everyone who talks the talk, but walks the walk as well, i.e., does His will. What does doing His will entail, who is actually doing His will, and how can we verify that they are doing His will?

If you read Revelations I believe you will find it uses the phrase "to the churches" and not church. These letters were to separate denominations of Christians. It was set up this way so if one failed the rest would not follow. You will also see Paul writes to them and addresses places that they are in error on. I think someone may have already mentioned that.

They were not to separate denominations - that's totally nonsensical. Allow separate denominations, with conflicting doctrine, to exist?

Christians are not always in agreement with each other and form different denomination for which people that agree with them can come and worship with them but it is not by any human run institution that we are all linked together and strong but by our founder and Saviour Jesus Christ the Rock.

A house divided against itself cannot stand. You are essentially justifying that the Church can have conflicting doctrines and still remain standing.

8. I did my homework thoroughly the first time and even more so this time. It's not very nice to jump to conclusions when writing on a thread.

If you actually did your homework, you would have not used trash like that from jesus-is-lord.com. I've seen better from much worse debators.

But really it took me hours to put these together and I'v tried my best in both to cross the t's and dot the i's. So please do your homework before accusing me of not doing mine. If i fudged up on anything by accident I'm sorry Ill look into the complaint but the answer may still be the same if i still find the original statement to hold more water than the complaint.

It took you three hours to put this together? THAT long??? Seriously? It took me ten minutes to tear it apart.

Anyway this is going to be the last post for this thread for me so you don't have to pay attention to me anymore, thats of course assuming you ever did.

These things take up too much time and are way to long to write all the time.

At any rate thanks for reading.

Thanks for responding!

 

[sunlover1]

I feel an argument coming on about "who's on first".

I
dont
know

 

[Technocrat2010]

 

[sunlover1]

silly cardinal

 

[Catholic Christian]

If I could vote in the next conclave, I'd vote for Cardinal Arinze:

 

[Catholic Christian]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqQP4bErs2E

 

[Ormly]

Not to mention the silly looking dress, where did the term Cardinal as a title come from and the black dress of the priests?

 

[Catholic Christian]

Not to mention the silly looking dress...

Like these?

 

[fated]

This was written just a couple of decades after the books of the biblical books were finished (the Bible had not yet been compiled), by St. Ignatius who knew St. John the Apostle. I believe this letter was included in some early cannons (that is groups of books or scrolls that look somewhat like todays Bible).

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

 

[Ormly]

This was written just a couple of decades after the books of the biblical books were finished (the Bible had not yet been compiled), by St. Ignatius who knew St. John the Apostle. I believe this letter was included in some early cannons (that is groups of books or scrolls that look somewhat like todays Bible).

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Romans

Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Most High Father, and Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taint, [I wish] abundance of happiness unblameably, in Jesus Christ our God.

Yeah, but it was dismissed and we all know it was the RCC fathers who chose all the books of the Bible, right? I wonder why they didn't leave that one in there?