What IS MATT 16:18 REALLY TEACHING ?

[Bones49]

I am glad you looked it up for yourself.

Saint Peter is an apostle, as saint Clement mentions. He was leader of the church in Rome. Pope.

1Clem 5:1
But, to pass from the examples of ancient days, let us come to those
champions who lived nearest to our time. Let us set before us the
noble examples which belong to our generation.

1Clem 5:2
By reason of jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous
pillars of the Church were persecuted, and contended even unto death.

1Clem 5:3
Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles.

1Clem 5:4
There was Peter who by reason of unrighteous jealousy endured not one
not one but many labours, and thus having borne his testimony went to
his appointed place of glory.

1Clem 5:5
By reason of jealousy and strife Paul by his example pointed out the
prize of patient endurance. After that he had been seven times in
bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in
the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the
reward of his faith,

1Clem 5:6
having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached
the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony
before the rulers, so he departed from the world and went unto the
holy place, having been found a notable pattern of patient endurance.

I don't think so.

The first pope (in the RCC exclusive head of the church sense) was Pope Leo I, in 440. Before that it was a term used of Bishops generally - we do know that Pope mean father.

Peter was never referred to as 'Pope', or 'Father' in the bible. In the RCC sense it is not apporproate to consider that a 'Pope' existed, at least before Constantine, when the church became the state religion. If someone was called a 'Pope' before that, the context must be considered to be very different, if for no other reason than that the church structure completely changed when Christianity changed from being a persecuted minority, to being a favoured majority.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Saying "that is incorrect" in no way demonstrates that something is incorrect or explains why it's incorrect.

this is the incorrect part :What they deny is that Christ is the head of the church on earth. They claim that the Pope is the head of the church on earth. Therefore, while you are on earth the Pope is your head and not Christ.

 

[Bones49]

Except that the art is not pagan; it is Christian art.

Yes, but as far as I know they were trying to depict the trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm not aware (which doesn't mean there was none) that there was any depicting Mary, Jesus, Pope.

 

[ozso]

this is the incorrect part :What they deny is that Christ is the head of the church on earth. They claim that the Pope is the head of the church on earth. Therefore, while you are on earth the Pope is your head and not Christ.

That provides zero information. You should explain what's incorrect about it.

 

[Bones49]

Certainly the strong movement still exists to find something wrong with Catholic teaching, it is almost non-existent the other way around. I was responding to your comment about what lines of thought might be discouraged in the Catholic Church, not about what is argued about with non-Catholics.

Are you implying that nobody has ever been able to clearly express anything wrong with Catholic teaching? I guess that this means what you mean by teaching? But the idea that Mary was sinless and that she never died but was translated directly to heaven (as Jesus was after his death). Must be at the top of the list, given that, if I remember correctly these the two statement where the 'infallibility of the pope' was invoked.

I guess it's not possible to prove that they are false, but on the other hand if Mary was without sin, then Paul's statement that 'all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, is false. Paul obviously had not been told that Mary was without sin.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

Yes, but as far as I know they were trying to depict the trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. I'm not aware (which doesn't mean there was none) that there was any depicting Mary, Jesus, Pope.

I reckon it is only Protestants that talk about Jesus, Mary and the pope. It's such an absurd thing.

 

[One God and Father of All]

Please go read Dei Verbum; I gave a link to you before. Dei verbum

Ok, I read it. And something that stood out is the same thing I’ve been saying. The Catholic Church denies that the scripture is sufficient for the salvation of men.

“Hence there exists a close connection and communication between sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture. For both of them, flowing from the same divine wellspring, in a certain way merge into a unity and tend toward the same end. For Sacred Scripture is the word of God inasmuch as it is consigned to writing under the inspiration of the divine Spirit, while sacred tradition takes the word of God entrusted by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit to the Apostles, and hands it on to their successors in its full purity, so that led by the light of the Spirit of truth, they may in proclaiming it preserve this word of God faithfully, explain it, and make it more widely known. Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence.(6)”

Basically they are saying that the things that lead to salvation cannot be gleaned from the scripture itself. That for the full purity there must be a succession of individuals to hand it over.

“Consequently it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed.”

The way of salvation and how to obtain it has most certainly been revealed. What more do you want?

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That provides zero information. You should explain what's incorrect about it.

Basically everything about it is incorrect.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

The Catholic Church denies that the scripture is sufficient for the salvation of men.

Don't you deny it too? No one is saved by the bible. Even the bible says that one is saved by grace. It is God who saves, he does it because he wants to, out of love, through Jesus Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit creating faith in the mind and heart of the faithful.

 

[ozso]

I reckon it is only Protestants that talk about Jesus, Mary and the pope. It's such an absurd thing.

That's what's seen when one looks upon Catholocism, a huge elevation of Mary and the Pope.

 

[Xeno.of.athens]

That's what's seen when one looks upon Catholocism, a huge elevation of Mary and the Pope.

only in a delusional dream!

 

[ozso]

Basically everything about it is incorrect.

Thanks for nothing lol.

 

[Bones49]

What it does do is show that the demand for nothing but perfect popes is an entirely human and corrupt demand because not even the Lord Jesus himself achieved it.

How much do you know about Catholic History? There have been some fairly corrupt Popes over the years. Which one can almost understand, when being pope was a very privileged position, as was being a bishop and even pastors. To the point where people would pay to become a pastor or bishop. Now if most of your bishops aren't Christian, and bought the position to obtain the prestige, then it is entirely possible that the pope that was then elected was of similar sentiment, that he is simply there for the money. Certainly many popes had absolutely no concern over the spiritual welfare of the church.

 

[Bones49]

only in a delusional dream!

Maybe it's incorrect, but that, at least in my understanding is how most people (maybe Protestants) see Catholicism. Focusing on Mary and the Pope.

 

[One God and Father of All]

Yikes. Perhaps it's worse than I thought. I remember when John Paul II was shot, Catholics were saying it was "like shooting God".

I guess the fact that Christ ever lives to make intercession for us is hogwash.
I guess we need a Christ who is on earth for that. Maybe a Pope.

 

[ozso]

only in a delusional dream!

Nope, it's a matter of perception based on what they see being presented by the RCC.

 

[One God and Father of All]

Don't you deny it too? No one is saved by the bible. Even the bible says that one is saved by grace. It is God who saves, he does it because he wants to, out of love, through Jesus Christ, by means of the Holy Spirit creating faith in the mind and heart of the faithful.

No, I don’t deny it. I believe the Bible contains all that is needed to save a parson from the condemnation he is under.

 

[Guojing]

No, Peter was not a supreme pastor over the Church. He was one of 12 apostles who started the Church, and later Paul and Barnabas, as well as others, added their work in establishing a foundation for the Church.

Establishing a foundation is the work of an apostle, and not the beginning of an organized succession or ecclesiastical structure. The foundation itself was not an earthly hierarchy, but built upon the cornerstone, Christ, who is in heaven.

Organizing the local churches and even a state church is an honorable task, and there must be anointed leaders. But an established hierarchy runs into problems when the supposed "anointed leadership" falls from grace, or perverts truth.

Organizations need to be reformed, or if the degeneration is too serious, a complete overhaul is needed. An established organization can become excessively resistant to reform, correction, and reactionary in attitude. The ministry of God's word must take precedence over organization, even though organization is necessary to find homes for converts.

Again, the most serious problem with the RCC is in its sectarian claims and tone. Church organizations tend to follow the political environment in which it is founded, and that by necessity. When the Church began in an Empire, it became a virtual imperial Church.
But when the States divided into distinct political units, the churches there became subject to their own political overlords, which creates a conflict if the Church claims to have an imperial structure.

These political divisions, however, are artificial, since our unity comes from Christ in heaven by his Spirit which should lead us in love and in mutual submission. Sectarianism destroys this unity.

Dispensationally, Peter's status rose and fell with the nation of Israel in God's eyes.

Early Acts, Israel was still the favored nation in God's eyes, hence his name was prominent.

By the time Stephen was stoned, Israel started diminishing, his status likewise.

At Acts 15, James, the brother of Jesus, came out of nowhere to become the head of the Jerusalem church, and it was James, not Peter, that made the final decision at the council. Peter was relegated to a supporting cast.

He was never mentioned by name again after Acts 15.

By the time Paul visited Jerusalem for the final time in Acts 21, Peter was nowhere to be found, it was only "James and the elders".

 

[Bones49]

Well, Jesus chose Judas who betrayed him, and Peter who denied him, and the other 10 who ran away when he was arrested, and John who followed him keeping silence. It is not a stellar record of good choices if perfection is what is demanded and that is why the altogether human and altogether unreasonable demand for nothing but perfect popes is so corrupt and corrupting. That kind of thinking corrupts Protestant thinking and leads many Protestant apologists into serious doctrinal and moral error.

One could argue that this is the problem when one exalts an individual as superior everyone else. There is the same problem in a church right, especially if the church is big. With one pastor, who is essentially put up on a pedestal, and is expected to be perfect. The more power you claim to have, the more perfect you are expected to be. So if the Pope is considered the head of the Church on earth - basically equivalent to Jesus, then he should be pretty much basically perfect. Even Paul exhorted (sorry don't know the reference) I think the Corinthians to imitate him as he imitated Christ (1 Cor 11:1) It would seem that even for Paul that perfection was the goal, (from this and other verses), he did say that he hadn't achieved it, and we could discuss what he meant by perfection. But if this is correct, if an essential part of Christian living is becoming more like Christ, then the Head of the Church should be more like Christ than everyone else - is this not a reasonable assumption? As such, when some popes are blatantly corrupt, that sends a very bad message.

 

[ozso]

No, I don’t deny it. I believe the Bible contains all that is needed to save a parson from the condemnation he is under.

The information provided within the bible that is.

I'm pointing that out because based on comments I've seen, it seems some Catholics think the bible is being worshiped as an object. As if the book is placed on an alter and people get on their knees and pray to it