-----------------------------------------------------
 
HomeGalleryFAQRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 The Roman Papacy

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
AuthorMessage
Vigilance Saints Arise

avatar

Number of posts : 328
Age : 55
Registration date : 2009-08-03
Points : 3641

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Wed Jun 16, 2010 2:04 pm

Gorlim (OMW) wrote:
Death over Life wrote:
For all this says, Fred Phelps was anointed by God.


Win.
I think we tend to gather around ourselves People we can Trust.
As Friends and Family, even Holy People, the modern day Saints.
EWTN.com
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Wed Jun 16, 2010 3:54 pm

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

It's like saying I don't believe in the history
of the Presidents of the United States.
There have been mant Presidents and Many
Popes. The first for everything, Peter was
the first Pope. As well as many historic Popes.
Many of them were Saints. As Many believe
Pope John Paul the Great was a Saint.

Let us begin. This was a misinterpretation, although I know I wasn’t clear enough after it was all said and done. I’m not questioning the history of the Papacy. I’m questioning the validity of it within Scriptures, Christ, and Christianity. Just because Popes and Synagogues exist doesn’t make them “correct” or “holy” or “of God”. I’m asking for proof that having a Pope in Christianity IS Biblical and IS True Orthodox Christianity. I’m asking where Christ Truly stated we should have a Pope for the Church. Since I have yet to see proof from anybody, and the proof I’ve seen taken out of context, all I can honestly say is the Papacy is a man-made tradition and doctrine with no basis in Scriptures or in Christ.

I am serious, I want to be disproved, and I want to be shown that I am incorrect with the Statements I’ve just made, but NOBODY is disproving it and nobody is providing evidence for it. Just because there is a Papacy and just because there is a Pope doesn’t make it correct or Scriptoral or Biblical. Nobody is showing me otherwise and I don’t know why they are not.

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:


Jesus is within, as the Body of Christ in Holy Communon.
The last Supper and the first Elder Spiritual Leaders, were
the 12 Apostles. The early Church needed the Apostles
like we needed Pastors and Priests throughout history.
The Christian Family is there for the newly Baptized Baby.
Countless people have "guided me" throughout my life.

From what I have seen, we didn’t and don’t NEED pastors and priests to spread the Word of God. We just needed believers.

Being guided though others then. So does that mean you are nothing more than a product of the environment you are in or do you truly believe in what you do? If the latter, did you research it on your own or did you just accept what you were taught? The fact that these questions exist show that you have to research the Scriptures on your’ own and really soul-search in your’ journey.

When you are standing before God, those leaders you are looking up to aren’t going to be responsible for your beliefs. You are solely responsible for what you preach about God, and if you indeed are incorrect, you can’t tell God that you learned it from Pastors or Priests because the Scriptures heavily promoted responsibility of the self and not scape-goating. If you believe in a lie about God and you preach it, you are going to get the judgement, not your’ leaders.

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

If you Quote the Bible as the only source of Truth
how do you know that you are reading the right
Bible? The one that was gifted to you by a man
on God's behalf. The United States Christian culture
gave that Bible to you. Maybe Grandpa.
My Bible is called The New American Bible for Catholics.
Catholics don't read the King James Bible.

Bro, the fact that this was portrayed that my main Bible is the King James I personally find offensive and insulting, but since I know what you are saying, no offense taken. Yes, I do have a KJV, but that doesn’t make it my official Bible.

Now, because I knew this would be brought up, this is why I go to the Original Texts, the ones in Hebrew and Greek. I use the Tanakh for the OT and the Septuagint for NT. Now, because I don’t know Hebrew and Greek atm, means I can’t Truly use the Original texts. So with that being said, I use the earliest completed Bible known to man and has been translated into English. Tis called the Codex Sinaiticus. I would also use the Codex Vaticanus if it weren’t for the fact that the Vatican locked the Codex in it’s library and deemed it Heresy to use or read.

The Catholic Bibles have been translated from Hebrew and Greek to Latin, then to English and everything else. The Sinaiticus and Vaticanus not only predate the Latin Vulgate, it also goes straight from Greek to English, no Latin involved whatsoever.

In addition, I’ve been researching that a lot of the problems that came with Christian theology stemmed back to the translation of Greek and Hebrew to Latin then to English rather than Greek/Hebrew straight to English.

One last thing though, you mentioned: The New American Bible for Catholics. So, because this is “for Catholics”, then I guess it’s not the kind of Bible I should use because I’m not a Catholic. This is another reason why I went to what some deem the “heretical” Bibles (Sinaiticus/Vaticanus). The reason is, even with the KJV, all these modern Bibles are nothing more than a pre-conceived agenda from later traditions and men with all these footnotes and all these Bibles being for certain individuals (for Catholics, “Heavy Metal” Bible, “Green” Bible etc.) Yes, the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus creators also had some pre-conceived agendas, but this wasn’t to appeal to a certain group, but rather get the Will of God be done and keep the Words that were written to be True, and not twisted to suit another’s personal interpretations. Basically, the theme is, the pre-conceived agendas were different than the modern stuff.

Vigilance Saints Arise wrote:

So all of the Priests I have known are Ordained by Bishops
who are direct descendants of the 12 Apostles.
The Blessings remain in Truth. We all want to learn the
Truth. A Truth that if studied in Faith will reveal itself
like the Teachings of Christ, that are for all people in
all times. We have all been called to be great Saints.
Even if we teach one another in this forum.

I agree, except I’ve never known any ordained descendants of the 12 Apostles part. It is, what I have Truly researched and questioned and prayed, and the Revelations that God the Father and Christ, using their Holy Spirit to Teach has revealed to me, how I came to what I believe and view this very second. That doesn’t make anyone else’s invalid, but how is it that we all agree on the same thing, yet we still come to differing conclusions?

However, despite that being said, I do agree 100% on this quote! Very wise words btw!
Back to top Go down
Gorlim (OMW)

avatar

Number of posts : 1171
Age : 30
Location : Tennessee
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4384

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Wed Jun 16, 2010 4:10 pm

I would actually love to see the Biblical evidence of the papacy. I've never even thought about this topic before but now I'm really interested.

So I hope someone can oblige.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/thepoet777
Mark

avatar

Number of posts : 705
Age : 22
Location : Ohio
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4337

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Wed Jun 16, 2010 6:01 pm

Peter is mentioned more than any other Apostle, being mentioned more in the entire New Testament then all the other Apostles combined, and is understood as the head of the Apostles.
The Pope is the head of the bishops. The Apostles were all bishops. Do the theological math.
Peter is frequently mentioned first among all the Apostles.

Matthew 16:17-19
Peter receives divine revelation, is called Petros, a Koine Greek word, the masculine form of Petra, because it would be ridiculous to call Peter a girl. The old argument "petros means small stone" is anachronistic, that use was only in Attic Greek, and such usage died out several hundred years before the birth of Christ.
The word in the original Aramaic text, the language they would have spoken in the first place, the word is translated literally as "Massive stone."
Peter is the only Apostle to receive the keys to the kingdom. The keys to the kingdom are infallibility, which is the Pope's charism to make infallible dogmatic statements on faith and morals in certain circumstances. It does not mean the Pope is sinless (that's impeccability) or that everything the Pope says is dogma.

Time and time again Peter is shown as the leader of the Apostles, and speaks on behalf of the Apostles.

Jesus told Peter in John 21:15-17 to feed His sheep. That refers to all the Christians.
Acts 1:15, Peter selects a successor to Judas. Obviously, if Judas will be replaced, wouldn't all the Apostles, Peter included, be replaced? This shows it was not a temporary office, it was to be continued for all time.
Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 and Acts 5:3 all show Peter exercising infallible authority.
Acts 5:15, Peter's shadow heals. No other Apostle does this, again showing Peter's special place among the Apostles.

1 Peter 5:1, Peter uses his authority as head of bishops and appeals to them all.
1 Peter 5:13, Peter shows that he is indeed in Rome (Babylon).
2 Peter 1:14, Peter predicts his own death.
2 Peter 3:16, Peter makes a doctrinal statement on the interpretation of Paul's epistles.

Peter in assorted early Christian writings, which I c/ped to save time. geek

"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him." Clement of Rome, The First Epistle of Clement, 5 (c. A.D. 96).

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, 4 (c. A.D. 110).

'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, II:25 (c. A.D. 178).

"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:1:1 (c. A.D. 180).

"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History, VI:14,6 (A.D. 190)

"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.'" Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History, 2:25 (A.D. 198).

"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near (to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion, 4:5 (inter A.D. 207-212).

'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another (an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross." Tertullian, Scorpiace, 15:3 (A.D. 212).

"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen, Third Commentary on Genesis, (A.D. 232).

"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria, The Canonical Epistle, Canon 9 (A.D. 306).

"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..." Lactantius, The Divine Institutes, 4:21 (A.D. 310).

"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..." Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, II:14,5 (A.D. 325).

"This man [Simon Magus], after he had been cast out by the Apostles, came to Rome...Peter and Paul, a noble pair, chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..." Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures ,6:14-15 (c. A.D. 350).

"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..." Athanasius, Defence of his Flight, 18 (c. A.D. 357).

"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15 (A.D. 377).

“For if when here he loved men so, that when he [Peter] had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there.” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32 (c. A.D. 391).

"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?" Gregory of Nyssa, To the Church at Nicodemia, Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394).

"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city, [Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon [Magus]." John Cassian, Institutes, X (ante A.D. 435).

"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries [of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth.” Pope Leo the Great (regn. A.D. 440-461), Sermon LXXXII (ante A.D. 461).

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110).

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle…In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171).

"Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180).

"A question of no small importance arose at that time. For the parishes of all Asia, as from an older tradition, held that the fourteenth day of the moon, on which day the Jews were commanded to sacrifice the lamb, should be observed as the feast of the Saviour's Passover. It was therefore necessary to end their fast on that day, whatever day of the week it should happen to be. But it was not the custom of the churches in the rest of the world to end it at this time, as they observed the practice which, from apostolic tradition, has prevailed to the present time, of terminating the fast on no other day than on that of the resurrection of our Saviour...Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicated.” Pope Victor & Easter (c. A.D. 195).

"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).

"After such things as these, moreover, they still dare--a false bishop having been appointed for them by, heretics--to set sail and to bear letters from schismatic and profane persons to the throne of Peter, and to the chief church whence priestly unity takes its source; and not to consider that these were the Romans whose faith was praised in the preaching of the apostle, to whom faithlessness could have no access." Cyprian, To Cornelius, Epistle 54/59:14 (A.D. 252).

”The reason for your absence was both honorable and imperative, that the schismatic wolves might not rob and plunder by stealth nor the heretical dogs bark madly in the rapid fury nor the very serpent, the devil, discharge his blasphemous venom. So it seems to us right and altogether fitting that priests of the Lord from each and every province should report to their head, that is, to the See of Peter, the Apostle." Council of Sardica, To Pope Julius (A.D. 342).

"And this case likewise is to be provided for, that if in any province a bishop has some matter against his brother and fellow-bishop, neither of the two should call in as arbiters bishops from another province. But if perchance sentence be given against a bishop in any matter and he supposes his case to be not unsound but good, in order that the question may be reopened, let us, if it seem good to your charity, honour the memory of Peter the Apostle, and let those who gave judgment write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, so that, if necessary, the case may be retried by the bishops of the neighbouring provinces and let him appoint arbiters; but if it cannot be shown that his case is of such a sort as to need a new trial, let the judgment once given not be annulled, but stand good as before." Council of Sardica, Canon III (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Gaudentius said: If it seems good to you, it is necessary to add to this decision full of sincere charity which thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop be deposed by the sentence of these neighbouring bishops, and assert that he has fresh matter in defense, a new bishop be not settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this." Council of Sardica, Canon IV (A.D. 343-344).

"Bishop Hosius said: Decreed, that if any bishop is accused, and the bishops of the same region assemble and depose him from his office, and he appealing, so to speak, takes refuge with the most blessed bishop of the Roman church, and he be willing to give him a hearing, and think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one require that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seem good to move the bishop of Rome to send presbyters a latere, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent.” Council of Sardica, Canon V (A.D. 343-344).

"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).

"For Dionysius, Bishop of Rome, having written also against those who said that the Son of God was a creature and a created thing, it is manifest that not now for the first time but from of old the heresy of the Arian adversaries of Christ has been anathematised by all. And Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, making his defense concerning the letter he had written, appears in his turn as neither thinking as they allege, nor having held the Arian error at all." Athanasius, Dionysius of Rome, 13 (A.D. 352).

"You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the Chair was first conferred on Peter, in which the prince of all the Apostles, Peter, sat…in which Chair unity should be preserved by all, so that he should now be a schismatic and a sinner who should set up another Chair against that unique one." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 2:2-3 (c. A.D. 367).

"For the good of unity Blessed Peter deserved to be preferred before the rest, and alone received the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, that he might communicate them to the rest." Optatus of Mileve, The Schism of Donatists, 7:3 (c.A.D. 367).

"No prejudice could arise from the number of bishops gathered at Ariminum, since it is well known that neither the bishop of the Romans, whose opinion ought before all others to have been waited for, nor Vincentius, whose stainless episcopate had lasted so many years, nor the rest, gave in their adhesion to such doctrines. And this is the more significant, since, as has been already said, the very men who seemed to be tricked into surrender, themselves, in their wiser moments, testified their disapproval." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], About Council at Arminum, Epistle 1 (A.D. 371).

"…I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul…The fruitful soil of Rome, when it receives the pure seed of the Lord, bears fruit an hundredfold…My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails.” Jerome, To Pope Damasus, Epistle 15:1-2 (A.D. 375).

"But he was not so eager as to lay aside caution. He called the bishop to him, and esteeming that there can be no true thankfulness except it spring from true faith, he enquired whether he agreed with the Catholic bishops, that is, with the Roman Church?" Ambrose, The death of his brother Satyrus, 1:47 (A.D. 378).

"Your grace must be besought not to permit any disturbance of the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman World and of the most holy faith of the Apostles, for from thence flow out to all (churches) the bonds of sacred communion." Ambrose, To Emperor Gratian, Epistle 11:4 (A.D. 381).

"To your inquiry we do not deny a legal reply, because we, upon whom greater zeal for the Christian religion is incumbent than upon the whole body, out of consideration for our office do not have the liberty to dissimulate, nor to remain silent. We carry the weight of all who are burdened; nay rather the blessed apostle Peter bears these in us, who, as we trust, protects us in all matters of his administration, and guards his heirs." Pope Sircius [regn. A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, Epistle 1 (A.D. 385).

"Or rather, if we hear him here, we shall certainly see him hereafter, if not as standing near him, yet see him we certainly shall, glistening near the Throne of the king. Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here...” John Chrysostom, Epistle to the Romans, Homily 32:24 (c. A.D. 391).

"Number the bishops from the See of Peter itself. And in that order of Fathers see who has succeeded whom. That is the rock against which the gates of hell do not prevail" Augustine, Psalm against the Party of Donatus, 18 (A.D. 393).

"I am held in the communion of the Catholic Church by...and by the succession of bishops from the very seat of Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection commended His sheep to be fed up to the present episcopate." Augustine, Against the Letter of Mani, 5 (A.D. 395).

“Carthage was also near the countries over the sea, and distinguished by illustrious renown, so that it had a bishop of more than ordinary influence, who could afford to disregard a number of conspiring enemies because he saw himself joined by letters of communion to the Roman Church, in which the supremacy of an apostolic chair has always flourished.” Augustine, To Glorius et.al, Epistle 43:7 (A.D. 397).

"The chair of the Roman Church, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today." Augustine, Against the Letters of Petillian, 2:51 (A.D. 402).

“In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated with all solicitude by bishops, and especially by a true and just and Catholic Council, by preserving, as you have done, the example of ancient tradition, and by being mindful of ecclesiastical discipline, you have truly strengthened the vigour of our religion, no less now in consulting us than before in passing sentence. For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow the Apostle from the very episcopate and whole authority of this name is derived. Following in his footsteps, we know how to condemn the evil and to approve the good.” Pope Innocent [regn A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, Epistle 29 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the Fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgments...For (Peter) himself has care over all the Churches, and above all that in which he sat nor does he suffer any of its privileges or decisions to be shaken" Pope Zosimus [regn A.D. 417-418 ],To Aurelius and the Council of Carthage, Epistle 12 (A.D. 418).

"For it has never been allowed to discuss again what has once been decided by the Apostolic See." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica, Epistle 13 (A.D. 422).

"The rising pestilence was first cut short by Rome, the see of Peter, which having become the head to the world of the pastoral office, holds by religion whatever it holds not by arms." Prosper of Aquitaine, Song on the Enemies of Grace, 1 (A.D. 429).

"Joining to yourself, therefore, the sovereign of our See, and assuming our place with authority, you will execute this sentence with accurate rigour: that within ten days, counted from the day of your notice, he shall condemn his [Nestorius'] false teachings in a written confession." Pope Celestine [regn. A.D. 422-432], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 11 (A.D. 430).

"The Holy Synod said: 'Since most impious Nestorius will not obey our citation, and has not received the most holy and God-fearing bishops whom we sent to him, we have necessarily betaken ourselves to the examination of his impieties; and having apprehended from his letters, and from his writings, and from his recent sayings in this metropolis, which have been reported, that his opinions and teachings are impious, we being necessarily compelled thereto by the canons and by the letter of our most holy father and colleague, Celestine, bishop of the Roman Church, with many tears, have arrived at the following sentence against him:--'Our Lord Jesus Christ, Who has been blasphemed by him, defines by this present most holy synod that the same Nestorius is deprived of episcopal dignity and of all sacredotal intercourse." Council of Ephesus, Session I (A.D. 431).

"Philip, presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See, said: There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Saviour and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: Our holy and most blessed Pope Celestine the bishop is according to due order his successor and holds his place...Accordingly the decision of all churches is firm, for the priests of the eastern and western churches are present...Wherefore Nestorius knows that he is alienated from the communion of the priests of the Catholic Church." Council of Ephesus, Session III (A.D. 431).

"Peter in his successors has delivered what he received." Pope Sixtus III [regn. A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch, Epistle 6 (A.D. 433).

"For he [Pope Sixtus] wrote what was in accord with the holy synod [Council of Ephesus], and confirmed all of its acts, an is agreement with us." Cyril of Alexandria, To Acacius of Meletine, Epistle 40 (A.D. 434).

“Once on a time then, Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, of venerable memory, held the doctrine--and he was the first who held it --that Baptism ought to be repeated, contrary to the divine canon, contrary to the rule of the universal Church, contrary to the customs and institutions of our ancestors. This innovation drew after it such an amount of evil, that it not only gave an example of sacrilege to heretics of all sorts, but proved an occasion of error to certain Catholics even. When then all men protested against the novelty, and the priesthood everywhere, each as his zeal prompted him, opposed it, Pope Stephen of blessed memory, Prelate of the Apostolic See, in conjunction indeed with his colleagues but yet himself the foremost, withstood it, thinking it right, I doubt not, that as he exceeded all others in the authority of his place, so he should also in the devotion of his faith. In fine, in an epistle sent at the time to Africa, he laid down this rule: Let there be no innovation--nothing but what has been handed down.’” Vincent of Lerins, Commonitory for the Antiquity and Universality of the Catholic Faith, 6 (A.D. 434).

"And since these heretics were trying to bring the Apostolic See round their view, African councils of holy bishops also did their best to persuade the holy Pope of the city (first the venerable Innocent, and afterwards his successor Zosimus) that this heresy was to be abhorred and condemned by Catholic faith. And these bishops so great a See successively branded them, and cut them off from the members of the Church, giving letters to the African Churches in the West, and to the Churches of the East, and declared that they were to be anathematised and avoided by all Catholics. The judgment pronounced upon them by the Catholic Church of God was heard and followed also by the most pious Emperor Ho they had wandered, and are yet returning, as the truth of the right faith becomes known against this detestable error." Possidius, Life of Augustine, 18 (A.D. 437).

"After the reading of the foregoing epistle [the Tome of Pope Leo], the most reverend bishops cried out: This is the faith of the fathers, this is the faith of the Apostles. So we all believe, thus the orthodox believe. Anathema to him who does not thus believe. Peter has spoken thus through Leo [regn. A.D. 440-461]. So taught the Apostles. Piously and truly did Leo teach, so taught Cyril. Everlasting be the memory of Cyril. Leo and Cyril taught the same thing, anathema to him who does not so believe. This is the true faith. Those of us who are orthodox thus believe. This is the faith of the fathers. Why were not these things read at Ephesus [i.e. at the heretical synod held there]? These are the things Dioscorus hid away." Council of Chalcedon, Session II (A.D. 451).

"Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him of the episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness. Therefore let this most holy and great synod sentence the before mentioned Dioscorus to the canonical penalties." Council of Chalcedon, Session III (A.D. 451).

"The great and holy and universal Synod...in the metropolis of Chalcedon...to the most holy and blessed archbishop of Rome, Leo...being set as the mouthpiece unto all of the blessed Peter, and imparting the blessedness of his Faith unto all...and besides all this he [Dioscorus] stretched forth his fury even against him who had been charged with the custody of the vine by the Savior, we mean of course your holiness..." Pope Leo the Great, Chalcdeon to Pope Leo, Epistle 98:1-2 (A.D. 451).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

“For the solidity of that faith which was praised in the chief of the Apostles is perpetual: and as that remains which Peter believed in Christ, so that remains which Christ instituted in Peter...The dispensation of Truth therefore abides, and the blessed Peter persevering in the strength of the Rock, which he has received, has not abandoned the helm of the Church, which he undertook. For he was ordained before the rest in such a way that from his being called the Rock, from his being pronounced the Foundation, from his being constituted the Doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven, from his being set as the Umpire to bind and to loose, whose judgments shall retain their validity in heaven, from all these mystical titles we might know the nature of his association with Christ. And still to-day he more fully and effectually performs what is entrusted to him, and carries out every part of his duty and charge in Him and with Him, through Whom he has been glorified. And so if anything is rightly done and rightly decreed by us, if anything is won from the mercy of God by our daily supplications, it is of his work and merits whose power lives and whose authority prevails in his See.” Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth....If anyone disobey the things which have been said by Him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger." Pope Clement of Rome [regn. c A.D.91-101], 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1,59:1 (c. A.D. 96).

"Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate..." Pope Victor I [regn. A.D. 189-198], in Eusebius EH, 24:9 (A.D. 192).

"Stephen, that he who so boasts of the place of his episcopate, and contends that he holds the succession from Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were laid...Stephen, who announces that he holds by succession the throne of Peter." Pope Stephen I [regn. A.D. 254-257], Firmilian to Cyprian, Epistle 74/75:17 (A.D. 256).

"I beseech you, readily bear with me: what I write is for the common good. For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter s, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Pope Julius [regn. A.D. 337-352], To the Eusebians, fragment in Athanasius' Against the Arians, 2:35 (c. A.D. 345).

"Why then do you again ask me for the condemnation of Timotheus? Here, by the judgment of the apostolic see, in the presence of Peter, bishop of Alexandria, he was condemned, together with his teacher, Apollinarius, who will also in the day of judgment undergo due punishment and torment. But if he succeeds in persuading some less stable men, as though having some hope, after by his confession changing the true hope which is in Christ, with him shall likewise perish whoever of set purpose withstands the order of the Church. May God keep you sound, most honoured sons." Pope Damasus [regn. A.D. 366-384], To the Eastern Bishops, fragment in Theodoret's EH, 5:10 (c. A.D. 372).

"We bear the burdens of all who are heavy laden; nay, rather, the blessed apostle Peter bears them in us and protects and watches over us, his heirs, as we trust, in all the care of his ministry....Now let all your priests observe the rule here given, unless they wish to be plucked from the solid, apostolic rock upon which Christ built the universal Church....I think, dearest brother, disposed of all the questions which were contained in your letter of inquiry and have, I believe, returned adequate answers to each of the cases you reported by our son, the priest Basianus, to the Roman Church as to the head of your body....And whereas no priest of the Lord is free to be ignorant of the statutes of the Apostolic See and the venerable provisions of the canons." Pope Sircius [regn. c A.D. 384-399], To Himerius, bishop of Tarragona (Spain), 1,3,20 (c. A.D. 392).

"Care shall not be lacking on my part to guard the faith of the Gospel as regards my peoples, and to visit by letter, as far as I am able, the parts of my body throughout the divers regions of the earth." Pope Anastasius [regn. A.D. 399-401], Epistle 1 (c. A.D. 400).

"In making inquiry with respect to those things that should be treated ... by bishops ... as you have done, the example of ancient tradition ... For you decided that it was proper to refer to our judgment, knowing what is due to the Apostolic See, since all we who are set in this place, desire to follow that Apostle from whom the very episcopate and whole authority of this named derived ... that whatsoever is done, even though it be in distant provinces, should not be ended without being brought to the knowledge of this See, that by its authority the whole just pronouncement should be strengthened, and that from it all other Churches (like waters flowing from their natal source and flowing through the different regions of the world, the pure streams of one incorrupt head)...you also show your solicitude for the well being of all, and that you ask for a decree that shall profit all the Churches of the world at once." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Carthage, 1,2 (A.D. 417).

"It is therefore with due care and propriety that you consult the secrets of the Apostolic office that office, I mean, to which belongs, besides the things which are without, the care of all the Churches...Especially as often as a question of faith is discussed, I think that all our brothers and fellow bishops should refer to none other than to Peter, the author of their name and office." Pope Innocent I [regn. A.D. 401-417], To the Council of Mileve, 2 (A.D. 417).

"Although the tradition of the fathers has attributed to the Apostolic See so great authority that none would dare to contest its judgment, and has preserved this ever in its canons and rules, and current ecclesiastical discipline in its laws still pays the reverence which it ought to the name of Peter...For he himself has care over all the churches, and above all of that which he sat...Since, then Peter is the head of so great authority, and has confirmed the suffrages of our forefathers since his time...and as bishops you are bound to know it; yet; though such was our authority that none could reconsider our decision." Pope Zosimus [regn. A.D. 417-418], To the Council of Carthage (c. A.D. 418).

"For it has never been lawful to reconsider what has once been settled by the apostolic see." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To Rufus bishop of Thessalonica (c. A.D. 420).

"The universal ordering of the Church at its birth took its origin from the office of blessed Peter, in which is found both directing power and its supreme authority. From him as from a source, at the time when our religion was in the stage of growth, all churches received their common order. This much is shown by the injunctions of the council of Nicea, since it did not venture to make a decree in his regard, recognizing that nothing could be added to his dignity: in fact it knew that all had been assigned to him by the word of the Lord. So it is clear that this church is to all churches throughout the world as the head is to the members, and that whoever separates himself from it becomes an exile from the Christian religion, since he ceases to belong to its fellowship." Pope Boniface [regn. A.D. 418-422], To the bishops of Thessaly (c. A.D. 420).

"None has ever been so rash as to oppose the apostolic primacy, the judgment of which may not be revised; none rebels against it, unless he would judge in his turn." Pope Boniface [regn A.D. 418-422], To Rufus and bishops of Macedonia (c. A.D. 420).

"Wherefore, assuming to yourself the authority of our see and using our stead and place with power, you will deliver this sentence with utmost severity." Pope Celestine [regn A.D. 422-427], To Cyril of Alexandria, Epistle 1 1 (A.D. 430).

"The blessed apostle Peter, in his successors, has handed down what he received. Who would be willing to separate himself from the doctrine of whom the Master himself instructed first among the apostles?" Pope Sixtus III, [regn A.D. 432-440], To John of Antioch (A.D. 433).

"But this mysterious function the Lord wished to be indeed the concern of all the apostles, but in such a way that He has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the Apostles: and from him as from the Head wishes His gifts to flow to all the body: so that any one who dares to secede from Peter's solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Epistle 10 (A.D 445).

"And so he too rejoices over your good feeling and welcomes your respect for the Lord’s own institution as shown towards the partners of His honour, commending the well ordered love of the whole Church, which ever finds Peter in Peter's See, and from affection for so great a shepherd grows not lukewarm even over so inferior a successor as myself." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 2 (A.D ante 461).

"'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and every tongue which confesses the Lord, accepts the instruction his voice conveys. This Faith conquers the devil, and breaks the bonds of his prisoners. It uproots us from this earth and plants us in heaven, and the gates of Hades cannot prevail against it. For with such solidity is it endued by God that the depravity of heretics cannot mar it nor the unbelief of the heathen overcome it." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 3:2-3 (A.D ante 461).

"Who does not cease to preside in his see, who will doubt that he rules in every part of the world." Pope Leo the Great [regn. A.D.440-461], Sermon 5 (A.D ante 461).

Very Happy
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:00 pm

Alright. You have made a tremendous reply and I thank you for that Mark. Alas though, do to it's grand length, I'm going to have to split up the post into many different posts, each on a specific part. I'll get one up as soon as I can.
Back to top Go down
olias

avatar

Number of posts : 2399
Age : 27
Location : USA
Registration date : 2009-07-10
Points : 5999

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Wed Jun 16, 2010 10:58 pm

Mark just beat you on the tl;dr posts
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Thu Jun 17, 2010 1:49 pm

olias wrote:
Mark just beat you on the tl;dr posts

In all seriousness, why do you even bother going to internet forums at all if all you can say to anything that isn't 1 line long tl: dr? It really makes you look like a lazy, illiterate, ass.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Thu Jun 17, 2010 2:13 pm

Alright. 1 piece of Mark’s claims that I shall challenge right now.

Mark wrote:
Peter is mentioned more than any other Apostle, being mentioned more in the entire New Testament then all the other Apostles combined, and is understood as the head of the Apostles.
The Pope is the head of the bishops. The Apostles were all bishops. Do the theological math.
Peter is frequently mentioned first among all the Apostles.

Being mentioned “X” number of times means nothing. Tartarus was only mentioned 1 time in the Bible, yet it’s role in the afterlife is still very prevalent. You also have the lake of fire only mentioned in Revelation, yet the lake of fire is the end of all the negative afterlives. The Matthew Scripture you quoted is the ONLY time that has EVER been shown, yet it’s strong enough to prove (according to Catholics) the Papacy of Peter. So, I’m rebutting that being mentioned all over the place is a means of proof that the one who must be mentioned so much must also be the Pope. If we were to go by that, then Paul should have been the Pope instead because whereas we have 2 books from Peter, we have around ½ the entire NT from Paul.

The head of the Apostles is Christ, not Peter. Head of the Apostles means Chief Cornerstone if you may.

There is Scripture that backs this claim up, including the Matthew Scripture you posted, that I will post addressing the Matthew Scriptures later. I’d like to discuss this atm. I’m taking this piece by piece until we have come to some sort of agreement, or simply agree to disagree.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Thu Jun 17, 2010 7:27 pm

Mark wrote:

Matthew 16:17-19
Peter receives divine revelation, is called Petros, a Koine Greek word, the masculine form of Petra, because it would be ridiculous to call Peter a girl. The old argument "petros means small stone" is anachronistic, that use was only in Attic Greek, and such usage died out several hundred years before the birth of Christ.
The word in the original Aramaic text, the language they would have spoken in the first place, the word is translated literally as "Massive stone."
Peter is the only Apostle to receive the keys to the kingdom. The keys to the kingdom are infallibility, which is the Pope's charism to make infallible dogmatic statements on faith and morals in certain circumstances. It does not mean the Pope is sinless (that's impeccability) or that everything the Pope says is dogma.

Whether correct or incorrect, what caused all this? Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God. Would any of this transpire had Peter not said this? The other part of the context, they were in a large group of people, and everybody was calling Jesus another person or prophet. Peter was the only one who stood up and said who Jesus really is. So, it is that where the keys of the kingdom were given. It wasn’t given to Peter the person, but rather the Truth that Christ is the Messiah, the Son of the Living God.

Even then though, we do have a little contradiction here. This is popularly used that Peter built the church, but we have a verse that says otherwise:

Ephesians 2:19-22

19 Therefore, then, you are no longer strangers and foreigners, but you are fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household of God,
20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the chief cornerstone;
21 in whom all the building fitly framed together grows into a holy temple in the Lord:
22 in whom you also are builded together for a dwelling-place of God in Spirit.


So, we have one that says Peter, and the other that said the Apostles and Prophets. Sure this would solidify Peter, but Peter wasn’t special in being the sole rock of the church. All the Apostles and all of the Prophets are all co-rocks. It was the foundation of them all, not just Peter. So, how would this make sense that in Matthew God chooses Peter, but in Ephesians, God chose every apostle and prophet? Makes no sense.

There is more of this, but I’ll get to those on the said parts.
Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

avatar

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 26
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 4513

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:17 am

Death over Life wrote:
MetLHed4GZus wrote:
Guys make sure this thread doesn't become a flame war

Yes. I agree. I’m really serious on this issue, as I’d like to learn more of it. Better if I make a thread than to get another thread locked up.

Just we’ll need to be very civil and since this is a very touchy and important subject, we’ll need the Mods to keep a close eye on this.

trephining wrote:
There is as much evidence for the role of the Papacy as there is of the role of the pastor in the Protestant faith.

That is what I’m getting down to, but I’m looking at the origins here of where it started. I know we have the current Pope Benedict. Hey, our calendars only exist because of Pope Gregory. Just like you go to any Protestant church, you are going to have a Pastor.

With that being said though, if the quote is indeed True, then does this mean that Both have such a rich history and proof that it is correct in Scriptures? Does it mean that both are man-made Traditions rather than of God? Who knows, that’s why I made this thread.

The one thing that I will say which sort of debunks the Pastors somewhat is this:

Protestantism = Catholicism. The Protestant Church is nothing more than a Product of Catholicism. If you are a Protestant, then you are a Catholic. Protestant means Protesting Catholic. In addition to that, I’ve never really seen Scriptural proof that a Pastor is a Head of a Church either, now that Pastor vs. Pope has been brought up.

So, Pastor or Pope could be right, but both aren’t Biblical together. It’s one or the other or neither, and I’d like to get down to it.

Last, since Protestant keeps on getting put into the pot when I’m speaking of Catholicism, I shall point out I am not a Catholic or a Protestant at all. Why I wish to discuss is because I’d like the discussion of the differing views. This place is known for having civil discussions although straying off course at times.

im a bit late to this but, as far as the pope goes, i see no biblical reason to have one, as far as a pastor goes, this is a different story. a real new testament church meeting would have been a group of believers getting together on the sabbath to study the bible, to offer encouragement, and to pray for things. this is essentially what happens, some churches have what i like to call "boss pastors" who beleive they control the church. pastors is no different then when paul or anyone else would speak in the church, but as with all things there are ways to corrupt it. all things do need organization, without someone leading a worship time there is no organization. i would like to discuss this issue more actually because it is something i have never thought about much.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 11:21 am

wizardovmetal wrote:

im a bit late to this but, as far as the pope goes, i see no biblical reason to have one, as far as a pastor goes, this is a different story. a real new testament church meeting would have been a group of believers getting together on the sabbath to study the bible, to offer encouragement, and to pray for things. this is essentially what happens, some churches have what i like to call "boss pastors" who beleive they control the church. pastors is no different then when paul or anyone else would speak in the church, but as with all things there are ways to corrupt it. all things do need organization, without someone leading a worship time there is no organization. i would like to discuss this issue more actually because it is something i have never thought about much.

This was actually spoken of earlier in the thread that I answered on page 1.

For a few corrections, yes, the NT church did gather, but it wasn't exclusively the Sabbath. It was anytime and anywhere. You are correct, but the main point was edifying the church.

The thing is, we do have scriptures that say that church is simply they who gather in Christ's name, that's it. As for the pastor part, the scriptures call for EVERYONE to be a priest (not referring to Catholic priest btw). In addition to that, when speaking like Paul did or something, everyone in the NT did that, when they needed to. It was never 1 pastor or priest speaking to the whole, then that's it. The church, basically had a circle of everybody doing something. Also, church back then was far more intimite and family like than today where "back of the church Baptists" exist.

Worship time? This is a product of the modern church. I know what you are saying, but that sentence it today's mainstream church, not the NT. As I've spoken for earlier, the NT came together for edification and understanding. Worshipping and evangelization were when they SCATTERED. Nobody in the NT went to church for any worshipping or evangelizing. It also does make perfect sense, especially when Christ spoke of doing things in private, and locking yourself in your' closet to pray to Him as opposed to being around your' friends/family. There was no set time for worshipping, they did it whenever.

In addition, I'm still answering Mark's quotes little by little. I'm still awaiting for anyone to challenge my rebuttle on the quotes. Or maybe, I think everyone's waiting until I get to them all.
Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

avatar

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 26
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 4513

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:03 pm

correct, but i still feel it is important to have an organized gathering of beleivers. i also feel it is important to study god's word as a congregation together, the gathering should not be preacher centered it should be congregation centered, i have been to many churches who do this, and then i have been to some that don't. there really is no biblical proof for a "pope", it's not something that can be challenged.
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:23 pm

wizardovmetal wrote:
correct, but i still feel it is important to have an organized gathering of beleivers.

That's the thing, you are absolutely correct here. The gathering of believers IS important! In fact, one of Jesus quotes was: Thou shalt not forsake the assembling of ourselves. It is due to the heavy importance of this subject that this thread was made.

Organized gathering though doesn't necessarily mean going to a Pastor's/Priest's synagogue on Sunday or Saturday or whenever. That is the main crux of what I try to get through whenever I speak on church. The organizing could be at a synagogue, but it is also at the local grocery store, at McDonalds, at a friend's house, on a subway, or it could even be done at freaking Hooters, and I've read in the paper on some gathering outside of strip clubs to help put the focus on Christ and not to the stripper's flesh indoors. Of course I've never heard or seen them going indoors, but you get the idea of what I'm saying.

It is just not many will seem to grasp this view. I'm not saying you don't, but there are so many that preach if you don't go to church on Sunday morning, you are sinning against God that it makes me want to throw up blood. That view I've learned and discovered 1st hand is not True or Biblical.
Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

avatar

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 26
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 4513

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 12:25 pm

exactly, i used to belong to a church that was this way, it was more then a church on sunday it was a body of believers, it was great, although that was back in indiana and now i live in MA so its not possible
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
MetalFRO

avatar

Number of posts : 1993
Age : 41
Location : Nebraska, USA
Registration date : 2008-11-13
Points : 5591

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 5:59 pm

Death over Life wrote:
wizardovmetal wrote:

im a bit late to this but, as far as the pope goes, i see no biblical reason to have one, as far as a pastor goes, this is a different story. a real new testament church meeting would have been a group of believers getting together on the sabbath to study the bible, to offer encouragement, and to pray for things. this is essentially what happens, some churches have what i like to call "boss pastors" who beleive they control the church. pastors is no different then when paul or anyone else would speak in the church, but as with all things there are ways to corrupt it. all things do need organization, without someone leading a worship time there is no organization. i would like to discuss this issue more actually because it is something i have never thought about much.

This was actually spoken of earlier in the thread that I answered on page 1.

For a few corrections, yes, the NT church did gather, but it wasn't exclusively the Sabbath. It was anytime and anywhere. You are correct, but the main point was edifying the church.

The thing is, we do have scriptures that say that church is simply they who gather in Christ's name, that's it. As for the pastor part, the scriptures call for EVERYONE to be a priest (not referring to Catholic priest btw). In addition to that, when speaking like Paul did or something, everyone in the NT did that, when they needed to. It was never 1 pastor or priest speaking to the whole, then that's it. The church, basically had a circle of everybody doing something. Also, church back then was far more intimite and family like than today where "back of the church Baptists" exist.

Worship time? This is a product of the modern church. I know what you are saying, but that sentence it today's mainstream church, not the NT. As I've spoken for earlier, the NT came together for edification and understanding. Worshipping and evangelization were when they SCATTERED. Nobody in the NT went to church for any worshipping or evangelizing. It also does make perfect sense, especially when Christ spoke of doing things in private, and locking yourself in your' closet to pray to Him as opposed to being around your' friends/family. There was no set time for worshipping, they did it whenever.

In addition, I'm still answering Mark's quotes little by little. I'm still awaiting for anyone to challenge my rebuttle on the quotes. Or maybe, I think everyone's waiting until I get to them all.

I can't speak to the scriptural context of this, per se, but here's a thought. What if the mere example of Paul speaking in the synagogue is enough to say that corporate "worship" and teaching is what we are called to do? Is it possible that because Paul's teachings are so prevalent in the NT and that he seemed to offer the most wisdom of any of the early church spiritual leaders that it is perhaps an example for us to follow that someone more educated about the scriptures than the general layman (like you & I) would be the one who may have already discerned some things about scripture that we could learn from? Of course we are to examine all things via scripture, but if there are spiritual truths that we have difficulty grasping (like I do) because we don't understand the context of a passage (since we aren't all learned in the cultural contexts of the time the texts were written), it stands to reason that having a pastor or teacher in the church is a logical step so that you don't just have a bunch of people "throwing their hat into the ring" w/ their opinions on what scripture says, or whatever other "revelation" they may have had lately, which can become difficult to discern.

Again, not a truly scriptural perspective, just my $.02 Smile
Back to top Go down
http://metalfroreview.blogspot.com
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 6:37 pm

MetalFRO wrote:
Death over Life wrote:
wizardovmetal wrote:

im a bit late to this but, as far as the pope goes, i see no biblical reason to have one, as far as a pastor goes, this is a different story. a real new testament church meeting would have been a group of believers getting together on the sabbath to study the bible, to offer encouragement, and to pray for things. this is essentially what happens, some churches have what i like to call "boss pastors" who beleive they control the church. pastors is no different then when paul or anyone else would speak in the church, but as with all things there are ways to corrupt it. all things do need organization, without someone leading a worship time there is no organization. i would like to discuss this issue more actually because it is something i have never thought about much.

This was actually spoken of earlier in the thread that I answered on page 1.

For a few corrections, yes, the NT church did gather, but it wasn't exclusively the Sabbath. It was anytime and anywhere. You are correct, but the main point was edifying the church.

The thing is, we do have scriptures that say that church is simply they who gather in Christ's name, that's it. As for the pastor part, the scriptures call for EVERYONE to be a priest (not referring to Catholic priest btw). In addition to that, when speaking like Paul did or something, everyone in the NT did that, when they needed to. It was never 1 pastor or priest speaking to the whole, then that's it. The church, basically had a circle of everybody doing something. Also, church back then was far more intimite and family like than today where "back of the church Baptists" exist.

Worship time? This is a product of the modern church. I know what you are saying, but that sentence it today's mainstream church, not the NT. As I've spoken for earlier, the NT came together for edification and understanding. Worshipping and evangelization were when they SCATTERED. Nobody in the NT went to church for any worshipping or evangelizing. It also does make perfect sense, especially when Christ spoke of doing things in private, and locking yourself in your' closet to pray to Him as opposed to being around your' friends/family. There was no set time for worshipping, they did it whenever.

In addition, I'm still answering Mark's quotes little by little. I'm still awaiting for anyone to challenge my rebuttle on the quotes. Or maybe, I think everyone's waiting until I get to them all.

I can't speak to the scriptural context of this, per se, but here's a thought. What if the mere example of Paul speaking in the synagogue is enough to say that corporate "worship" and teaching is what we are called to do? Is it possible that because Paul's teachings are so prevalent in the NT and that he seemed to offer the most wisdom of any of the early church spiritual leaders that it is perhaps an example for us to follow that someone more educated about the scriptures than the general layman (like you & I) would be the one who may have already discerned some things about scripture that we could learn from? Of course we are to examine all things via scripture, but if there are spiritual truths that we have difficulty grasping (like I do) because we don't understand the context of a passage (since we aren't all learned in the cultural contexts of the time the texts were written), it stands to reason that having a pastor or teacher in the church is a logical step so that you don't just have a bunch of people "throwing their hat into the ring" w/ their opinions on what scripture says, or whatever other "revelation" they may have had lately, which can become difficult to discern.

Again, not a truly scriptural perspective, just my $.02 Smile

Actually, after reading and re-reading that, it goes back to the point of Church = edifying. Edifying means to understand and know what it is and being preached is.

I'll answer the rest of the post in order. Why I don't believe or go by "what if's" is because what you are speaking of has already been addressed by Paul himself. I believe the subjects on this are in the Corinthians for one example.

See though, this is the beauty of Truth, which is why everyone plays a part and not just "listen to Paul/Pastor/Priest" and that is all church is. We learn very great spiritual Truths from the Theologians and from Paul and Popes and all that, but we also learn the same things from the young and weak in faith, and even from non-Christians as well. So, when all have gathered, and all give off their testimony (as Paul testified on edifying in the Corinthians books, I'll have to get the scriptures) they get so many different perspectives and grasp the True meaning from everybody, not just "the leader" and it's nothing more than an indoctrination.

On that last part, isn't that simply what the Pastor/Priest/Pope does is throw their opinion on the matter? This is why it's better if you get differing perspectives than 1 person being the be all end all of interpretations. Now, yes, we can point to the Apostles for doing this, but at the same time, I do view a grand difference between Pastor and Apostle for 1 important reason. The Apostles were the ones who were hand picked by Christ himself in the flesh for the Revelation of His' Gospel. No Pastor or Priest or even Pope could ever claim that (sans Peter of course). Peter was still a mere mortal and fallable human, and it is that which has chosen all of our pastors for Churches when you Truly look at it.

Last thing is, believe it or not, there are laymen, who as a student, has already surpassed the teachers on many theological points and Truths, but because they aren't the Teachers, they must be silent, where that is actually anti-Biblical. From what I've read in scriptures, True church gathering wasn't so much sermons, but more of a Bible study without a set time.

I'm honored you gave your .02 FRO, and I'm just informing you of my perspective on the subject you have brought forth. \m/
Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

avatar

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 26
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 4513

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:51 pm

as long as a worship service constitues fellowship in the name of god, teaching of the scriptures and studying them in a group setting, without pastoral bias, prayer etc. i think it is good and should be done. it is when churches attempt to do idiot things like the confession garbage of catholiscism and the worship of mary etc etc. church needs to be lightly organized and centered on biblical truths, fellowship, and strengthening of faith, nothing more, nothing less. certain people are called to be ministers in a church, the last church i went to god literally spoke to the head pastor and told him "dave i want you to lead this church" at the time it was a small disorganized church and since he has become head of it, it has grown to 1000s, and every thing he does is commanded directly by god. he was told once " i am sending more people, the building your currently have is too small to fit them, hold services in the highschool and build a larger church" he did so, the numbers grew bigger then the church could hold very fast, the new building is now nearly full. he was also told if he did not do these things gods spirit would leave the church. he certainly did not like the idea of holding services in a highschool gym, but it's what god asked him to do, and it turned out that it was the right thing to do. i do beleive god does ordain men as ministers, but not as "church bosses" but as servants to fellow brothers and sisters in christ. man i miss that church :[
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
FireProphet

avatar

Number of posts : 746
Age : 33
Location : TACOMA
Registration date : 2009-07-27
Points : 4077

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:55 pm

Papacy is a cool word.
Back to top Go down
wizardovmetal

avatar

Number of posts : 1056
Age : 26
Location : COLD
Registration date : 2009-08-17
Points : 4513

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Fri Jun 18, 2010 8:56 pm

idk why but it reminds me of baby products, nice job derailing the thread Fire Very Happy
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/jbmetalhed
Gorlim (OMW)

avatar

Number of posts : 1171
Age : 30
Location : Tennessee
Registration date : 2008-11-09
Points : 4384

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:15 am

FireProphet wrote:
Papacy is a cool word.


hahaha.

/thread
Back to top Go down
http://www.myspace.com/thepoet777
olias

avatar

Number of posts : 2399
Age : 27
Location : USA
Registration date : 2009-07-10
Points : 5999

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Sat Jun 19, 2010 12:24 am

I am bloody Papist. I am here to harass you with my popery.
Back to top Go down
Death over Life

avatar

Number of posts : 632
Age : 28
Location : The Inner Sanctum known as my Insanity and Damnation
Registration date : 2008-11-02
Points : 4172

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Sat Jun 19, 2010 2:15 pm

I was able to get to a couple more of Mark’s quotes.

Mark wrote:

Time and time again Peter is shown as the leader of the Apostles, and speaks on behalf of the Apostles.

Unless what is shown below are the examples, what examples are there? I actually remembered in a few places (don’t know the exact location) but Paul actually had to constantly correct Peter on a few theological basis, and if Paul is correcting the leader of the Apostles constantly, wouldn’t that make Paul higher than Peter and the rest? If so, wouldn’t this make Paul the Pope, or rather, a Co-Pope? If both were in Rome and died there, why was 1 chosen instead of both? Makes no sense, that 1 would be highly favored than the other when both were equal.

Mark wrote:

Jesus told Peter in John 21:15-17 to feed His sheep. That refers to all the Christians.

Correct, but that doesn’t make Peter a Pope. There were many other places where something similar have been spoken of for others.

Mark wrote:

Acts 1:15, Peter selects a successor to Judas. Obviously, if Judas will be replaced, wouldn't all the Apostles, Peter included, be replaced? This shows it was not a temporary office, it was to be continued for all time.

I have read Acts 1:15 and this is what it says:

15 And in these days Peter rose up in the midst of the brethren and said (and there was a multitude of names together, about a hundred and twenty):

Now, how you got that message out of Acts 1:15 I would love to hear, because standing up and counting around 120 disciples doesn’t mean he has selected a successor.

Mark wrote:

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 and Acts 5:3 all show Peter exercising infallible authority.

Acts 3:12-26 I have just read that. The context of this is that Peter and John together were going around after they were finished at the temple where they healed a lame man. When others saw it, they were astounded by them and were in essence worshipping them, which cause Peter to start preaching to the crowd about Christ and questioning why are they marveled that He and John healed a lame man? Remember, Peter is a disciple, so of course he is going to have authority, but so does John. This once again, sounds like favoritism on Peter and not everybody for the founding of the church.

Acts 4:8-12 So here, before the Scriptures lied the question of: By what name or power have you done this? (Speaking of healing the lamed man here). Peter simply answered and told them that is was by the Power of Christ. Yet, in addition to Peter answering the question, even He affirms that Christ is the chief cornerstone of the Church, so Peter himself is saying Christ or “thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God” is the Rock that the Church will be built, not Peter himself.

Acts 5:3 Is simply Peter asking a question to Ananias. What that does remind me though, is whenever Christ called Peter Satan. Somewhat doing the exact same thing here, except instead of Jesus and Peter, it is Peter and Ananias.

With all that being said, what exactly is the definition of infallible authority because those quotes Scriptures show nothing but what ALL the Disciples, Apostles, Prophets etc. have done and would do.

I shall get to the last of the Scriptures and the quotes at a later time.
Back to top Go down
Vigilance Saints Arise

avatar

Number of posts : 328
Age : 55
Registration date : 2009-08-03
Points : 3641

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Sat Jun 19, 2010 3:27 pm

MetLHed4GZus wrote:
Kamerad Ash wrote:
Quote :
A pastor is appointed by God, all true spiritual
leaders are.

Says you or God?

The only pastors I have ever known ar appointed by either themselves or other humans.
definitely the bible, which is definitely God

Priests are also called Pastor, the word Pope means Father.
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3429

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Sat Jun 19, 2010 6:13 pm

Hi, guys. You discovered the topic to get me back to interacting. Laughing

I only read the first half of the answers, but here's how I'd approach it--and keep in mind that I looked at this subject quite a bit during my journey toward Eastern Catholicism.

First, I don't really like focusing on the papacy per se, as I see it as being a more particular concept from within the more general idea of apostolic succession. AS is the view held by ALL ancient churches (Orthodox, Copts, Catholics, Assyrian Church of the East, etc.) that holds that church leaders are to be ordained by bishops in historical lineage to the Apostles, or those who are ordained by them. I personally think the Scriptural and historical support for both these ideas is sufficiently strong--and the arguments for resisting them, IMO, insufficient. I might agree that one cannot make an absolute demonstration of this idea, but it is far and away the most defensible position, IMO.

Now, the papacy is a bit different. Catholics hold to the valid AS of these other traditions (not always vice versa0< BUT they hold that communion with Bishop of Rome is normative. Although people want simple text-proofing, I think this is a failed way of going about things, as I ultmately don't find sola Scriptura plausible, though I would agree that all teaching cannot contradict Scripture. Thoug htere are many details here, the gist is that the canon of what we understand as the Scripture (which even then differs between different traditions) is determined by processes outside of Scripture--historically, through church councils, beginning in the 4th century, (and local councils at that) comprised of bishops in AS.
There is a sense in which the Bible is the Book of the Church--one who understands the church as secondary to Scripture is fundamentally ahistorical and misguided, IMO. Bible was one way WITHIN the apostolic church that true teaching was preserved, and theological matters (including quesitoons about what books should be part of the Bible!) were hashed out. Even Protestants had to apply an extra-Scriptural standard for determining Scripture, though one can find measures very close to Sola Scriptura (though ones which fit the ancient churches as well, IMO).

So, the real question is, for those accepting AS, how important is union with the Bishop of Rome? This ishow the question should really be asked.

I'd say Scripture itself does not really address this, ALTHOUGH one can go back and see allusions to it, perhaps, if one already buys into the idea. But the notion of some kind of primacy for the bishop of Rome goes back quite early in Church history, and does not contradict anything in Scripture (which is different than saying is clearly supported by Scripture, BTW). Undeniably, papal primacy as it came to be defined in 1870 in Vatican I is not found in the earliest church, but I'd say hints in this direction are. However, Catholic teaching recognizes the sacraments of all AS churches even ifn they do not accept the dogma of papal primacy. It IS odd, in a sense, that a central dogma which in itself is independent of the sacraments
distingishes one traditions from others. There is something perplexing about the Cahtolic notion that other churches can have all the sacraments, but still be "lacking" because they do not recognize papal primacy. It is almost as if the "fullness" of the faith is based on a non-sacramental doctrine, which seems troubling in that the church itself is defined through baptism and Eucharist. The Catholic church, however, recognizes this tension--and once again, the proof that papal primacy may not be as central to Cahtolics as Protestants and others imagine it to be is that it is still acknowledged that other churches in AS are genuinely churches through the Eucharist (non AS grups are technically considered "ecclesial communities" rather than churches, as they are not regarded as having a full-fledged Eucharist by which the Body of Christ--the church--is defined and located--but they generally don't take themselves to have such anyway, so this shouldn't bother them! Keep in mind though that their baptism ARE recognized--these subjects are complex, though cogent, IMO).

My own way of understanding these thigns is to say that union with hte bishop of Rome does not define the faith, and is not central to it in the way the sacraments, and in particular, the Eucharist, are. However, I think there are justifiable reasons for saying that this union IS normative, proper, important, etc. And, I think Christendom suffers from the loss of this communion--though it must be properly understood. Many Catholic apologist magnify it to someting beyond what the teaching itself requires--as I said, the fact that Catholicism itself still takes the unity through the Eucharist to be central in a way that the recogniton of the papacy is not should already tell us something. But I'll come back to the details of my defense of the papacy later.

graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
graybeardheadbanger



Number of posts : 167
Age : 51
Registration date : 2009-07-26
Points : 3429

PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   Sat Jun 19, 2010 7:43 pm

wizardovmetal wrote:
as long as a worship service constitues fellowship in the name of god, teaching of the scriptures and studying them in a group setting, without pastoral bias, prayer etc. i think it is good and should be done. it is when churches attempt to do idiot things like the confession garbage of catholiscism and the worship of mary etc etc.

I am curious, could you tell me what you think the Catholic scriptural evidence for things like confession is, as well as the veneration of mary (BTW, for the record, Catholic theology emphatically does NOT encourage the worship of Mary--the veneration of saints is different from worship, which is reserved for God alone). I caution you to demonstrate humility, and be aware that the scriptural basis for ideas you call idiotic may be quite a bit more developed than you realize. Even upon familiarizing yourself with such evidence, you may not agree with it (though I should tell you that people far more learned than any of us here have found such positions formidable, and some even compelling), but you would see good reason not to dismiss it hastily and reactionarily. There are many decent books on Catholic apologetics, many by former Protestant ministers, that would give you and insightful introduction to these discussions (assuming of course that your mind has not already been committed to particular conclusions, apart from even a moderate study of the Catholic position). BTW, these ideas you denounce as idiotic are not unique to Cahtolicism--they are held by ALL ancient churches).

Quote :
church needs to be lightly organized and centered on biblical truths, fellowship, and strengthening of faith, nothing more, nothing less. certain people are called to be ministers in a church, the last church i went to god literally spoke to the head pastor and told him "dave i want you to lead this church" at the time it was a small disorganized church and since he has become head of it, it has grown to 1000s, and every thing he does is commanded directly by god. he was told once " i am sending more people, the building your currently have is too small to fit them, hold services in the highschool and build a larger church" he did so, the numbers grew bigger then the church could hold very fast, the new building is now nearly full. he was also told if he did not do these things gods spirit would leave the church. he certainly did not like the idea of holding services in a highschool gym, but it's what god asked him to do, and it turned out that it was the right thing to do. i do beleive god does ordain men as ministers, but not as "church bosses" but as servants to fellow brothers and sisters in christ. man i miss that church :[

I would agree that God ordains, though I would maintain that he does so through with historical continuity to hte Apostles, via AS. I don't deny, however, that Protestant ministers can still serve God effectively. I also, like you, prefer thinking of ministers more in a servants role, than as "bosses"--though there is something healthy about believers being willing to submit to correction as well. I am sure such exists in all ecclesial communities/churches. And while some Pope's have unfortunately acted in a "boss like" fashion, there are many times that the role of the Pope has rendered effective service as a servant for the defense of the faith. I encourage you to investigate history for such matters (the defense of baptism, of allowing for repentence for those who apostasized in times of persecutaiton, the defense of the humanity and divinity o0f Christ--for which teaching about Mary are historical;ly significant, BTW--e.g. the Theotokos doctrine--etc. etc.) Hopefully htis will be an opportunity for further learning.

peace, graybeardheadbanger
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: The Roman Papacy   

Back to top Go down
 

The Roman Papacy

View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 4Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
BlabberBoard - Archives :: General Discussion :: Christian Discussion :: Theology-
Forumotion.com | © phpBB | Free forum support | Contact | Report an abuse | Free forum