Zone1 We Catholics have the Best Pope We Could Ever ask for--Jesus Himself

[ninja007]

yes he was lol

CHAPTER VERSE?

 

[ninja007]

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since, according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

But while Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles, or over the church (having primacy). See Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; and 1 Peter 5:1-5. Nor is it ever taught in Scripture that the bishop of Rome, or any other bishop, was to have primacy over the church. Scripture does not even explicitly record Peter ever being in Rome. Rather there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome (1 Peter 5:13). Primarily upon this and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome come the Roman Catholic Church’s teaching of the primacy of the bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Also, nowhere does Scripture state that, in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (the idea behind apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). Paul does NOT call on believers in various churches to receive Titus, Timothy, and other church leaders based on their authority as bishops or their having apostolic authority, but rather based upon their being fellow laborers with him (1 Corinthians 16:10; 16:16; 2 Corinthians 8:23).

What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders, and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is infallible (Matthew 5:18; Psalm 19:7-8; 119:160; Proverbs 30:5; John 17:17; 2 Peter 1:19-21). The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers. To fight against their error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority”; rather, Paul commends them to “God and to the word of His grace” (Acts 20:28-32). It is Scripture that was to be the infallible measuring stick for teaching and practice (2 Timothy 3:16-17), not apostolic successors. It is by examining the Scriptures that teachings are shown to be true or false (Acts 17:10-12).

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

Was Saint Peter the first pope? | GotQuestions.org

Was Saint Peter the first pope? Was Peter the supreme authority over the other Apostles? Was Peter the founder of the Roman Catholic Church?

www.gotquestions.org

 

[fncceo]

But once you know Jesus and His beautiful Church... you don't care..

Something in common with a frontal lobotomy...

 

[nomadic5]

CHAPTER VERSE?

Catholics do not--and no one should--go by the Bible alone if one wants to be in Heaven some day. Even the Bible says that all that Jesus said and did cannot be contained even in a world full of books (my paraphrase but a good one IMO)

 

[nomadic5]

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles.

If you knew the Bible, you would know that this is TRUE

That Peter had primacy among the 12

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

For the first 280 years of Christianity, the Catholic church did not exist.

You do realize this, right?

They met in private homes so as not to be seen, otherwise they would have been killed for their faith.

And do you know WHI it was who would have killed the true saints? The group that now identifies as the Catholic Church.

The real Christians "caught "Judaizing on the Sabbath" faced severe punishment that included DEATH. THAT is the Catholic Church

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

If you knew the Bible, you would know that this is TRUE

That Peter had primacy among the 12

Your Peter was Simon Magus

 

[kjw47]

Forget Francis and the imposters who came before him.

This is what I believe today, subject to change but I doubt this changes..

When 1958 came along and anti-Catholics took over the Vatican, well, Pius XII was gone (to meet Jesus) and so---

I am still a Sedevacantist, one who believes that the Chair of St Peter is vacant. But I say the Chair is only vacant of a HUMAN pope. I say Jesus has taken over Himself. Why wouldn't He? He said that He would protect His Church, that the gates of Hell itself would not prevail against it (Mt 16:18)

And He knows more about what happened at Vatican II than ANYONE...

If I have said anything here that a certified theologian finds to be in error, I can be convinced otherwise but as of right now, this is where I'm at and I don't see myself budging from it any time soon.

Thats strange, the teachings of Jesus prove 100% that Catholicism= 2Thess 2:3--You should study those teachings.
Here is some simple bible milk Catholicism cant understand after all these centuries-Why?= Matt 23:9--Do not call any man on earth FATHER.--That is not speaking about Dads, it is speaking about a spiritual teacher. Yet your religion calls its clergy-FATHER. The Pope elevates himself into Gods position being called holy FATHER--He Fathered 0 spiritually. God Fathered all of it. He alone is the holy FATHER. I say-RUN FROM THEM.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Then there is that pesky definition of "vicar of Christ": Vicar of Christ definition, the pope, with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ and possess His authority in the church.

 

[kjw47]

Then there is that pesky definition of "vicar of Christ": Vicar of Christ definition, the pope, with reference to his claim to stand in the place of Jesus Christ and possess His authority in the church.

Catholicism=2Thess 2:3= the great apostasy, the son of destruction( peredition)-- All her branches( protestants) included, they never fixed it.

 

[sparky]

hasn't the Vatican recently turned it's back on the USA? ~S~

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

hasn't the Vatican recently turned it's back on the USA? ~S~

Will you condemn me as a heretic if I tell you God has too?

 

[sparky]

Will you condemn me as a heretic if I tell you God has too?

No. because God has very little to do with the vatican CAA

 

[nomadic5]

Something in common with a frontal lobotomy...

one should not be so certain of things one cannot be 100% certain of

Me?

I am absolutely 1000% certain Jesus is real and His TANGIBLE Presence abides in His Church

Mt 28:20

Mt 16:18

John 6:27-72

 

[nomadic5]

No. because God has very little to do with the vatican CAA

only since 1958

Before then, the Vatican really was a Catholic Church.

But it looks like there was no human being worthy of the title Pope so Jesus just took over (my thoughts... can't say I know what the Lord's thoughts are on Catholic Church, circa 1958)

 

[nomadic5]

Catholicism=2Thess 2:3= the great apostasy, the son of destruction( peredition)-- All her branches( protestants) included, they never fixed it.

You are WRONG as can be. The Apostasy has nothing to do with Catholicism per se.

If anti-Christs take over the Vatican-- which definitely appears to be the case (1958)-- that does not mean Catholicism is to blame.

That is ILLOGICAL

That is like saying that all baptized Catholics are murderers because Hitler was baptized Catholic!

Please...

 

[kjw47]

You are WRONG as can be. The Apostasy has nothing to do with Catholicism per se.

If anti-Christs take over the Vatican-- which definitely appears to be the case (1958)-- that does not mean Catholicism is to blame.

That is ILLOGICAL

That is like saying that all baptized Catholics are murderers because Hitler was baptized Catholic!

Please...

Catholicism can't even understand simple bible truths let alone the meat. For Example-No Israelite male( except Nazarites, not Nazarenes) were allowed to have long hair- 1Cor 11:14)--So in all their pictures of Jesus they display to all of creation, Jesus bringing dishonor to his Fathers name. He would never do that.
The NT teaches-Call no man on earth FATHER( Matt 23:9)( not as a dad, but as a spiritual teacher) yet Catholic clergy are called FATHER. The Pope is called holy FATHER elevating himself into Gods position. The Pope Fathered 0 spiritual things. God Fathered all of them. God is the holy Father not the Pope.
The Pope surrounds himself with killers for protection= faithless. There is more.

 

[nomadic5]

Thats strange, the teachings of Jesus prove 100% that Catholicism= 2Thess 2:3--You should study those teachings.
Here is some simple bible milk Catholicism cant understand after all these centuries-Why?= Matt 23:9--Do not call any man on earth FATHER.--That is not speaking about Dads, it is speaking about a spiritual teacher. Yet your religion calls its clergy-FATHER. The Pope elevates himself into Gods position being called holy FATHER--He Fathered 0 spiritually. God Fathered all of it. He alone is the holy FATHER. I say-RUN FROM THEM.

well, since you know everything about Catholicism and I, who have been Catholic all my life and have actually STUDIED it... know absolutely nothing according to you

I will let you ramble on to whomever is listening. . which does not include me.

 

[kjw47]

well, since you know everything about Catholicism and I, who have been Catholic all my life and have actually STUDIED it... know absolutely nothing according to you

I will let you ramble on to whomever is listening. . which does not include me.

I showed you fact. The bible condemns the usage of statues, icons and graven images. Yet your churches and houses are filled with all 3.