RE: Why do we need a Pope?

RE: Why do we need a Pope? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine

Message

bishop35 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 6:52:45 PM)
meepmep, that is awsome! Any one who helps the needy, spreads the word of God, and gives himself to Christ as a servent understands the example of Christ in his life on earth. As christians, shouldnt this define all of us?

GoodME -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 7:02:04 PM)
quote: You suggest that one voice is needed to decide the really hard issues and/or choices for us? No, but I am illustrating that it is possible to gleen different positions from the same translation of the Bible, because of the different agendas and experiences we bring to the table. That's why we need the disinterested party of "Church" who won't profit from research, who won't profit from lack of research, etc. to help us discern God's revelation for us on this emerging technology. Unfortunately, free will brings with it the baggage of doing things because you can, not because you should. And Some guy I never met before would be perfect for the job. He is just the voice. Something I deal with daily and have closely intertwined in the definition of my sense of morality - Church - IS perfect for the job. Let me explain this from my understanding. I would rather have someone up close and personal help and guilde me through any hard choice, or to make a tough stand on an issue, than to have a stranger dictate what I need to beleive from the other side of the planet. God gave us a brain, and reason. Why would I want to give up those valuable tools, and let somebody eles think for me, no matter who it is? Becuase that institution has far better resources to apply to this task than you or I alone do. You want the best working on this task of discernment, don't you? Are you? Am I? Or is the Church (could be your Church, my Church, whatever - anything but US). And if that wasnt your direction, Then, My pastor opposes it, the pastor across the street, I have no idea, and me, I think it shows promise in some aspects.So - within a one-block world of Christendom - there's 3 different teachings on the subject, because of the doctirne of "self-discernment". So My pastor and I can dissagree. At least until the Lord lets us know for sure. How does He do this, whisper in your ear? Why is it that when a billion Catholics are instructed a uniform teaching of Biblical Faith to follow, that is anything other than the Lord causing that to happen. He can dictate to me anything he wishes. If you dissagreed with the pope, would they excomunicte you or something? If I disagreed with the teachings of the Church, why would I be Catholic? It has a pretty good track record with me over 43 years.

sdaw -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 7:04:48 PM)
The pope is not just a church leader, a spokesman, a teacher, or an administrator, he is also a human sign, in the scriptural sense, of the unity of the Church, not only for his time, but throughout history. Eternal rest grant onto him, O Lord!

SaintJVMan -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 7:05:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: SaintJVMan quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle I heard that they found Peter's body buried in Jeruselem and not Rome. In fact, I read an article that made a case for the fact that no evidence is founf that Peter EVER went to Rome. Paul maybe; Peter...no. Anyone know of this article? I’m not sure what article your mentioning, but can you think of even one Church Father who said that Peter died anywhere but Rome? I know I can think of many who said that he did die there. Can you just look at this article and tell me what you think of it? http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm I always look at other information even when I might not agree with it after all how else would I have passed theo 101 with a liberal teacher?

bishop35 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 7:35:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GoodME quote: You suggest that one voice is needed to decide the really hard issues and/or choices for us? No, but I am illustrating that it is possible to gleen different positions from the same translation of the Bible, because of the different agendas and experiences we bring to the table. That's why we need the disinterested party of "Church" who won't profit from research, who won't profit from lack of research, etc. to help us discern God's revelation for us on this emerging technology. Unfortunately, free will brings with it the baggage of doing things because you can, not because you should. And Some guy I never met before would be perfect for the job. He is just the voice. Something I deal with daily and have closely intertwined in the definition of my sense of morality - Church - IS perfect for the job. Let me explain this from my understanding. I would rather have someone up close and personal help and guilde me through any hard choice, or to make a tough stand on an issue, than to have a stranger dictate what I need to beleive from the other side of the planet. God gave us a brain, and reason. Why would I want to give up those valuable tools, and let somebody eles think for me, no matter who it is? Becuase that institution has far better resources to apply to this task than you or I alone do. You want the best working on this task of discernment, don't you? Are you? Am I? Or is the Church (could be your Church, my Church, whatever - anything but US). I agree, but that is a lot of power in the hands of one man. What he decides, and says, this is what God ment, scares me. Did God whisper it in his ear? If this whole idea was a form of goverment, it would be a dictatorship. The pope is that powerful, and the church is suseptable to him. And if that wasnt your direction, Then, My pastor opposes it, the pastor across the street, I have no idea, and me, I think it shows promise in some aspects.So - within a one-block world of Christendom - there's 3 different teachings on the subject, because of the doctirne of "self-discernment". So My pastor and I can dissagree. At least until the Lord lets us know for sure. How does He do this, whisper in your ear? Why is it that when a billion Catholics are instructed a uniform teaching of Biblical Faith to follow, that is anything other than the Lord causing that to happen.With that kind of power, one would hope! He can dictate to me anything he wishes. If you dissagreed with the pope, would they excomunicte you or something? If I disagreed with the teachings of the Church, why would I be Catholic? It has a pretty good track record with me over 43 years. You are a good person to talk to about this. I respect your insight. So the pastors of these two churches couldnt have God reveile anything to them? You or I couldnt have God talk to us? This is held only for the the Pope?

SaintJVMan -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 9:42:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: TimL Hi Sadie, Is it really blue in here or is it just me? Anyway, I have no idea where to start here in this blue world. Maybe you can just start us off if you want. May God Continue to Bless You Sadie, Tim Hey Tim! Yeah, it's really blue in here. I like it. I tried to start things off from a new perspective: establishing Peter in Rome since there is controversy that he was even there... ...I think Lurker tried to pick up the ball after that, but then Lurker had to go make dinner. wink Here is a reference to Rome in Peter’s first epistle. “The Church here in Babylon, united with you by God’s election, sends you her greeting, and so does my son, Mark” (1 Pet. 5:13,)

TimL -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 10:04:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bishop35 meepmep, that is awsome! Any one who helps the needy, spreads the word of God, and gives himself to Christ as a servent understands the example of Christ in his life on earth. As christians, shouldnt this define all of us? Dear bishop, I agree completly that meep is amazing. Let me add my perspective here if you would. There are many different beliefs on quite a few core issues. Either Peter was the leader of the Apostles, or not. Either he was the Rock or not. Either Christ established His Church on earth or He didn't. Either the Holy Eucharist is really Christ's body and blood or it is something else. And on and on and on. While individual members of the Catholic Church do not necessarily believe the teachings of the CC on each of these issues, at least there is only one position, from the CC, on each of these topics. Within the Protestant movement, there are an almost uncountable combination of beliefs on the core issues of our faith in Christ. It would be hard to believe that the Holy Spirit is leading all of the Protestant Churches, much less all individual Christians when there are so many sets of beliefs being claimed. In fact, there is only one truth, from Christ, on each of these issues. What most Protestants would have you believe is that the entirety of Christianity was somehow allowed, by the Holy Spirit, to follow false doctrines for 1500 years until the Reformers came along and straightened out Christianity. Personally I have a lot more faith in the Spirit than what this implies. As a former Protestant, I never really gave this much thought, but now to me at least, there is only one way to view this problem. May God Bless You, Tim

Eutychus -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 10:13:32 PM)
Somehow, I can't imagine either Jesus or Peter dressed in such fine apparel and living in monstrous dwellings amid pomp and circumstance. I know that none of the original Apostles or NT leaders would permit anyone to pay homage to them. The very idea seemed to horrify them.

divinemercy -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/13/2005 10:27:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Eutychus Somehow, I can't imagine either Jesus or Peter dressed in such fine apparel and living in monstrous dwellings amid pomp and circumstance. I know that none of the original Apostles or NT leaders would permit anyone to pay homage to them. The very idea seemed to horrify them. Tell that to the fancy preachers on TV and all the things they own. And when they die they will leave it all to there kids. But hey the kids dont have to wait, they are employed by their parent and get the wealth without waiting. Or the peachers of any large congregation and look at all what they got.

Deleted User -> [Deleted] (4/13/2005 11:36:11 PM)
[Deleted by Admins]

meep meep -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 9:43:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bishop35 meepmep, that is awsome! Any one who helps the needy, spreads the word of God, and gives himself to Christ as a servent understands the example of Christ in his life on earth. As christians, shouldnt this define all of us? It SHOULD define all of us - but sadly, it doesn't. We all sin, we all fail whether Pastor or Pope. We are ALL called to live Holy lives, and while our wellspring is the Grace of God and the example of His Son Jesus Christ, we are not alone. We have fellow Christians to exhort us, to lead us, to serve as examples and to preserve that word as it was handed to the Apostles. Moral leadership has always been scripturally mandated ( see all of Paul to Timothy - a bishop) as the ethic to be followed - not just by the "saints" but by the Bishops of the Church. It is interesting ( as we were speaking of pomp previously ) that Popes have historically taken on the title Servant of the Servants of God - a title that has reflected the humility of the responsibility of these bishops (because that is what a Pope is). Luke 22:26. What's the importance of the Pope? To serve the Lord, to provide leadership and teaching, to preserve the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ and to build the body of Christ. JPII built the body of Christ by reaching out as Shepard to all the flock - or at least as much of it as he could visit in his tenure as Pope. During that time the Church grew from 700,000 to almost 1.2 billion - many ascribe that to evangelization. Does the Pope 'lord it " over others? Saint Gregory the Great ( a Pope) said: "My honor is the solid strength of my brethren. I am truly honored when the honor due to every single one is not denied." Popes are just like the rest of us - and they're not - Peter humbled himself while still acknowledging he was an elder ( as were others). Finally, how many times have we washed the feet of another as a sign of submission and love? How many times have we each as Christians visited the sick in a hospice or hospital? Gone to prison? These are all part of the "office" of the Pope. [Whcih is not to say these "ministries" are not found elsewhere] Perhaps those symbols are insignificant, perhaps "works" to some, perhaps inconsequential - but it is just possible that to a watching world it may move a sinner closer to Christ. In Christ, Meep meep

SaintJVMan -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 9:48:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SaintJVMan quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: SaintJVMan quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle I heard that they found Peter's body buried in Jeruselem and not Rome. In fact, I read an article that made a case for the fact that no evidence is founf that Peter EVER went to Rome. Paul maybe; Peter...no. Anyone know of this article? I’m not sure what article your mentioning, but can you think of even one Church Father who said that Peter died anywhere but Rome? I know I can think of many who said that he did die there. Can you just look at this article and tell me what you think of it? http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm I always look at other information even when I might not agree with it after all how else would I have passed theo 101 with a liberal teacher? I read it, but wasn’t convinced; the evidence saying that he was in Rome is to complelling.

SaintJVMan -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 9:49:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Eutychus Somehow, I can't imagine either Jesus or Peter dressed in such fine apparel and living in monstrous dwellings amid pomp and circumstance. I know that none of the original Apostles or NT leaders would permit anyone to pay homage to them. The very idea seemed to horrify them. Do you think that the apostles would have thought that their office as apostles did not require some degree of respect and deference?

meep meep -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 10:08:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Eutychus Somehow, I can't imagine either Jesus or Peter dressed in such fine apparel and living in monstrous dwellings amid pomp and circumstance. I know that none of the original Apostles or NT leaders would permit anyone to pay homage to them. The very idea seemed to horrify them. Are you not making a generalized assumption here? Perhaps you could explain more fully. I suppose the Streets in Heaven are not paved in Gold - I thought I read that somewhere in scripture - but, no matter. Let's look at how this last Pope lived in such fine splendor - by all accounts he spent most of his time in prayer in his SPARTAN apartment. When he ventured into the more "opulent" parts of the Vatican - it was as the head of a political State - the pomp and circumstance - as you call it was akin to that offered to any head of State. Attire? Gucci? De La Renta? Calvin Klein? Hilfilger? How about a simple white Cossack? Shoes? He was buried in the brown simple leather shoes - those of the type he wore most of his life. Have you ever seen pictures of JPII with tennis shoes worn under his Cossack? Hardly opulent. Have you read his will? It can be found online. how much wealth and opulence did he acquire? How was he buried? An expensive casket? No, he chose a cedar box. He is hardly an exception - although those at the opposite extreme are. In Christ, Meep meep

GoodME -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 10:53:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bishop35I agree, but that is a lot of power in the hands of one man. What he decides, and says, this is what God ment, scares me. Did God whisper it in his ear? If this whole idea was a form of goverment, it would be a dictatorship. The pope is that powerful, and the church is suseptable to him. The converse to your statement is what if he said something "ex-cathedra" that turned out to be errant. Would kind of blow the whole Faith thing for a lot of Catholics. To be sure, the Church (again, the institution - who's voice is the Pope) doesn't take these matters lightly. The Pope is acknowledging the Faith revealed by God, not dictating it to God, and voicing that revelation of detailed practice to the Faithful. This revelation is by discernment (frequently), just as you do when you sit and read Scriptures by yourself and decide how what they say instructs the practice of your Faith. All I am saying here is that the vast resources of the Church in terms of learned and holy people trained and practiced in this pursuit are better suited for this task than I am. You are telling me that each and every individual is equally suited, to which I disagree. This would cause a number of things to happen - the fullness of Faith is then dependent on your own personal gifts and abilities (Paul instructs us the the Church is a Body with some people being thumbs and some people being toes) You are a good person to talk to about this. I respect your insight. Thanks. So the pastors of these two churches couldnt have God reveile anything to them? You or I couldnt have God talk to us? This is held only for the the Pope? That's not waht i am saying. I am saying that if two people claim to have an inspired revelation of Faith from their discernment of Scriptures, those two positions, practices or instructions better be consistent, or I am going to accuse one of them of CLAIMING Spiritual influence, without really having it. If The Holy Spirit truly guided the three of you - you would all agree, as Scriptural Truth is not relative to the believer, but absolute (the same for everything and everybody). Within the Roman Catholic Church, there is one Faith defined - and we choose how we follow that Faith. Therefore - I argue that because there is one uniform teaching that is clearly taught in each and every Parish - this consistency IS evidence of the influence of the Spirit - or at least a much more compelling case than three people disagreeing (which 2 are wrong?) The Pope doesn't talk to God for me (or he might, in addition to me, which would not be a bad thing) - I may talk to God anytime I like. The Pope is the face and voice of the authority of the Church - his voice reads, and his hands write (or his staff does) the instructions and practices of Faith taught by the Church to its Faithful. He is the voice for this institution - and is my ambassador as a Roman Catholic. He is the voice of Church for me when I am too caught up being "American" or "Republican", etc. He doesn't preside singularly, but is the voice of the work of many. Only a fool would fly that airplane solo, you know? The Pope didn't get to be that by being a fool.

jgarden -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 11:12:18 AM)
Pope John Paul set the standard that a pope must be dynamic, charismatic and highly visible to the world. The Church can't afford to accept anything less. Somebody from the "old guard" in their 70's would represent a major reversal. With over a billion adherents, it would be a sad admission that the Catholic Church can't produce something more than a "caretaker pope." If that's the case, it would be better to have no pope at all.

GoodME -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 11:42:31 AM)
quote: Pope John Paul set the standard that a pope must be dynamic, charismatic and highly visible to the world. The Church can't afford to accept anything less. Somebody from the "old guard" in their 70's would represent a major reversal. With over a billion adherents, it would be a sad admission that the Catholic Church can't produce something more than a "caretaker pope." If that's the case, it would be better to have no pope at all. I wouldn't automatically lump "old guard" and "in their 70's" together. And yes - John Paul II redefined what this office can accomplish in the world. I suspect and anticipate a similar mindset from a successor, with perhaps a bit more activity in terms of issues outside Europe in the Church. As I have stated - any and all prayers from those who care that the Holy Spirit may guide and provide wisdom to those that participate in the College next week are appreciated.

sadiebelle -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 11:59:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: SaintJVMan quote: ORIGINAL: SaintJVMan quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle quote: ORIGINAL: SaintJVMan quote: ORIGINAL: sadiebelle I heard that they found Peter's body buried in Jeruselem and not Rome. In fact, I read an article that made a case for the fact that no evidence is founf that Peter EVER went to Rome. Paul maybe; Peter...no. Anyone know of this article? I’m not sure what article your mentioning, but can you think of even one Church Father who said that Peter died anywhere but Rome? I know I can think of many who said that he did die there. Can you just look at this article and tell me what you think of it? http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm I always look at other information even when I might not agree with it after all how else would I have passed theo 101 with a liberal teacher? I read it, but wasn’t convinced; the evidence saying that he was in Rome is to complelling. Fair enough. What is your opinion of the excavation not only claiming to have found Peter's grave, but Mary, Lazerous and Martha's graves too? Are you saying the whole article was a hoax or just the part about Peter?

blackbelt -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 12:40:27 PM)
Actuall Im 43 and I have been a praticing Catholic since i was 41, and yes there are more stories that I have and no I do not lie nor was there any scarcasem in my post as in your reply, Catholicisim has to many rules not in line with the Bible, my experance with Catholisim in my 40 years! is TRUTH not OPIONION, if its free in your Diocese then Catholisim is not straight on its views , because in my area they want money. Now Im not saying Catholicisim is no good but belivers need to know Truth of the Bible from man made rules of the Church.

Lurker -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 2:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt Actuall Im 43 and I have been a praticing Catholic since i was 41, and yes there are more stories that I have and no I do not lie nor was there any scarcasem in my post as in your reply, Catholicisim has to many rules not in line with the Bible, my experance with Catholisim in my 40 years! is TRUTH not OPIONION, if its free in your Diocese then Catholisim is not straight on its views , because in my area they want money. Now Im not saying Catholicisim is no good but belivers need to know Truth of the Bible from man made rules of the Church. There's an answer here: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9909fea2.asp A small segment that applies to your situation re: your annulment is quoted below. Emphasis is mine btw. quote: The state requires people to get a civil divorce before it allows them to remarry under its laws. Before they get that divorce, the state requires them to pay certain fees and court costs. Is it unfair of the state to make folks pay for one of its rules? Technically, of course, one doesn't pay for a civil divorce as if it is literally for sale; one pays for the legal process by which that divorce is officially effected. Similarly, one does not pay for an annulment; rather, one pays for the canonical process by which an annulment might be granted. (Notice I say might be granted.) Unlike a civil divorce, an annulment is not a more-or-less automatic process in which one has an eventual right to a certain outcome. Because of the Church's commitment to permanent marriage, the annulment process is concerned with very different-and usually much more complex-types of issues than is a civil divorce court. The ecclesiastical process requires the attention of highly trained officials and supporting staff. Of course, if an individual truly cannot meet his or her share of the cost, procedures for reducing or waiving tribunal fees are available (canons 1464 and 1649). No one is ever denied his "day in the tribunal" because of an inability to pay. Even when individuals pay their diocese's standard tribunal fees, no diocese I know of makes money on annulments. The reason scripturally why there is a cost (albeit not too expensive generally) is Luke 10:7 where it says in effect that one should be fairly compensated. "Stay in that house, eating and drinking whatever they give you, for the worker deserves his wages. Do not move around from house to house." The Tribunal working on anulment deserve some fair compensation for their time and effort. After all, they are working on your behalf! So I myself simply am confused by your unwillingness to pay them a fair amount of compensation for their time and effort.

GoodME -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 4:04:46 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lurker Of course, if an individual truly cannot meet his or her share of the cost, procedures for reducing or waiving tribunal fees are available (canons 1464 and 1649). No one is ever denied his "day in the tribunal" because of an inability to pay. Even when individuals pay their diocese's standard tribunal fees, no diocese I know of makes money on annulments. Like I said - the refs are throwing the "balony flags" down on the field after that post (in my opinion, of course). I actually have some tribunal experience - not even many Roman Catholics can say that.

blackbelt -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 4:31:48 PM)
the anullment was just the begining, they would not baptize my kids, and I wasnt awloud to take part in commumion, altho another catholic Church disagreed with the previous Prest and baptized my kids. why do we call them Father we only have one father who is our Creator

Lurker -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/14/2005 5:41:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt The anulment was just the begining, they would not baptize my kids, and I wasn't allowed to take part in communion, although another Catholic Church disagreed with the previous Priest and baptized my kids. Well, it sounds like there might have been something up with your first parish then. Or maybe there's more to the story here. Regardless, I'm glad you got your children baptized. :) quote: why do we call them Father we only have one father who is our Creator Well, I could go on about it, but there's a great page from Catholic.com that talks about it at length and includes scriptural and historical references here: http://www.catholic.com/library/Call_No_Man_Father.asp Hope it helps answer your question!

bettyg51 -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/15/2005 1:15:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bishop35 Wow andym, you sure cleared that up for me! I've gone to church my whole life, I was saved by the blood of Jesus who died for me and I accept, studied his word and teachings, was babtized, but in all that, nobody ever told me about this. So a guy surrounded in so many cult symbols, that I am supose to confess my sins to, and he'll talk to God for me, wasnt importantant enough for anyone to tell me about him and his role as my spiritual leader? Something dont add up here. I trust my Lord to reveal the things I need to know about him and what he wants from me. He didnt bother to fill me in on this guy either. But you condinsend on me? How funny Were is goodme at? He was actually explaining things. quote: bishop35 bishop35, Since andym and goodme have not responded for a couple days, I'd like to answer your post. Nobody ever told you what the pope's job is? Have you ever read church history before 1517 when Luther, a Catholic priest, started the Protestant split? Maybe you weren't taught because your pastors think you will become Catholic if you knew the office of pope has been around since 33 AD. In the Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm), there is an article about the Pope: "In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27). " True, the word "pope" is not in the Bible, but the word "Trinity" isn't either. Both concepts are expressed with other words. In Isaiah 51:1-2 Abraham is called "rock" too. In Matt 16, Jesus was at Caesarea Phillippi, which was the site of a pagan Roman temple on top of a cliff. In the cliff was a cave that was thought to be the gates of hell. So Jesus is saying that the church he will found will replace the Roman pagan religion will be founded on the rock of Peter. Just as the Jews believed Abraham was the rock of the Jewish faith, Peter was to be the Rock of the Christian faith. This is the interpretation that Christians believed for fifteen centuries before Luther's revolt. Of course Jesus is the king in his kingdom. But kingdoms are governed hierarchally. Jesus' kingdom is not an anarchy, so here on earth, he delegated authority to Peter and the apostles. Luke 22:29-32 "It is you who have stood by me in my trials; and I confer a kingdom on you, just as my Father has conferred one on me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel. "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers." Simon is the only apostle Jesus prayed for in this way, so this shows his authority. Delegating authority to Peter does not diminish Christ's authority. Jesus can govern His church any way he wants. Peter is always listed first in all the lists of apostles because this is a way of showing he is preiminent. In Acts 15, Peter announces the decision the bishops made. James only seconds the motion. Peter may seem less important after Pentacost because he wrote less than Paul, but the role Jesus gave the apostles was to teach, not the write. At two things written by a pope are considered authoritative by all because our first pope, Peter wrote 1 & 2 Peter. In the epistles (1 Peter 5:5) wrote, he warns us to "Likewise, you younger members, be subject to the presbyters." Only one who had the authority could say that and expect to be obeyed. In Acts 1:15-25, shows that the office of apostle is to be passed on after an apostle dies. "Peter stood up in the midst of the brothers. ... He said, "My brothers, the scripture had to be fulfilled which the holy Spirit spoke beforehand through the mouth of David, concerning Judas, who was the guide for those who arrested Jesus..... For it is written in the Book of Psalms: 'Let his encampment become desolate, and may no one dwell in it.' And: 'May another take his office.' The bishops are the successors of the apostles. Titus 1:5-9 says that bisphops don't appoint themselves and what their job is. "For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you, 6 on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious. 7 For a bishop as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled, 9 holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents." We don't have the right to interprete Scripture any old way we please. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 says,"Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle." Protestants assume that the meaning of Scripture is self-evident, but that is not true. In 2 Peter 3:15-16 it says, "and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures. " This shows that Scripture is not self-explanitory. It requires guidance to understand. To say that Jesus did not give Peter authority is twisting Scripture, because the way the apostles understood Christ's teaching was that Peter did have special authority, since the keys in Matt 16 are a symbol of the Prime Minister as in Isaiah 22:22. Betty G.

VF19AExcalibur -> RE: Why do we need a Pope? (4/15/2005 2:02:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lurker We need one because Jesus appointed one! Matthew 16:18: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church." Peter of course, being the greek word for rock. Here we have Jesus saying "You are rock, and upon this rock I will build my Church." Now I'm sure that someone will try to use the old argument about Petras/Petros. But do keep in mind, Jesus was speaking aramaic at the time, in which there is no difference between "small stone" and "rock" like Greek. In Aramaic, "rock" is translated to "Kepha" which is of course what Peter was referred to several times in the Scriptures (four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians btw). Note the reference to "Cephas" there. That would be the Greek transliteration of "Kephas" So, we have Jesus appointing Peter/Cephas to be the rock that He will build His Church on. The rock upon which Christ built His church is the Cornerstone which the builders have rejected, Jesus Himself. Ask yourself which would you rather have as the foundation: a hot-tempered, shoot-first-shoot-again-ask-questions-maybe-later human being or the creator of all things? quote: ORIGINAL: Lurker Back then, the Romans were persecuting Christians pretty heavily. Letters would often have to use code words for places to reduce the chance of the writers being found if the message was intercepted. The code word for the city of Rome was "Babylon" due to the fact that the Jewish people readily recognized Babylon as being a place of great persecution. The real Babylon at that time was pretty much in ruins due to military defeats and conquests. Actually, Babylon was still a functioning city that has never ceased to have human habitation since the fifth millennium BC. It had a large Jewish population from the time of the exile on until recently. Babylon is not a ruin. Saddam Hussein restored the palace of Nebuchadnezzar to its original glory in the years before the Iraq War. The US Army has a base there now. In fact, there's been talk amongst the Shi'ites in Iraq of making it the new capital once things settle down there. Now maybe later on, Peter wound up in Rome, but at the time of the letters which we call the General Epistles of Peter, he was in Babylon. Back to OP: I guess the reason why we need a Pope is for us Protestants to have someone to complain about. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI