|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/4/2008 4:17:48 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
The deputy of Jesus, the one who is responsible for the organization and leadership of the Church until Jesus returns - is the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. He is simply working as first assistant to Jesus to provide an earthly presence and face and voice to express the views and instruction of the institution, which is the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. These are simply RC traditions which have nothing to do with biblical truth.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/4/2008 10:46:45 AM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 549
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
The deputy of Jesus, the one who is responsible for the organization and leadership of the Church until Jesus returns - is the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. He is simply working as first assistant to Jesus to provide an earthly presence and face and voice to express the views and instruction of the institution, which is the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
These are simply RC traditions which have nothing to do with biblical truth.
You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but of course, given that your interpretation of scripture is not infallible, we have to leave at that. Since you are not infallible, you cannot claim that the office of the pope is against what scripture says, just your interpretation of scripture.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/4/2008 11:12:30 AM
|
|
|
Asotos
Posts: 33
Joined: 5/31/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
he deputy of Jesus, the one who is responsible for the organization and leadership of the Church until Jesus returns - is the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. He is simply working as first assistant to Jesus to provide an earthly presence and face and voice to express the views and instruction of the institution, which is the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
Apparently in the Eastern part of the Church (which in the ancient church had the largest Christian community) that was never accepted, the Bishop of Rome was honored (as the Bishop of Alexandria, Jerusalem Ephesus Antioch) but never accepted as the only authority of Christ in this world. As the Acts point out where the Synods (first apostolic) and then the local and ecumenical ones, that means the Church who is "the pillar and ground of the truth" not a single man.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 11:02:36 AM
|
|
|
mcleod
Posts: 838
Joined: 4/4/2006
Status: offline
|
Say Martyfran; quote:
You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but of course, given that your interpretation of scripture is not infallible, we have to leave at that. Since you are not infallible, you cannot claim that the office of the pope is against what scripture says, just your interpretation of scripture.
Where is your scripture reference to the fact that this what the pope was to do until Jesus Christ returns physical?
By the way Jesus, because he is God and took on human form, everywhwere.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 2:15:28 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 549
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Say Martyfran; quote:
You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but of course, given that your interpretation of scripture is not infallible, we have to leave at that. Since you are not infallible, you cannot claim that the office of the pope is against what scripture says, just your interpretation of scripture.
Where is your scripture reference to the fact that this what the pope was to do until Jesus Christ returns physical?
By the way Jesus, because he is God and took on human form, everywhwere.
Matthew 16:18,
" And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Now, we see a couple of things in this passage.
1. Jesus specifically mentions Peter, so he is making a comment that is specific to Peter.
2. Peter receives authority in this passage. He receives the power to bind and loose.
This is the primary passage that sets up the authority of Peter and of course, the pope is the successor to Peter.
Now of course, you might have a different interpretation of this verse, but I am sure you would be the first to admit that your interpretation is not infallible. So here we have two Christians who have different views as to what the scripture teaches. You cannot say with any authority that the office of the pope is against scripture, just that in your opinion it does. The level of authority falls from Scripture, to a much lower one of human opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 3:14:07 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
Part of it, though, is that, I'm not convinced that the pope is the proper successor to Peter.
Maybe Peter passed things down for a bit there, but the succession was definitely lost when there were Popes bribing their way into office, committing heinous acts of incest that would turn even a godless person's stomach, turning basilicas into brothels, etc. Keep in mind, again, that had the RCC not become so unspeakably corrupt, the Protestant Reformation would never have happened.
As God said to Moses once, He can raise up children of Abraham from the rocks on the ground. Surely He can raise up proper successors to Peter out of the faithful of humanity, when the "apostolic succession" has become a mockery.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 4:08:50 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 549
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Part of it, though, is that, I'm not convinced that the pope is the proper successor to Peter.
But of course, if Jesus wasn't singling Peter out for a specific task, then of course, your concern is irrelevant.
quote:
Maybe Peter passed things down for a bit there, but the succession was definitely lost when there were Popes bribing their way into office, committing heinous acts of incest that would turn even a godless person's stomach, turning basilicas into brothels, etc. Keep in mind, again, that had the RCC not become so unspeakably corrupt, the Protestant Reformation would never have happened.
Obviously, Popes are sinners, and some more than others. But of course, Jesus never promised us sinless popes, he did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
quote:
As God said to Moses once, He can raise up children of Abraham from the rocks on the ground. Surely He can raise up proper successors to Peter out of the faithful of humanity, when the "apostolic succession" has become a mockery.
Of course the question is, which of us really are the "faithful of humanity" as you say. Probably none of us. Even Peter had his moments where he wasn't faithful, he was just repentant.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 4:15:27 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
But of course, if Jesus wasn't singling Peter out for a specific task, then of course, your concern is irrelevant.
Okay. Then what task, precisely, was he singling Peter out for, that the other apostles did not also perform?
quote:
Obviously, Popes are sinners, and some more than others. But of course, Jesus never promised us sinless popes, he did promise that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church.
Well, frankly, He didn't promise us popes, period. He never mentioned popes.
quote:
Of course the question is, which of us really are the "faithful of humanity" as you say. Probably none of us. Even Peter had his moments where he wasn't faithful, he was just repentant.
Which is why Protestants choose to base our Church on Jesus, not on fallible men.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 4:40:19 PM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 549
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Zhi
Okay. Then what task, precisely, was he singling Peter out for, that the other apostles did not also perform?
Leadership of the Church.
quote:
Well, frankly, He didn't promise us popes, period. He never mentioned popes.
He never said the word pope, but of course, that does not mean that he wasn't singling Peter out for a position of particular authority in the Church. After all, in this instance, Jesus specifically gave Peter the authority to bind and loose.
quote:
Which is why Protestants choose to base our Church on Jesus, not on fallible men.
Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. So your premise is wrong. For example, you probably attend a church that has a pastor. A pastor is a role that can be seen from Scripture. And a pastor has authority. But it would be wrong to say that you base your church on a human pastor. Same thing with Catholics, we see the pope as someone in a role that was designated by Christ. If Jesus set up Peter as the leader of the Church, then if we reject the office that Jesus designated, who are we following? Jesus or our own fallible selfish hearts?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 5:13:18 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
Leadership of the Church.
Well, frankly, he didn't seem to do a very good job if you're going to insist that he was the highest authority.
He wasn't involved in mediating some of the fights that came up, he wasn't a prolific author. He didn't form most of the major doctrines, people like Paul did that. There is nothing that I can find in Scripture indicating that Peter was considered to be the greatest of apostles and the sole leader of all of them. James was the leader of the first church, according to Acts.
So what, then, is the "keys"? It's the Gospel, the Good News that Christ has atoned for our sins by His sacrifice, that opened the gates of Heaven to us. It's what Peter had just said in the previous verse... that Jesus is Son of the living God. That's the keys Peter was given, and Peter and the rest of the Apostles gladly went out and passed out copies to everyone who would take them.
quote:
He never said the word pope, but of course, that does not mean that he wasn't singling Peter out for a position of particular authority in the Church. After all, in this instance, Jesus specifically gave Peter the authority to bind and loose.
So, what specifically did Peter bind and loose?
And, did Jesus give Peter the authority to pass on that authority? Because if not, there was no such succession.
quote:
Catholics believe that Jesus Christ is the head of the Church. So your premise is wrong. For example, you probably attend a church that has a pastor. A pastor is a role that can be seen from Scripture. And a pastor has authority. But it would be wrong to say that you base your church on a human pastor. Same thing with Catholics, we see the pope as someone in a role that was designated by Christ. If Jesus set up Peter as the leader of the Church, then if we reject the office that Jesus designated, who are we following? Jesus or our own fallible selfish hearts?
Peter is dead, and has been for a couple millenia. Several of what you would insist are Peter's "successors" were very, very ungodly men that I frankly think Peter would be absolutely horrified to hear claimed as his successors.
I don't insist my pastor is infallible. I also won't lose my faith entirely, either in my own eyes or in the eyes of my fellow congregants, if I decide my pastor has issues that would indicate that I should find another pastor.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 6:02:56 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 910
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
So, in order to prove that we need your Pope, specifically, you must first prove that: Much easier to demonstrate than to "prove":
quote:
a) one single Bishop deciding to elevate himself despite the eventually church-splitting protests of the other Bishops was appropriate, Hardly a unilateral decision. One Bishop speaks for all the Bishops. I think there is an awful lot of misunderstanding on how the Church arrives at that which she is to communicate. If the Pope sat in isolation and acted as a rogue, I'd feel as you do. But, he doesn't.
quote:
b) the apostolic succession could actually survive successions that were the result of bribery and political machinations by people who very obviously did not meet basically any of the requirements for even an Elder position as laid out in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 and in many cases were so depraved that one wonders if they were even believers Yes indeed...by the power of the Holy Spirit does the institution survive, in spite of all the tarnished humans trying to administrate her. Fortunately for us, Biblical truth is not compromised by the lack of merit of the messenger. If this were true, every Church would be invalid.
quote:
c) that the "correct" apostolic successor was the one who survived the various multiple-pope fiascos throughout the ages despite the fact that the winner was usually a result of political machinations and money God works in mysterious ways sometimes. If a review is completed of every Pope since Peter, you find some really good ones and some really poor ones. How does this change the fact that Jesus is Lord?
quote:
d) that direct apostolic succession is a necessary requirement to have leadership in a proper church in general. I believe this to be a necessity on two fronts - the laying on of hands and the passing of the Holy Spirit from one generation to another, and in the use of the authority granted the Church by Jesus, and given her by her faithful.
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/5/2008 6:17:06 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
a) one single Bishop deciding to elevate himself despite the eventually church-splitting protests of the other Bishops was appropriate, Hardly a unilateral decision. One Bishop speaks for all the Bishops. I think there is an awful lot of misunderstanding on how the Church arrives at that which she is to communicate. If the Pope sat in isolation and acted as a rogue, I'd feel as you do. But, he doesn't.
Mmm. I would note that it was the *other bishops* refusing to accede that caused the schism, and frankly the Eastern Orthodox bishops would say he WAS acting as a rogue in isolation.
quote:
b) the apostolic succession could actually survive successions that were the result of bribery and political machinations by people who very obviously did not meet basically any of the requirements for even an Elder position as laid out in 1 Tim 3 and Titus 1 and in many cases were so depraved that one wonders if they were even believers Yes indeed...by the power of the Holy Spirit does the institution survive, in spite of all the tarnished humans trying to administrate her. Fortunately for us, Biblical truth is not compromised by the lack of merit of the messenger. If this were true, every Church would be invalid.
Except that you don't adhere to Biblical truth. Instead you insist that the Scripture take a back seat to your Magisterium, which comes from many of those meritless messengers.
quote:
c) that the "correct" apostolic successor was the one who survived the various multiple-pope fiascos throughout the ages despite the fact that the winner was usually a result of political machinations and money God works in mysterious ways sometimes. If a review is completed of every Pope since Peter, you find some really good ones and some really poor ones. How does this change the fact that Jesus is Lord?
It doesn't change the fact that Jesus is Lord. It DOES call to question whether the pope is a reasonable authority that should be followed, and it DOES call to question whether the RCC is the "real and only" church.
quote:
d) that direct apostolic succession is a necessary requirement to have leadership in a proper church in general. I believe this to be a necessity on two fronts - the laying on of hands and the passing of the Holy Spirit from one generation to another, and in the use of the authority granted the Church by Jesus, and given her by her faithful.
Except that you can't prove the direct apostolic succession. Did the Holy Spirit really pass to the pope who committed incest? The pope who turned a basilica into a brothel? These are not the fruit of the Spirit. You have popes that were excommunicated, you have multiple popes at a given time... does the pope just go around laying hands on random members of the church hierarchy to cover all the bases? It's the very lack of Spirit filled lives in these popes that solidified my decision that they could not possibly be who you claim they are. Despite my great aunt's best efforts.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/6/2008 6:46:53 PM
|
|
|
Doghouse
Posts: 910
Joined: 8/25/2007
From: The Buckle of the Bible Belt
Status: offline
|
quote:
and frankly the Eastern Orthodox bishops would say he WAS acting as a rogue in isolation. I suppose at the end-game, This position is relative to the position of the person pickng sides. During any schism, there are tales on both sides of the fence...
quote:
Except that you don't adhere to Biblical truth. Instead you insist that the Scripture take a back seat to your Magisterium, which comes from many of those meritless messengers. Properly interpreted, the Scriptural message is indistinguishable from the deposit of faith. As to meritless messengers - yes, meritless messengers serving the institution of Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...
quote:
It DOES call to question whether the pope is a reasonable authority that should be followed, and it DOES call to question whether the RCC is the "real and only" church. Really, we all get to choose whom we follow in this life at the end of the day, so the definition of "reasonable authority" is a very personal one. All I know is that my authority cannot be me (because if it is, I don't need to learn or change, and Christianity as an exercise is one of futility and pointlessness - it is a fraternity or sorority, social club, or something other than that practice that leads to salvation). This is practically by definition. At first, its our parents or guardians - those who clothed us, fed us and sheltered us. This model, I believe becomes the basis of our authorities as we grow into independent adults - a good boss is one who understands where you would like to go, and will do everything possible to help you get there AND is in a position or has the proper standing to do this.
For me (and for your great aunt), the Roman Catholic Church is the only institution that measures up in terms of this authority. I have spent enough time here to have people tell me that "Jesus" is their authority, or "Scripture" is their authority. To which the proper query is - you don't know anything about Jesus authoritatively, unless you got it from Scriptures.
And you only know from Scriptures what you are personally able to gather using your own limited resources. No problem if you are a PhD student in divinity and Christianity from Boston College, but for the rest of us...?
In my case, I know my limitations when it comes to instructing me my faith. So, I accept the help available to me. That some choose a different path speaks to the degree that they are comfortable with their own skills in this arena. All I know is that in reading posts here - I can't believe some are entirely comfortable discerning on their own.
If they are - I am suggesting that maybe they shouldn't be....
_____________________________
When someone virtuous turns away from virtue to commit iniquity...it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die. But if he turns from the wickedness he has committed, he does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life" - Ez 18:25-28
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/6/2008 9:39:13 PM
|
|
|
Zhi
Posts: 1329
Joined: 7/31/2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
I suppose at the end-game, This position is relative to the position of the person pickng sides. During any schism, there are tales on both sides of the fence...
Fair enough. How'd you pick the tale you went with?
quote:
Scriptural message is indistinguishable from the deposit of faith. As to meritless messengers - yes, meritless messengers serving the institution of Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail...
Again we're up against a disagreement on what the institution of the Church is... If it's the body of all believers, then the RCC-specific institution becomes relatively inconsequential.
As for being indistinguishable, I think we've covered that pretty thoroughly... there are far too many RCC practices that are not capable of being Scripturally supported. But that's a topic for another thread.
quote:
Really, we all get to choose whom we follow in this life at the end of the day, so the definition of "reasonable authority" is a very personal one. All I know is that my authority cannot be me (because if it is, I don't need to learn or change, and Christianity as an exercise is one of futility and pointlessness - it is a fraternity or sorority, social club, or something other than that practice that leads to salvation). This is practically by definition. At first, its our parents or guardians - those who clothed us, fed us and sheltered us. This model, I believe becomes the basis of our authorities as we grow into independent adults - a good boss is one who understands where you would like to go, and will do everything possible to help you get there AND is in a position or has the proper standing to do this.
For me (and for your great aunt), the Roman Catholic Church is the only institution that measures up in terms of this authority. I have spent enough time here to have people tell me that "Jesus" is their authority, or "Scripture" is their authority. To which the proper query is - you don't know anything about Jesus authoritatively, unless you got it from Scriptures.
And you only know from Scriptures what you are personally able to gather using your own limited resources. No problem if you are a PhD student in divinity and Christianity from Boston College, but for the rest of us...?
In my case, I know my limitations when it comes to instructing me my faith. So, I accept the help available to me. That some choose a different path speaks to the degree that they are comfortable with their own skills in this arena. All I know is that in reading posts here - I can't believe some are entirely comfortable discerning on their own.
If they are - I am suggesting that maybe they shouldn't be....
As so many people here have said, we don't depend on ourselves by ourselves. We depend on God, to help us through His Spirit as we read the Scriptures. We depend on theologians who have studied the scriptures, but we test those theologians for consistency, against the Scripture, and against each other.
Perhaps it's that very testing of our theologians that gives us such an issue with the idea of submitting to an all-powerful pope. Any theologian who tried half of what so many of your popes have done would be summarily ignored by pretty much everyone. You don't have that luxury though, the pope is the pope, no matter how depraved he may get.
_____________________________
The optimist says the glass is half full. The pessimist says the glass is half empty. The engineer says the glass is twice as large as it needs to be.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 3:38:01 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
quote:
The deputy of Jesus, the one who is responsible for the organization and leadership of the Church until Jesus returns - is the Bishop of Rome, or the Pope. He is simply working as first assistant to Jesus to provide an earthly presence and face and voice to express the views and instruction of the institution, which is the whole that is greater than the sum of its parts.
These are simply RC traditions which have nothing to do with biblical truth.
You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but of course, given that your interpretation of scripture is not infallible, we have to leave at that. Since you are not infallible, you cannot claim that the office of the pope is against what scripture says, just your interpretation of scripture.
Sure, I can dogmatically state that Scripture does not teach an office of pope since it cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. Nor, do we find any justification for its subsequent "development".
It has nothing to do with interpretation because there is nothing to interpret. Nothing even slightly intimating a "papacy" can be found in Scripture. This doctrine is simply a part of RC tradition; and I repeat, has nothing to do with biblical truth.
This one, and any number of RC doctrines are pretty much just made out of whole cloth...as the saying goes.
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 3:40:16 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: mcleod
Say Martyfran; quote:
You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but of course, given that your interpretation of scripture is not infallible, we have to leave at that. Since you are not infallible, you cannot claim that the office of the pope is against what scripture says, just your interpretation of scripture.
Where is your scripture reference to the fact that this what the pope was to do until Jesus Christ returns physical?
By the way Jesus, because he is God and took on human form, everywhwere.
Matthew 16:18,
" And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."
Now, we see a couple of things in this passage.
1. Jesus specifically mentions Peter, so he is making a comment that is specific to Peter.
2. Peter receives authority in this passage. He receives the power to bind and loose.
This is the primary passage that sets up the authority of Peter and of course, the pope is the successor to Peter.
Now of course, you might have a different interpretation of this verse, but I am sure you would be the first to admit that your interpretation is not infallible. So here we have two Christians who have different views as to what the scripture teaches. You cannot say with any authority that the office of the pope is against scripture, just that in your opinion it does. The level of authority falls from Scripture, to a much lower one of human opinion.
Again, nothing to do with interpretation because nothing is mentioned about anyone succeeding Peter. Therefore, the papacy remains simply an RC tradition having nothing to do with biblical truth.
And, because all the Apostles were given the same authority.
And, because there is not the slightest evidence in Scripture that Peter himself, or the rest of the Apostles, ever considered Peter to have any more authority than the rest.
Therefore, we can say with complete scriptural authority "that the office of the pope is against scripture".
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 3:53:53 AM
|
|
|
kelman
Posts: 3714
Status: offline
|
quote:
the passing of the Holy Spirit from one generation to another, What astounding arrogance to hold such a doctrine that God can be passed around by mere men.....like He is a virus or something.
quote:
...the institution of Church, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail... The "gates of hell" have nothing to do with any particular denominations, other than, of course, the true believers who may be in them.
quote:
All I know is that my authority cannot be me Rather telling you don't realize that you are your own authority. But, you simply hand it over to others thinking it will somehow absolve you if they're wrong...the old "just following orders" defense...
quote:
And you only know from Scriptures what you are personally able to gather using your own limited resources. No problem if you are a PhD student in divinity and Christianity from Boston College, but for the rest of us...? More absolute denial of Scripture. God commands us to study His Word - not to leave it to PhD's. No doubt, there are many an unsaved "PhD student in divinity and Christianity from Boston College".
"Thy word is very pure; therefore thy servant loveth it."
_____________________________
“beware lest you lose the substance by grasping at the shadow”
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 8:32:47 AM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 549
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
Sure, I can dogmatically state that Scripture does not teach an office of pope since it cannot be found anywhere in Scripture. Nor, do we find any justification for its subsequent "development".
Actually, we find quite a bit of justification for the office. In particular:
1. Jesus founded a church.
2. Jesus put Peter in charge of the church.
3. Jesus gave Peter the keys and the power to bind and loose.
quote:
It has nothing to do with interpretation because there is nothing to interpret. Nothing even slightly intimating a "papacy" can be found in Scripture. This doctrine is simply a part of RC tradition; and I repeat, has nothing to do with biblical truth.
Actually, there is quite a bit of interpretation to be done here, namely:
1. Did Jesus found a real tangible church, or an invisible church that nobody can never be quite sure whether they are a part of?
2. What was the specific role that Jesus placed Peter in? Did Peter have any authority whatsoever?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 8:34:01 AM
|
|
|
martyfran
Posts: 549
Joined: 7/17/2005
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
No doubt, there are many an unsaved "PhD student in divinity and Christianity from Boston College".
Name ten.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 3:32:26 PM
|
|
|
Odeliya
Posts: 2055
Joined: 8/10/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: martyfran
quote:
ORIGINAL: kelman
No doubt, there are many an unsaved "PhD student in divinity and Christianity from Boston College".
Name ten.
Sweet merciful Jesus, help me.
Is Kelman the God Almighty?
How is he supposed to know who is saved who is not, marty? His point, and i am totally in agreement - is that being educated in religion doesnt mean anything salvation-wise yet. One can be a student of divinity, a professor of Div. or a Pope - that by itself doesnt mean the person is saved.
If anything that has a potential to hinder your salvation, for oftentimes having PhD disqualifies a person from having common sense. Jesus said " unless you become as a child.." A child can know enough to see the kigdom, one needs not to be a PhD.
_____________________________
Proverbs XI:14 Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counselors there is safety.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 6:04:24 PM
|
|
|
Heavendweller
Posts: 553
Joined: 12/22/2007
Status: offline
|
To any Catholic on this thread:
If the pope is of such importance, especially as regards leadership, why are recalcitrant priests, such as Father Pfleger allowed to openly rebel against RC teaching and practice, and thereby ignore the Magesterium? His antics have been well documented for MANY years and yet nothing is done about it. He conducts illicit masses, he flagrantly and openly involves himself with movements which are offensive to Catholic teaching and many Catholics. Yet, he is permitted to remain a priest in a very large parish in Chicago. I've read that he has threatened schism if he is disciplined. Whether or not this is true, according to Church Law and the expectations of priests, this man should not be holding the office of a priest.
Where is the leadership? And he is only one among many priests. This is attested to by various Roman Catholics whom I have read and communicated with. Father so and so conducts illicit masses. Father so and so tells us we don't have to listen to what the Vatican says. Father so and so says I can take Communion even though my situation according to Canon Law says I shouldn't. Father so and so openly preaches in his homily things which are directly opposed to the Catholic faith. Father so and so administers Communion to those who are living in mortal sin and doesn't care.
I have heard so many bad stories from Roman Catholics about bad priests in their parishes. They have complained to the bishop but he does nothing. They write to the Vatican, but nothing is done. Look at the fiasco out in San Francisco. Many Catholics have expressed anger at the priests and bishop who are openly acting in opposition to Catholic teaching. Yet nothing is done about it. Again, this is coming from Roman Catholics themselves. Many Roman Catholics have become discouraged at the poor state of affairs within the American Catholic Church.
So I ask, where is the leadership? Where is the Vatican in all of this? Where is the pope? Why are they not doing their jobs? Why aren't these recalcitrant priests/bishops being excommunicated? IOW, how is having a pope really making a difference when such direct opposition among many clergy is permitted?
Heavendweller
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 6:20:11 PM
|
|
|
PeterD
Posts: 435
Joined: 4/27/2007
Status: offline
|
Hello Heavendweller,
Maybe by having a pope is just keeping a tradition such as fullfilling a
prophecy.
The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy, is a list of 112 short phrases in Latin. They purport to describe each of the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few anti-popes), beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with a later added pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will end in the destruction of the city of Rome.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prophecy_of_the_Popes
PeterD
< Message edited by PeterD -- 6/7/2008 7:16:28 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 8:01:53 PM
|
|
|
texastweet
Posts: 376
Joined: 4/13/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
So I ask, where is the leadership? Where is the Vatican in all of this? Where is the pope? Why are they not doing their jobs? Why aren't these recalcitrant priests/bishops being excommunicated? IOW, how is having a pope really making a difference when such direct opposition among many clergy is permitted?
Heaven,
The Pope acts together with the bishops since he is one (a bishop) as well and there is a bishop who has jurisdiction over the local priests. If the Pope interviened directly of course there would be outcries about how he is overstepping his bounds. So the bishop that suspended the priest in Chicago has the hammer, sts. Another point is that Church takes it time when it comes to discipline to give the individual the chance to repent and of course we see that doesn't always work. My prediction is that Pleger "removes himself" and starts his own schimatic church but of course he wont consider himself a schimatic. The Church indeed made up of sinful people and priests and bishops and I would be the first to agree that leadership among the American bishops hasn't been pristine, but there are signs of hope in various dioceses as well.
Otis
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Why do we need a Pope? - 6/7/2008 10:37:28 PM
|
|
|
Papa-san
Posts: 1014
Joined: 4/12/2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: texastweet
...If the Pope interviened directly of course there would be outcries about how he is overstepping his bounds...
If he was (is) really who and what you Catholics say he is, he doesn't have any boundaries to overstep...
The only possible answer is that he is simply a guy filling a chair and a funny hat. No spiritual significance to him whatsoever...
_____________________________
"Discernment demands that we should hold biblical convictions with the most fervent tenacity" John MacArthur
|
|
| | |
Forum Tools
Printable Version
