Results 1 - 10 of 10
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Ordered by Verse | ||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Hank | 10316 | ||
Brian.g, this is not a post inviting a debate with you regarding the Roman Catholic faith. I won't do that. It is rather about a few questions concerning it on which I invite your answers. (1) Since the verses in Matthew 16:18,19 seem to keep popping up in relation to the papacy, are these the key verses, the proof text if you will, on which you and your fellow Catholics base your belief that Jesus appointed Peter the first pope of the Roman Catholic church?...... (2) If Jesus did appoint Peter the first Pope, where does the Bible say this plainly? (I can't see it as saying this in these two verses of Matthew 16) If the doctrine is derived from these two verses, can you shed more light on how it came to be so interpreted from them?...... (3) Whence comes the idea that Jesus made Peter the first in line of the popes; how is this seen as the intention of Jesus?...... (4) Since Peter was an Apostle of our Lord, were the "keys of the kingdom of heaven" not meant for Peter? How can it be inferred that the keys were to be passed down through the ages by a succession of popes? (5) How does the Catholic Church explain the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope? Isn't he a man and therefore fallible?...... (6) On what grounds do they justify the praying to various canonized saints instead of to the Father in Jesus' name?....... I recognize that there are six questions, and you might wish to address each one as a separate post. In any event, I think that your answers, on which I believe you will make every effort to be clear, objective, and complete, will be an instructive addition to the other resources available on the forum, and I thank you in advance. --Hank | ||||||
2 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Brian.g | 12438 | ||
Number 1, 2 and 3 The full answer to these questions - the proof you are seeking - is a very long answer, which does not lend itself to this forum and in reality, I don't know if I am the person that can give you the full proof you seek. I will answer your questions, but please allow me the right to summarize in places, and accept some of my discussion as having a foundation. John Paul II (1978 to present), our current Pope is the 265th, with Peter (years 32 to 67) being the first. The second Pope, Linus (67 to 76 or 79), is thought to be the same Linus, Timothy refered to in 2 Timothy 4:21. The Church recognizes 30 antipopes. An antipope is a false claimant of the Holy See in opposition to a pontiff canonically elected. First, why Rome for the location of the Church. Peters final years were spent in Rome, or more specifically, in an area known as Ager Vaticanus. This area did not belong to ancient Rome, nor was it built within the walls of Rome. This is were Peter died and was buried. This simply became the physical center of the Church. When Peter lead the Church, he created a Senate consistng of 24 priests and deacons - this is documented. One of the roles of this Senate was to elect the new Pope - with Linus being the first Pope elected by men. Over time, the Senate structure while having taken different shapes - has remained constant. Keep in mind, Peter gave formal organizational structure to the Church. This is important, because this is the correcting factor when the office of the Pope was occupied by a man who was more interested in this world, than in heaven. It is through this election of the Pope by the Senate (College of Cardinals), this formal organization created by Peter, which enables us to discern who the properly elected pontiffs were as opposed to the antipopes, who, at the same time, were claiming the Church. How do we know Peter was choosen by Jesus to head his Church. Three reasons: first, Matthew 16:17-19, And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church Second: In numerous references within the Bible, when Jesus spoke to the Apostles as a group, He directed His conversation to Peter Mathew 26:40 - And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and said to Peter, "So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? Third, on various occasions Peter speaks in the name of the other Apostles (Matthew 15:15; 19:27; Luke 12:41, etc.). Then Peter said to Him, "Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?" Is there anyplace in the Bible where Jesus flat out said 'Peter - your the first Pope', no. It is not the strength or depth of the discussion between Jesus and Peter, it is the fact that it was Peter acting as the representative head of the Apostles with Jesus. Did Jesus intend for Peter to be the head of the Church, or did Peter just assume this role. I believe Jesus selected Peter. |
||||||
3 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Makarios | 12452 | ||
Dear Brian.g, To the best of my recollection, Peter was a Jewish man.. Since you allege that Peter was the first pope, then why is it that there are not any other popes that were Jews? Why isn't the present pope a Jew? Peter was the apostle to the Jews, correct? If this was so, then why is it that none of the rest of the popes sought to be "the apostle to the Jews"? Just asking. --Nolan |
||||||
4 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Brian.g | 12454 | ||
Jesus was also a Jew |
||||||
5 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Makarios | 12455 | ||
Yes, exactly!! Jesus was a Jew! So why aren't any of the rest of the appointed popes Jews? And why is it that none of them even bothered to take up or assume Peter's position as head of the church of Jerusalem and his apostleship to the Jews? |
||||||
6 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Brian.g | 12458 | ||
I'm sorry, I don't understand your question | ||||||
7 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Makarios | 12459 | ||
Thats Ok, Brian.g. I've got time. Go back to your Catholic priests or friends, or even go to Pope John Paul himself in Vatican, Italy and ask him why there have not been any other men that have been from Jewish decent to assume the role of pope in the Roman Catholic Church, if the line of popes did indeed start with Peter. You see, if Peter was the first pope, then would it not be perfectly shown throughout history that all succeeding posts (after Peter) would have also assumed the leadership of being the 'apostle to the Jews' (Acts 2:14; 1 Peter 1:1) and assumed the leadership of the church at Jerusalem? If there was a 'continuance' or uninterrupted line of popes from Peter, the apostle, then why was Peter the only pope that was Jewish? Why did none of the other popes assume the duties of apostleship over the nation of Israel? Why is it that no other 'pope' other than Peter was the leader of the church at Jerusalem? Can you honestly answer these questions? If you cannot answer these questions, then the whole premise, 'continuity' and the legitimacy of the papal system all comes crashing down to the floor, so that the truth may be revealed. --Nolan |
||||||
8 | Evangelicals and Catholics | Rom 3:28 | Brian.g | 12460 | ||
By the time that Peter assumed the leadership role of the Church, he was a Christian. There is no mandate that the leader of the Catholic church be Jewish. |
||||||
9 | Was Peter the Leader? | Rom 3:28 | Morant61 | 12464 | ||
Greetings Brian! I was doing some research to find out why the Catholic Church believes that Peter was supreme among the other apostles. I found this quote: "For this position he had already been designated (Matt., xvi, 15 sqq.) on an occasion previous to that just mentioned: at Cæsarea Philippi, Christ had declared him to be the rock on which He would build His Church, thus affirming that the continuance and increase of the Church would rest on the office created in the person of Peter. To him, moreover, were to be given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven -- an expression signifying the gift of plenary authority (Is., xxii, 22). The promise thus made was fulfilled after the Resurrection, on the occasion narrated in John, xxi. Here Christ employs a simile used on more than one occasion by Himself to denote His own relation to the members of His Church -- that of the shepherd and his flock. His solemn charge, "Feed my sheep", constituted Peter the common shepherd of the whole collective flock. (For a further consideration of the Petrine texts see article PRIMACY.) To the twelve Christ committed the charge of spreading the kingdom among all nations, appointing the rite of baptism as the one means of admission to a participation in its privileges (Matt., xxviii, 19)." (Full article can be accessed at: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) I have two main problems with this presentation. 1) We do not see anywhere in the New Testament that Peter functions as the chief of the apostles. In fact, a stronger case could be made for James than for Peter. Peter is shown in Acts as presenting his case before the other apostles and waiting for their decision. Peter is opposed by Paul. Even the historical references to the early church structure (I think the article did a good job of summarizing these) affirm that structure existed, but none of them name Peter as head of anything. 2) I also have problem with the interpretation presented of Mt. 16:18. The text says, "And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it." The problem here is that there are two different words used in the Greek text. Jesus said to Peter, "You are 'Petros'." However, He said that it would be upon the 'petra' that He would build His church. I am not trying to force you to defend an entire faith. I am simply curious as to how you would address these concerns. Your Brother in Christ, Tim Moran |
||||||
10 | Was Peter the Leader? | Rom 3:28 | RCSCROLL | 12567 | ||
Tim just some reflection on Matt 16:18 ,the rock is the confession of Peter stating that Christ is the son of God Matt 16:16 ,literaly upon this confession I will build my Church. The name Peter is best translated stone or little stone.Sorry to but in , also how could they R.C.'s state this, was the church so frustrated for hundreds of years.And in revelation it states that there are 12 foundations. Love in CHRIST JESUS . RC.Scroll | ||||||