Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,293,947 times
Reputation: 1483
Advertisements
Catholicism teaches the Pope or Pontiff is the VICAR of CHRIST. Non-Roman Catholics or Protestantism sees the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ. To debate Peter was the head Apostle and a first Pope has no examples of other Apostles giving Peter final say in decisions? Perhaps Paul was more a lead Apostle because in Scripture Paul claims to be a Pharisee.
In Acts 23:6, Paul publicly declared, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). It is very telling that more than twenty years after his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul still claims to be a Pharisee. This alone should be proof that, on a basic level, Pharisaism and Christianity did not conflict.
In Philippians 3:5, Paul states that he was "concerning the Law, a Pharisee." In verse 6, he goes on to say that he was "concerning the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless."
the man responsible for writing more of the New Testament than anyone else was unquestionably a member of the sect of the Pharisees. Paul affirms his affiliation in several places. In Acts 22:3, Paul states that he was a Jew brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, a leading Pharisee who had intervened for Peter and the apostles soon after the beginning of the Church (Acts 5:33-39).
BTW, the words in bold is one of the basis of Apostolic Succession and Sacred Oral Tradition. Besides the bible the Catholic Church puts a lot of emphasis on Apostolic Succession and Sacred Oral Tradition.[/QUOT
Julian68 -
I always appreciate your input.
Unfortunately I personally do not consider a Pope on the same levels as an Apostle, especially when he proposes an oral tradition such as the sinlessness of Mary, which we believe is an addition to the scriptures and forbidden by Rev. 22nd chapter. I believe it is also an addition to scriptures to say that she was a perpetual virgin since scriptures clearly say that Jesus had brothers and sisters.
The Popes are not Apostles. The term Pope did not exist in biblical times. However, the early church had leaders and when one looks at the NT Peter emerges as the leader of the disciples. And Peter was singled out by Jesus in Matt 16: 18-19 and in John 21: 15-17.
I accept that non-Catholics are not supposed to accept this and as far as I am concerned it is not big deal as long as they don't play the game of 'my religion is better than yours".
Yes, some aspects of Mariology are church invention, but in Catholicism the Church was given authority as per matt 16: 19. The idea behind the elaborate issue of Immaculate Conception and perennial virginity is that Jesus cannot come from anything that is deemed impure. If Mary had been conceived in the normal manner she would have transmitted Jesus "Original Sin".
Like I have said a zillion times: This is religion and in religion anything goes. And I fully understand why non-Catholics don't buy into this. It would be like asking me to buy into Joseph Smith, but I can't because I am not a Mormon.
Catholicism teaches the Pope or Pontiff is the VICAR of CHRIST. Non-Roman Catholics or Protestantism sees the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ. To debate Peter was the head Apostle and a first Pope has no examples of other Apostles giving Peter final say in decisions? Perhaps Paul was more a lead Apostle because in Scripture Paul claims to be a Pharisee.
In Acts 23:6, Paul publicly declared, "I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee" (Acts 23:6). It is very telling that more than twenty years after his miraculous conversion on the road to Damascus, Paul still claims to be a Pharisee. This alone should be proof that, on a basic level, Pharisaism and Christianity did not conflict.
In Philippians 3:5, Paul states that he was "concerning the Law, a Pharisee." In verse 6, he goes on to say that he was "concerning the righteousness which is in the Law, blameless."
the man responsible for writing more of the New Testament than anyone else was unquestionably a member of the sect of the Pharisees. Paul affirms his affiliation in several places. In Acts 22:3, Paul states that he was a Jew brought up in Jerusalem at the feet of Gamaliel, a leading Pharisee who had intervened for Peter and the apostles soon after the beginning of the Church (Acts 5:33-39).
According to Catholicism and the NT Jesus gave authority to the disciples to act on his name:
Quote:
John 20:21-23English Standard Version (ESV)
21 Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I am sending you.” 22 And when he had said this, he breathed on them and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.”
Per Gabriel's request, I'm starting this new thread to alleviate confusion. Hopefully we can move the entire discussion on this one point to this thread.
Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to the apostle Peter? With respect, I just don't see it. All I see is a line of bishops with no more and no less authority than any other line of bishops.
This is a point which is rarely discussed. The debate rages on between Catholics and Protestants over whether Peter had all of the authority that the RCC claims he did. Lovely as all of that is, that entire debate is completely irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome was never the exclusive and rightful successor of St Peter in the first place.
Peter was a member of Judaism.
Peter kept the laws of Moses, and all the feasts of Israel.
All it's Sabbaths.
Peter never left Judaism.
Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for over 100 years after Jesus died.
The religion of Peter looks nothing like Christianity today.
How could it be the same when there are two wholly different Sabbaths and feasts, and a wholly different view of Torah.
Peter kept the laws of Moses, and all the feasts of Israel.
All it's Sabbaths.
Peter never left Judaism.
Christianity was a legal sect of Judaism for over 100 years after Jesus died.
The religion of Peter looks nothing like Christianity today.
How could it be the same when there are two wholly different Sabbaths and feasts, and a wholly different view of Torah.
Exactly! And Jesus was also a Jew.
The original Christians worshiped as Jews in the synagogue. I believe there are hard core Christians that want to go back to Judaism and only celebrate Jewish Holy Days. Most of these f=guys despise Christmas and Easter because they have a pagan origin.
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,293,947 times
Reputation: 1483
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
According to Catholicism and the NT Jesus gave authority to the disciples to act on his name:
Authority to teach, be Shepherd's of the flocks, teach you too can have the Holy Spirit in and revealed through you, but not as a instead of Christ? Man took from PAGAN ROME THE NOTION OF A PONTIFF? THEIR HEAD WAS CALLED PONTIFF.
The Apostles were unit TOGETHER... under Christ. Scripture says call them Pastors, Bishops, evangelist
Paul also used the word "pastor."
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
The word "pastor" means the same thing as bishop. Paul never said we had to call them "bishop" or forbade us from calling them "pastor" (which means "shepherd".
Actually, Paul calls them (and all believers) saints. Those who function in leadership, he called "overseers" (That is the literal interpretation of the Greek.) The term "pastor" comes from this reference in the letter to the Ephesians speaking of the gifts (not titles) Jesus gave to the Church.
For those who will argue that the scripture says "Those who desire the office of bishop desire a good work," the literal translation is "those who desire overseership." Paul is speaking of a function, not an office or title.
Jesus said, "Go forth and minister unto all the world." That is where minister comes from. A Pastor is a shepherd and the members are his flock.
The Apostles being Priest or new Priesthood is not in Scripture.
Acting for Jesus upon us both Father ands Son is the Holy Spirit. Those who teach and lead are OVERSEERS and TEACHERS maintaining the Faith as Pastors of their Flocks Ministering to the world. They HAVE THE HOLY SPIRIT TO DIRECT THEM AS THE VICAR OF CHRIST in his absence till he comes (again) for a culmination of this Age. Another will begin. World without end.
Definition: “vicar”—in the broadest sense means someone who is authorized to act as a substitute or agent for a superior / compare “vicarious”—serving in the place of someone else; assuming the position, place, or office of another person]
Because there is a direct connection between the REDEMPTION of Christ and the ministry of the Holy Spirit, it is extremely dangerous to confuse the work of the Holy Spirit as Vicar of Christ with the position or work of any man.
As Christ Jesus had been the Master, COUNCILOR and Guide to believers, He promised to send the Holy Spirit as His substitute so that He might abide with them for ever (John 14:16). In believers' lives, the Holy Spirit has full, immediate, and universal influence, as the Scripture so wonderfully teaches.
WHY PROTESTANTISM SEES THE HOLY SPIRIT AS "VICAR OF CHRIST".
The key role of the True Vicar of Christ is to glorify Christ, “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:14). The sending of the Spirit was the glorifying of Christ. God the Father glorifies Christ Jesus in heaven, and the Spirit glorifies Him on earth. All the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are to glorify Christ.
<a name="12" id="12">
The Lord Jesus Christ promised the <a href="http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/apostle.html">Apostles. , “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
This assertion of a man as the VICAR OF CHRIST, came relatively late in the HISTORY OF THE PAPACY. To begin with, the Bishop of Rome claimed to be the vicar of Caesar —and his successors the rightful heirs to the Caesars. The city that had been the seat of power for the Roman Empire became the city for the Bishop of Rome to exercise his authority.
Gradually, other Bishops and national monarchs accepted him as vicar and successor to Caesar with the same supreme title of “Pontifex Maximus.”
<a name="2" id="2">
Next, the Bishops of Rome claimed to be “The vicar of the prince of the Apostles that is, the vicar of Peter. In the early fifth century, Bishop Innocent I (401-417 A.D.) insisted that Christ had delegated supreme power to Peter and made him the Bishop of Rome. Following this, he held that the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor was entitled to exercise Peter's power and prerogatives. Boniface III, who became Bishop of Rome in 607, established himself as “Universal Bishop,” thus claiming to be vicar and master of all other bishops.
It was not until the eighth century, that the particular title “Vicar of the Son of God” was found in the fraudulent document called “The Donation of Constantine.”Although this notorious document was proven false in the early sixteenth century, the Bishops of Rome have used the title “Vicar of Christ” since the eighth century. This title has been the Pope's supreme claim to spiritual and temporal supremacy. The taste of divine power, with which the title resonates, has proven to be addictive. The “Vicar of Christ” is able to recognize no authority other than his own. He looks upon himself as Master of all, and boldly proclaims, “The First See is judged by no one.”
The original Christians worshiped as Jews in the synagogue. I believe there are hard core Christians that want to go back to Judaism and only celebrate Jewish Holy Days. Most of these f=guys despise Christmas and Easter because they have a pagan origin.
I was a Pentecostal speaking in tongues for 40 years, thought I was the great prophet.
First. I began to learn the feasts for the first time after 40 years, and the I rejected the Sabbaths and feasts of Christianity to accept the Sabbaths and feasts of God, but I went on about my days being the same Christian I had always been, I just changed my worship system.
Then it occurred to me one day.
I had been in another religion all those years, and so I made a complete conversion and admitted to myself that it WAS a conversion.
If I keep all the Sabbaths and feasts of Islam with all it's traditions and rituals on their great feasts, will somebody believe that I am a Christian?
People can make claims on what they believe, and they can say that they follow the ways of the Messiah and that they know the Messiah, but saying a thing and doing a thing is two different things.
If I keep all the feast days, Sabbaths, traditions and rituals of Islam, I have proved that I am a Muslim.
People prove what they are by what they do with their hands, and if somebody then stops keeping all the Sabbaths and feasts of one religion to convert to the Sabbaths and feasts of another religion, they have converted.
If a person takes on the worship system of another religion, he has converted to that religion and he proves it with his hands.
So I started over after 40 years, I stopped being the supposed great prophet that I thought I was, I stopped being a Christian Pentecostal, then converted, and then realized that I had not been working in the spirit all those years.
Authority to teach, be Shepherd's of the flocks, teach you too can have the Holy Spirit in and revealed through you, but not as a instead of Christ? Man took from PAGAN ROME THE NOTION OF A PONTIFF? THEIR HEAD WAS CALLED PONTIFF.
The Apostles were unit TOGETHER... under Christ. Scripture says call them Pastors, Bishops, evangelist
The word "pontiff", though now most often used in relation to a Pope, technically refers to any bishop. The phrase "Roman Pontiff" is not tautological, but means "Bishop of Rome", as "Alexandrian Pontiff" means Bishop of Alexandria.[1] In the same way, the adjective "pontifical" does not refer exclusively to the Pope: a Pontifical Mass is a Mass celebrated by a bishop, not necessarily by a pope. From the adjective have been formed the nouns "the Pontifical" (the liturgical book containing the prayers and ceremonies for rites used by a bishop)[6] and "pontificals" (the insignia of his order that a bishop uses when celebrating Pontifical Mass, not papal insignia, such as the papal tiara).[7]
Some folks get hung up on the fact that when The Roman Empire became christian they kept their culture and language. What were they supposed to do?
Would you stop been American and give up your American culture because you have converted to Christianity?
And I think it was a brilliant idea to convert some pagan aspects of Roman culture into Christianity. Whomever came up with the idea of Christmas was a genius.
Quote:
Paul also used the word "pastor."
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
The word "pastor" means the same thing as bishop. Paul never said we had to call them "bishop" or forbade us from calling them "pastor" (which means "shepherd".
Actually, Paul calls them (and all believers) saints. Those who function in leadership, he called "overseers"
The Pope is the main shepherd:
Jesus said to Peter in John 21: 15-17 to take care of his sheep.
Quote:
(That is the literal interpretation of the Greek.) The term "pastor" comes from this reference in the letter to the Ephesians speaking of the gifts (not titles) Jesus gave to the Church.
For those who will argue that the scripture says "Those who desire the office of bishop desire a good work," the literal translation is "those who desire overseership." Paul is speaking of a function, not an office or title.
You cannot know what is inside the mind of Saint Paul, you can only guess.
Quote:
Jesus said, "Go forth and minister unto all the world." That is where minister comes from. A Pastor is a shepherd and the members are his flock.
Agree!
Quote:
The Apostles being Priest or new Priesthood is not in Scripture.
Oh pallez, do you you know the origin of the word priest?
priest (n.) Look up priest at Dictionary.com
Old English preost probably shortened from the older Germanic form represented by Old Saxon and Old High German prestar, Old Frisian prestere, all from Vulgar Latin *prester "priest," from Late Latin presbyter "presbyter, elder," from Greek presbyteros (see Presbyterian).
Quote:
Definition: “vicar”—in the broadest sense means someone who is authorized to act as a substitute or agent for a superior / compare “vicarious”—serving in the place of someone else; assuming the position, place, or office of another person]
See Matt 16: 19
Quote:
WHY PROTESTANTISM SEES THE HOLY SPIRIT AS "VICAR OF CHRIST".
The key role of the True Vicar of Christ is to glorify Christ, “He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you” (John 16:14). The sending of the Spirit was the glorifying of Christ. God the Father glorifies Christ Jesus in heaven, and the Spirit glorifies Him on earth. All the gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit are to glorify Christ.
<a name="12" id="12">
The Lord Jesus Christ promised the <a href="http://christiananswers.net/dictionary/apostle.html">Apostles. , “when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth” (John 16:13).
I have no issues with how Protestants define who is the Vicar of Christ. Every religion is different and in religion anything goes. That is why it is called religion. I cannot negate your belief system.
Quote:
This assertion of a man as the VICAR OF CHRIST, came relatively late in the HISTORY OF THE PAPACY. To begin with, the Bishop of Rome claimed to be the vicar of Caesar —and his successors the rightful heirs to the Caesars. The city that had been the seat of power for the Roman Empire became the city for the Bishop of Rome to exercise his authority.
Gradually, other Bishops and national monarchs accepted him as vicar and successor to Caesar with the same supreme title of “Pontifex Maximus.”
<a name="2" id="2">
Next, the Bishops of Rome claimed to be “The vicar of the prince of the Apostles that is, the vicar of Peter. In the early fifth century, Bishop Innocent I (401-417 A.D.) insisted that Christ had delegated supreme power to Peter and made him the Bishop of Rome. Following this, he held that the Bishop of Rome as Peter's successor was entitled to exercise Peter's power and prerogatives. Boniface III, who became Bishop of Rome in 607, established himself as “Universal Bishop,” thus claiming to be vicar and master of all other bishops.
It was not until the eighth century, that the particular title “Vicar of the Son of God” was found in the fraudulent document called “The Donation of Constantine.”Although this notorious document was proven false in the early sixteenth century, the Bishops of Rome have used the title “Vicar of Christ” since the eighth century. This title has been the Pope's supreme claim to spiritual and temporal supremacy. The taste of divine power, with which the title resonates, has proven to be addictive. The “Vicar of Christ” is able to recognize no authority other than his own. He looks upon himself as Master of all, and boldly proclaims, “The First See is judged by no one.”
As a non-Catholic you do not have to accept Catholicism, but it is poor form to assume your religion is correct and that catholics are incorrect. You do not know that. It would be like me putting down Mormons because of Joseph Smith. I would never do that even if I do not get or understand Joseph Smith.
I accept that the Church is hung up on ancient culture, but what did you expect? These Christians were Romans and it would be foolish to expect them to give up their cultural heritage and language once they converted to Christianity. That is like asking a Black Southern Baptist not to sing in Gospel form and clap their hands. Do you agree?
Location: East Central Pennsylvania/ Chicago for 6yrs.
2,535 posts, read 3,293,947 times
Reputation: 1483
Apparently you reject the term CHRISTIAN? To define yourself? I was taught early on....WE HAVE A FAITH...NOT MERELY A RELIGION. One that is fully through Jesus Christ. To say I and other non-Catholics or Protestants ....ARE IN ANOTHER RELIGION. Apparently is you denying being a CHRISTIAN as I claim? Or you deny non-Catholics in Churches are Christians?
Christian is defined as....a follower of the Christ... Christ...the Anointed one of God.
As Protestantism was evolving. The additions of Rome into this LAVISH NEW CHURCH OF ROME. That Constantine lavished with wealth to build Basilica's and Christianity's simple origins out of Judaism. BEGAN TO GET REMOVED.
THE EVOLVING ROMAN CHURCH HAD ADDED GRANDEUR to make A NEW CHURCH WORTHY TO REPLACE THE GRANDEUR OF PAGAN ROME. They TOOK FAR MORE THEN SOME TRADTIONS? THEY TOOK ON STATUES as Pagan Rome decorated its Temples with. All the way to THE FULL REPLACEMENT COMPLETED....CULMINATING IN TAKING ON PAGAN ROMES HIGHEST OFFICE ...THE PONTIFF AND DECLARE HIM HIGH PRIEST
from Wikipedia
The Pontifex Maximus (Latin, literally: "greatest pontiff") was the high priest of the College of Pontiffs (Collegium Pontificum) in ancient Rome. This was the most important position in the ancient Roman religion, open only to patricians until 254 BC, when a plebeian first occupied this post. A distinctly religious office under the early Roman Republic, it gradually became politicized until, beginning with Augustus, it was subsumed into the Imperial office. Its last use with reference to the emperors is in inscriptions of Gratian (reigned 375–383) who, however, then decided to omit the words "pontifex maximus" from his title. The word "pontifex" later became a term used for Christian bishops, including the Bishop of Rome,and the title of "Pontifex Maximus" was applied within the Roman Catholic Church to the Pope as its chief bishop. It is not included in the Pope's official titles, but appears on buildings, monuments and coins of popes of Renaissance and modern times.
For the rest of CHRISTIANITY. JESUS IS OUR FINAL HIGH PRIEST. Our bodies are the Temple. The Vail to the Temples Holy of Holies was rant. No verses in the NT refer to any other as our HIGH PRIEST.
Hebrews 4:14
Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has gone to heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us live our lives consistent with our confession of faith.
Hebrews 2:17
For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Hebrews 3:1
Therefore, holy brothers and sisters, who share in the heavenly calling, fix your thoughts on Jesus, whom we acknowledge as our apostle and high priest. Hebrews 6:20
where our forerunner, Jesus, has entered on our behalf. He has become a high priest forever, in the order of Melchizedek. Hebrews 8:1
Now the main point of what we are saying is this: We do have such a high priest, who sat down at the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in heaven,
PROTESTANTISM holds that ONLY JESUS IS HIGH PRIEST. Making intercession for us revealed by Holy Spirit which dwells within us as our bodies the Temple.
So I started over after 40 years, I stopped being the supposed great prophet that I thought I was, I stopped being a Christian Pentecostal, then converted, and then realized that I had not been working in the spirit all those years.
Converted to what?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
