How Is The Pope Actually Advocated By Scripture? What 2 believe?

 Looking for reasons to believe?

how about any one with the spirit of Christ ( the Holy Spirit) Romans 8, is a part of the Church of Christ..

Most people leave the Roman Catholic church because of the lack of spiritual impartation, and the lack of personal community.

they find community else where.

Now this of course creates animosity and judgement by self righteous roman Catholic's , which further drives the "seeker of truth away" .

it is rare in the roman catholic church that you can resolve this issue by the laying on of hands to "down-load" the Holy Spirit

as was demenstrated in Acts 8

¹⁴ When the apostles in Jerusalem heard that Samaria had accepted the word of God, they sent Peter and John to Samaria. ¹⁵ When they arrived, they prayed for the new believers there that they might receive the Holy Spirit, 

  ¹⁶ because the Holy Spirit had not yet come on any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 

  ¹⁷ Then Peter and John placed their hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.


¹⁸ When Simon saw that the Spirit was given at the laying on of the apostles’ hands, he offered them money

 ¹⁹ and said, “Give me also this ability so that everyone on whom I lay my hands may receive the Holy Spirit.”

This is an example of what is "supposed -to-happen" at the ROman catholic  sacrament of confirmation..

BUT .. let's face it .. it doesn't REALLY .. Happen..

YOU MIGHT SPEND SOME TIME .. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT --when the spiritual impartation stop ed happening..as a matter of course in the Roman Catholic denominational church..

BECAUSE in the Catholic church that Jesus started .. it is still going on .. as ST.  Paul said "where the Spirit of the Lord is there is Liberty" (The Holy Spirit")


FOR example .. the Calvinists.. taught that it stop ed happening when the last apostle died..

Obviously they are wrong..


this group .here . plays the game of  we have the true church and the true holy spirit

and here is the scripture and historical proof ... bla --bla---bla---


Are you convinced yet..?? no..?? how about now !!!


We're right even when there is no Holy Spirit evidence, and each group denies the Spiritual evidence of any other domination assembly


Re: Catholic Questions Re: Catholic Church origin

How Is The Pope Actually Advocated By Scripture?

I have always wondered why Catholics seem to think that the Papacy is advocated in Scripture. I know that the Catholic Church points to Christ's statement that Peter was the rock on which he would build the Church.........but how on earth do you go from Peter the Rock to Peter the Pope? And every pope since?


Another small side question, why is it that it wasn't until Roman Catholicism was made into the religion of Rome that there was ever a mention of a "pope" and even in the New Testament we NEVER SEE PETER TAKE ANY FORM OF PRECEDENCE OVER FELLOW BELIEVERS? In fact, Paul confronts Peter the "original Pope." How does all this fit into the doctrine of the Papacy?


I mean no offense in what I ask. I have just never comprehended the idea of a Papacy acting as the hierarchy that interprets God and His Word.


In Christ,
LightBearer

Because of the prudence of limited space; I’ll be as brief as possible.


Patrick j Miron response

Psalms 127:1
"Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman stays awake in vain."

The decision of peter as “Pope” rest with Christ alone.

John.15: 16 “You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide; so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you” Mt. 16:18-19 “[18] And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Note please this in on the initiative of Jesus, not Peter. Jesus is say many critically important things in these two brief passages.

1. I God intend to found a new religion and church. 2. I God choose Peter [title not yet developed] to head this New Church. 3. I do this because salvation rest upon its teachings which I personally warranty [Jn.14:16-17; Jn.17: 15-19; Jn.20:19-23, Mt. 28:19-20] and I am aware that I shall soon be put to death. In order that my teachings do not cease with my death; I Jesus set up a organization to carry on in my name, with my power and my authority. 4. There is ONLY and one gate with access to heaven. I leave the key and the access to Peter and my beloved Apostles, to carry on for me.

2. The terms “bind” and “loose” were at the time they were spoken common legally binding terms for unlimited authority of governance. THAT is what is being passed on to Peter by Christ. How could Jesus expect to accomplish what he commands: Mt. 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” This would be an impossibility without the unlimited authority to Govern, guided by the HS, all teachings on all Faith belief-issues and all matters touching on moral issues.

I can provide a list of 50 Biblical first for Peter as well as testimonies of the Early Church Fathers. Here are just a few: NOTICE Mt. even calls Peter “FIRST” Mt. 10:2 The names of the twelve apostles are these: first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zeb'edee, and John his brother.” And Peters is named first in every list of the Apostles.

6. Peter alone among the apostles receives a new name, Rock, solemnly conferred (Jn 1:42; Mt 16:18).

7. Likewise, Peter is regarded by Jesus as the Chief Shepherd after Himself (Jn 21:15-17), singularly by name, and over the universal Church, even though others have a similar but subordinate role (Acts 20:28; 1 Pet 5:2).

9. Peter alone among the apostles is exhorted by Jesus to "strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:32).

10. Peter first confesses Christ's divinity (Mt 16:16).

11. Peter alone is told that he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation (Mt 16:17).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).  Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Friend there is OH so very much more I could share space permitting,

God Bless you,

Pat

 ED-Note
 It took patrick j miron half of his life (based on his conversion/ testimony) to reach this decision

But the real issue is .. as Paul says in Acts 19: into what were you baptized into?

The biggest deception in the Roman Catholic church is .. ceremony equals substance.

the Sacraments with out the "real" presence of Christ ,. the Holy spirit , is an empty ritual, a behavior of piety.

just like in the communion service and transubstantiation , if it does not happen because of an invalid mass, excreta..

and if you can recognize it , you may be "classified a heretic"

because in the counsel of Trent , if your don't believe and accept every thins they state u will be accursed..

Can you tell if you download a computer file on your lap top if it is really not there?

well of course you can..

The papsy and the leadership in the Catholic church is real in so much as they can teach and transfer the Holy spirit..

Now my experience with the Roman Catholic church.. is that there are many mass's said with-out the real presence of Christ, just as there have been many ceremony's of confirmation that did not result in the "implantation" of the Holy Spirit" ..

This and the lack of competent roman catholic education is a big reason why there is this depute, and the reason so many choose to attend baptist church's, or Pentecostal churches;,

Because there is a educational process that is satisfactory and effective , and a Spiritual empowerment that is demenstrated outside of the roman catholic , and what is "LACKING" in the Roman Catholic church.
Many people say that the mass is boring, and un-anointed.. and most of the time they are right.  I have listened to this complaint for 50 years, and more than 6 generations..of roman catholics.

But the self-righteous attitude and the lack of spiritual understanding and interpretation of scripture is obvious to any one that has the baptism of the holy spirit.


this even becomes more apparent with you read all the material the Patrick j miron has posted on this web site..

Each religious group attains the ability to be "self-righteous" as discard the truths of a another group.

From: Robin <rdnuclearmed@...>
To: catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, December 19, 2011 7:32 AM
Subject: Re: Catholic Questions Re: Catholic Church origin

 

On Fri, Dec 16, 2011 at 6:00 PM, j.s299 <j.s299@...> wrote:

 

your Pope number 1 would be insulted and ashamed to be called a 'Pope.'

You or Catholicism's or others' labelling him a 'Pope' hardly makes him one. Same with Linus.

Retroactively labeling history per a later agenda or system......

doesn't qualify as history. Rather, its your mythology Brian.

Robin replies:
You do realize that this list of Popes comes to us through textual criticism right?  We have writings from those who were taught by the disciples of the Apostles listing the leaders of the congregation at Rome  beginning with Peter and up to their own day.  I'm speaking of Ireaneus of Lyons in c.180 AD and later one by Augustine of Hippo which confirmed the first list.

You are going against authentic historical documents witten by the greats of our faith.

God Bless

Robin

The point about Gregory 'the Great,' was that his administrative ability coincided with the political situation (such as the political eastern Roman Empire's absence) where the majority in the West
did submit to the Roman Catholic Church with its pyramid one-man-at-the-summit hierarchy. Although there were germinal elements already
of Catholicism in teachings deviating from the apostles' teachings from the 100s, 600 AD is fair to characterize as the beginning of the Roman Catholic Church as we know it today.

--- In catholicquestions@yahoogroups.com, "Big B" <specimenb@...> wrote:
>
> Let's bring this back into open debate. I'm not sure what history books you've been reading, James, but Gregory was Pope number 64.
>
> St. Peter (32-67)
> St. Linus (67-78) disciple to St. Paul. Listed by name in 2 Timothy 4:21
> St. Anacletus (78-93)
> St. Clement I (93-101) disciple of St. Peter. Listed by name in Philippians 4:3 as a co-worker of Paul's evangelization.
> St. Evaristus (101-109)
> St. Alexander I (109-117)
> St. Sixtus I (117-127) -- also called Xystus I
> St. Telesphorus (127-138)
> St. Hyginus (138-142)
> St. Pius I (142-154)
> St. Anicetus (154-166)
> St. Soter (166-175)
> St. Eleutherius (175-189)
> St. Victor I (189-199)
> St. Zephyrinus (199-217)
> St. Callistus I (217-22)
> St. Urban I (222-30)
> St. Pontain (230-35)
> St. Anterus (235-36)
> St. Fabian (236-50)
> St. Cornelius (251-53)
> St. Lucius I (253-54)
> St. Stephen I (254-257)
> St. Sixtus II (257-258)
> St. Dionysius (260-268)
> St. Felix I (269-274)
> St. Eutychian (275-283)
> St. Caius (283-296) -- also called Gaius
> St. Marcellinus (296-304)
> St. Marcellus I (308-309)
> St. Eusebius (309 or 310)
> St. Miltiades (311-14)
> St. Sylvester I (314-35)
> St. Marcus (336)
> St. Julius I (337-52)
> Liberius (352-66)
> St. Damasus I (366-83)
> St. Siricius (384-99)
> St. Anastasius I (399-401)
> St. Innocent I (401-17)
> St. Zosimus (417-18)
> St. Boniface I (418-22)
> St. Celestine I (422-32)
> St. Sixtus III (432-40)
> St. Leo I (440-61)
> St. Hilarius (461-68)
> St. Simplicius (468-83)
> St. Felix III (483-92)
> St. Gelasius I (492-96)
> Anastasius II (496-98)
> St. Symmachus (498-514)
> St. Hormisdas (514-23)
> St. John I (523-26)
> St. Felix IV (526-30)
> Boniface II (530-32)
> John II (533-35)
> St. Agapetus I (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
> St. Silverius (536-37)
> Vigilius (537-55)
> Pelagius I (556-61)
> John III (561-74)
> Benedict I (575-79)
> Pelagius II (579-90)
> St. Gregory I (590-604)
>
>
> The Papacy was always the head of the Christian church. The first recorded schism was the Donatists in the 400s. The split from the papacy because they wanted a particular person to be bishop of their regional church and the Pope put another in his place. St Ignatius, who was a disciple of St John the Apostle, wrote in c110AD
>
> "See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop.

 Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it.

 (the counsel of Trent 1551) now for 500 years this has been in dispute

Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."

>
> If you think the Catholic Church was not the original Christian church, the world is against you because this is academic history.

BUT here is the difference (ed-note)

Here is the difference.. the catholic church .. is the universal church of Jesus Christ, and the Roman Catholic church is a part of the pie, (so to speak)  it is one of the domination's, 

just like you have Russian orthodox, orthodox , Greek orthodox
>
>
> From: James S [mailto:j.s299@...]
> Sent: Friday, December 16, 2011 3:17 PM
> To: Brian Atwood
> Subject: Re: there's no baptism of babies in Scripture.
>
> to the contrary: the Catholic church was not the church at the beginning of..................the church.
> Which anyone who reads can see.......simply by reading.
> Rather it is a perversion and degradation of what is recorded in the apostles' record and teaching.
> The Papal system, its peculiarity, was not accepted or adhered to by the Christian West in the main
> until about 600 with Gregory the pope.
> It was never accepted by the East, which was geographically where the first churches, Jerusalem and Antioch
> etc, were. And around 1000 the 2 divisions 'Eastern Orthodoxy' and Rome's 'Catholic Church' explicitly,
> angrily split, denouncing one another.


> I feel you've been deceived, in that regard, by a made-up doctrine, dear B.

> (though there are many items of truth and faith which I hope you and I share in common.

> Number one being that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. The incarnation of God.

> And that you and I should love Him)
>
> From: Brian Atwood <specimenb@...>
> To: 'j.s299' <j.s299@...>
> Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2011 8:23 PM
> Subject: RE: there's no baptism of babies in Scripture.
>
> The difference is, the Catholic church was the church at the beginning of
> Christianity. It has remained so since. Any denomination since has been
> result of a split from Catholicism.

 So who is it Satan is misleading? The
> church Jesus said the gates of the netherworld would be powerless against or
> the ones who left?

 Even those who've made up the doctrine you now believe.

>
> B
>