Pope: Other Christian Denominations Not True Churches

[sisterchristian]

[ There is a difference between "representative" and "substitute". Even the Scriptures speak of the Apostles as representatives of Christ, working HIS ministry.

So why must the Pope be THE representative when we ALL can be representatives of Christ? He is no greater than those of us that serve the Lord!

 

[aj830]

So why must the Pope be THE representative when we ALL can be representatives of Christ? He is no greater than those of us that serve the Lord!

Your right. The Pope, as in the person, is no greater than anyone,one of his titles is The Servant of the Servants of God. However the Office of the Pope holds primacy over the Church because Christ said so.

And of course we are all called to be representatives of Christ. No one said we didn't. The Pope however, is the leader of the Church because Christ put Peter in charge.

 

[Lewis]

Your right. The Pope, as in the person, is no greater than anyone,one of his titles is The Servant of the Servants of God. However the Office of the Pope holds primacy over the Church because Christ said so.

And of course we are all called to be representatives of Christ. No one said we didn't. The Pope however, is the leader of the Church because Christ put Peter in charge.

Because Christ said so ? Where did you see that please show me. Because Jesus ain't said nothing about the pope. Jesus is not a Catholic' and he never ever will be.

 

[Drew]

Nowhere does the Catholic Church teach that the Bishop of Rome is a substitute for Christ. There is a difference between "representative" and "substitute"

This is a very critical distinction and if Catholic teaching indeed makes this distinction clear, then people should desist from asserting that Catholics have replaced Christ with the Pope.

I am not Catholic. I have not studied Catholicism. So I have no opinion about some of the issues that divide Catholics and Protestants. However, some of you seem to be arguing as if Protestantism "bypasses" the need for human leaders to guide the church in the physical absence of Christ. This is obviously untrue, at least in the most general sense. Protestant churches are organized, they have leader,and those leaders lead.

As I have said, I have no opinion about some of the specific claims that Catholics will make in respect to the Pope. But Protestants should not be critiquing the Pope specifically on the basis of the fact that he dares to exercise "leadership" of the Church when that leadership should be vested in Christ.

Well, Christ is not here right now, so both Protestants and Catholics will continue to look to leaders to guide and shepherd them. And this is the only game in town until Christ is with us again.

Please do not misread me. I am neither defending nor critiquing specific claims about the Pope's authority. I am merely pointing out that it is a myth to claim that Protestants do not depend on leaders for guidance and direction. We (protestants) are also subject to our leaders and, for good or bad, allow ourselves to be shepherded and lead by them.

 

[aj830]

Because Christ said so ? Where did you see that please show me. Because Jesus ain't said nothing about the pope. Jesus is not a Catholic' and he never ever will be.

Matthew 16:18 is the most direct. There are many more references in the Bible to Peter's Primacy if you just look. Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church.

 

[Guest]

You say your pastor is not a leader. What is your definition of a leader? Does this person direct the community's worship? Does he offer preacing and teaching direction? No, he is not Jesus Christ. Nor is the Pope. We don't make that claim. You (or other Protestants) make the claim that we believe that the Pope is on par with Jesus. Or that he replaces Jesus. This is faulty reasoning, as it overlooks the role that you have for your own pastor. As you may know, the Bible states that the Apostles left leaders, men with authority over their respective community. Did not Paul excommunicate the pervert in 1 Cor 5? Was Paul God?

To me, the ability to bind and loosen, to oust someone from the community, is a sure sign of authority. It is clear from Scriptures that MEN have been given this power from God, just as men have been given the power from God to forgive sins. A bit of thought on the roles of your own pastors and leaders should open your eyes to the fact that your pastor shares (albeit on a smaller scale) very similar powers that the Pope possesses. He is the shepherd of CHRIST'S sheep, while your pastor is the shepherd that leads your particular community to Christ.

As I pointed out to Thess - I was refering to the captial C "Church" - the universal Body of Christ - not the local church. The ONLY leader, Pastor, Shephard of the universal Body of Believers (the called out ones) is Jesus Christ - He did not turn that power over to anyone. It is Christ that sits at the Right Hand of God - no one else - as such it is Christ Jesus who is the Leader of the Body of Christ - no one else.

The problem with that is that the Church is not a "business model". It is based on covenants, not contracts. Surely, you must know the differences, so I won't go into it now. We, the Church, are family, not a business. Any comparisons between the Church and a business are bound to fail.

An analogy is bound to break down at some point. The Church is the Body of Believers, as such we have been adopted into the Family of God - we are brothers, sisters, mothers, to each other - God and God alone is our Father.

However, there is still a heavenly order - as I mentioned previously.

I am quoting St. John Chrysostom, who was much wiser on such matters than you or me. Humility is not about knowing who you are!!! Humility is the opposite of pride and arrogance, not about knowing yourself.

Look to the Lord. He is the ultimate teacher of humility. And it was not about "knowing Himself"! It was about debasing Himself throughout His entire life for another, us. Perhaps some Protestants who enjoy the "health and wealth gospel" don't want to hear that. But the fact remains that we are called to humble ourselves, to love others who are "not loveable" by the world - it is not about "knowing ourselves"!

Seems you don't like my signatures... Should I go back to St. Irenaeus? I thought you would not be bothered by this one. I am glad you are at least reading this signature and thinking about it. I ask you to read Phil 2 for another explanation of humility.

Regards

I would agree, Humlity is the opposite of pride and arrogance. When one knows who they are and whom's they are - one is able to understand humility.

Recognizing that one is in need of a Savior (thanks to the ministry of Holy Spirit) is recognizing that one should not be prideful and arrogant. The Lord Jesus Christ knew exactly who He was and what He was here to do. Debassing oneself is merely a false sense of humility.

I do not know if you are referring to me in regards to the "health and wealth" gospel - but I can assure you that I am not. I understand living a simple life. However, I can also understand that God loves me for who I am - recognizing that and understanding that is not being prideful.

Humility is knowing who and whose you are - no more and no less.

 

[Lewis]

Matthew 16:18 is the most direct. There are many more references in the Bible to Peter's Primacy if you just look. Jesus is the founder of the Catholic Church.

Here we go again. Peter was not the first pope. There is not even any proof that Peter was ever in Rome. But yet you all still talk this Peter garbage. And Jesus is not the founder of the Catholic church. So please don't hit me over the head with that one.

 

[sisterchristian]

Hey Lewis you missed some great conversation in the chat room! We were waiting for you!

 

[aj830]

Here we go again. Peter was not the first pope. There is not even any proof that Peter was ever in Rome. But yet you all still talk this Peter garbage. And Jesus is not the founder of the Catholic church. So please don't hit me over the head with that one.

Yes, here we go again. Of course you know, what I believe on this because there have been numerous discussions on this board. However I have never heard the argument the Peter was never in Rome. There is an abundance of proof for this. Whether or not you believe Peter was Pope, he was at Rome where he was martyred. And I guess I will continue to talk this "Peter garbage" because Christ built his Church on Peter. We disagree and I don't think we will so I guess that is all I really have to say.

 

[sisterchristian]

Yes, here we go again. Of course you know, what I believe on this because there have been numerous discussions on this board. However I have never heard the argument the Peter was never in Rome. There is an abundance of proof for this. Whether or not you believe Peter was Pope, he was at Rome where he was martyred. And I guess I will continue to talk this "Peter garbage" because Christ built his Church on Peter. We disagree and I don't think we will so I guess that is all I really have to say.

This is my take on the matter, When Jesus said to his disciples "Who do men say that I, the son of man, am"? So they said, "some say John the Baptist, some Elijah, and others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." He said to them, "But who do you say that I am?" Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you Simon Bar Jonah: for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my father who is in heaven. "And also I say to you that you are Peter, and on this Rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it." My pastor was speaking on this last week, and he was saying how this passage was meaning it was Peter's CONFESSION OF FAITH that was the Rock that he will build his church on because he believed that he was Christ. I don't know but This makes more sense to me! Because Jesus is the only true foundation!

 

[Lewis]

Hey Lewis you missed some great conversation in the chat room! We were waiting for you!

I was trying to get in there' but I am having a problem with Java' so I am taking care of that problem right now.

 

[thessalonian]

Solo said:

How many lies can one tell against one truth? ....There is no substitute for Christ!!!!!

When you stop posting distortions against the Catholic faith we'll have an accurate count I suppose. We don't claim the Pope is a sustitute for Christ. Never have, never will. That is truth, regardless of the truth or error of the papacy.

 

[cyberjosh]

Which Catholic teaching states we do away with Jesus by honoring Jesus' decision to make Peter the Rock upon which He built His Church?

And in the mean time the Catholic Church does not consider the Greek Orthodox Church at Antioch as built on that same foundation, though it was there that the first Gentile church ever was founded by Paul and Barnabas and where men and women were first called Christians. Thus Peter must have primacy over the super-abundant Paul.

So there are actually two gates to get to God, Peter and Jesus. Or do I misunderstand the doctrine, as saying you have to participate in Peter's Church?

~Josh

 

[thessalonian]

And in the mean time the Catholic Church does not consider the Greek Orthodox Church at Antioch as built on that same foundation, though it was there that the first Gentile church ever was founded by Paul and Barnabas and where men and women were first called Christians. Thus Peter must have primacy over the super-abundant Paul.

So there are actually two gates to get to God, Peter and Jesus. Or do I misunderstand the doctrine, as saying you have to participate in Peter's Church?

~Josh

First of all the RCC does in fact recognize the bishops of the Orthodox Church as having succession from the Apostles. Secondly we would contend that while Paul and baranbas evangelized the church in Antioch, that Peter was in fact the head of the same Church. There are not two Churches, the Church of Jesus and Paul and the one of Peter. The Church is one. No there are not two gates. There is one. Jesus works through the missionary Church and the structural Church but it is not two Churches but one. You misunderstand the doctrine. There is nothing like what you are saying in Catholic teaching.

 

[cyberjosh]

First of all the RCC does in fact recognize the bishops of the Orthodox Church as having succession from the Apostles. Secondly we would contend that while Paul and baranbas evangelized the church in Antioch, that Peter was in fact the head of the same Church. There are not two Churches, the Church of Jesus and Paul and the one of Peter. The Church is one. No there are not two gates. There is one. Jesus works through the missionary Church and the structural Church but it is not two Churches but one. You misunderstand the doctrine. There is nothing like what you are saying in Catholic teaching.

And so which part of the Church are the Protestants in your mind? Do we have to profess discipleship to the Church establishment in Rome or Antioch?

 

[mondar]

And so which part of the Church are the Protestants in your mind? Do we have to profess discipleship to the Church establishment in Rome or Antioch?

I notice the phrase "in your mind." I am not thess, but also notice the position of Rome and its official documents concerning the question? Thess has already expressed himself on the issue. He seems to be more charitable then the official statements of the Curia and pope. If you read my last posts on what the Curia has said, you will see that since protestants do not have the "mystery of the Eucharist," or the "mystery of salvation," or a "sacramental priesthood," or "apostolic succession," and thus the churches of the 16th century reformation are not a Church. The Oriental Churches (eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.) are the defective Churches that do have the doctrines above but are defective because they do not follow Pontificus Maximus. Now this is not merely a matter of ecclesiology since there is no salvation outside the Church according to Rome's dogma. This is a matter of salvation. Thess seems to be saying that there is salvation outside Rome, however the pope and Curia is not saying that. Please refer to the last post (and some of the previous posts I made).

 

[thessalonian]

I notice the phrase "in your mind." I am not thess, but also notice the position of Rome and its official documents concerning the question? Thess has already expressed himself on the issue. He seems to be more charitable then the official statements of the Curia and pope. If you read my last posts on what the Curia has said, you will see that since protestants do not have the "mystery of the Eucharist," or the "mystery of salvation," or a "sacramental priesthood," or "apostolic succession," and thus the churches of the 16th century reformation are not a Church. The Oriental Churches (eastern Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, etc.) are the defective Churches that do have the doctrines above but are defective because they do not follow Pontificus Maximus. Now this is not merely a matter of ecclesiology since there is no salvation outside the Church according to Rome's dogma. This is a matter of salvation. Thess seems to be saying that there is salvation outside Rome, however the pope and Curia is not saying that. Please refer to the last post (and some of the previous posts I made).

Once again of course the Catholic interpretation is wrong. There is no discussing it with the like of you. An no I do not deny the statement "there is no salvation outside the Church". You simply don't understand it. But you will claim expertise.

 

[thessalonian]

And so which part of the Church are the Protestants in your mind? Do we have to profess discipleship to the Church establishment in Rome or Antioch?

You try to force your personal interpretations on Catholic teaching. Mixing the two will not work. As I said there is not Rome or Antioch. It is all one. As for Paul's setting up of the local Churches, you have a distorted view of how the Catholic Church operates. It is not directives coming down from the Pope all the time. There is autonomy in the local Church as well as direction from Rome. Which part of the Church are Protestants in? To the degree that they accept truth common between us and them, they are in Christ's Church. The parts that they reject but not out of full knowledge and will divide but not culpably so. Those who knowingly and willingly reject some truths, are separated from Christ's church, though they may think they are a part of it. God is the judge.

 

[cyberjosh]

You try to force your personal interpretations on Catholic teaching. Mixing the two will not work. As I said there is not Rome or Antioch. It is all one.

And then how do you propose the Pope found himself to the top of this unified body? Do the Popes have different spiritual gifts that put them above the rest, or if they rather have a diverse range of spiritual gifts (like the other people in the Church) could one be a prophet, one a teacher, and another who speaks in tongues, etc?

We are all one body, and each plays a part equally as important as the rest, why is the Pope the more authoritive body-part?

There is autonomy in the local Church as well as direction from Rome.

I just thought you said there is no Rome, you are contradicting yourself. Rome is not the mother Church, for as you said niether Peter or Paul are in distinction thus all bodies of Christ may equally sprout with their own leaderships with Christ as their only head, no mediating Pope, nor allegiance to Rome or Antioch or any other proposed source of human authority, other than the apostolic pattern set forth for the election of local church (and even city) leadership consisting of elders, overseers, etc...

~Josh

 

[thessalonian]

I'm afraid I can't help you if you won't engage your mind and throw false dichotomies and invalid conclusions at me cyber. That there were local authorities does not neccessitate there being no leadership over those authorities and the evidence is overwhelming that Peter was that authority and that he passed this authority along. But you will deny because it leaves you feelinging comfortable where you are at.