Conservative Colloquium

An Intellectual Forum for All Things Conservative

The Keys of the Kingdom: The Papacy and Papal Infallibility in the Bible

Posted by Tony Listi on September 18, 2007

The papacy and papal infallibility have indeed been in existence from the very earliest days of the Church, starting with the apostle Peter and what he and other Christians believed about his leadership and jurisdiction. The papacy and papal infallibility have undergone some development over time but the essential aspects are very biblical and have been preserved from the earliest days of Christianity. There is nothing in the early Church history to contradict it, but rather the various bishops acknowledged the primacy of Rome.

Infallibility
The Pope is infallible ONLY when he defines a doctrine with regard to faith or morals, matters necessary for the whole Church. It is possible for him to err in questions of fact and outside the chair of Peter, as a private individual by bad example.  
Cardinal Gibbons: “You will tell me that infallibility is too great a prerogative to be conferred on man. I answer: Has not God, in former times, clothed His Apostles with powers far more exalted? They were endowed with the gifts of working miracles, of prophecy and inspiration; they were the mouthpiece communicating God’s revelation, of which the Popes are merely custodians. If God could make man the organ of His revealed Word, is it impossible for Him to make man its infallible guardian and interpreter? For surely, greater is the Apostle who gives us the inspired Word than the Pope who preserves it from error….
Let us see, sir, whether an infallible Bible is sufficient for you. Either you are infallibly certain that your interpretation of the Bible is correct or you are not.
If you are infallibly certain, then you assert for yourself, and of course for every reader of the Scripture, a personal infallibility which you deny to the Pope, and which we claim only for him. YOU MAKE EVERY MAN HIS OWN POPE.
If you are not infallibly certain that you understand the true meaning of the whole Bible…then, I ask, OF WHAT USE TO YOU IS THE OBJECTIVE INFALLIBILITY OF THE BIBLE WITHOUT AN INFALLIBLE INTERPRETER?”

The Pope nevertheless acts in concert with the both the college of bishops and the “sense of the faithful.” This arrangement is mirrored in the biblical relationship of St. Peter and with the other original disciples.

This infallibility does not come to the Pope in the manner of inspiration or of revelation, but through divine assistance, which has been promised to Peter and his successors by Christ. The doctrine of the papacy is well grounded in Scripture, and the institution is present in increasingly developing stages throughout the history of the Roman Catholic Church. Moreover, the constant, remarkable primacy of Rome in the history of Christianity is undeniable.

The Rock
Matthew 16:18 “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.”
The name “Peter” derives from the word for “rock” (kepha in Aramaic) Thus Catholics contend that Peter himself is the rock (foundation) of the Church. Many prominent Protestant scholars have agreed with this assessment.
Protestant Greek Scholar Marvin Vincent: The rock is not Jesus. The emphatic “this” naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect (“I will build”). Neither is the rock Peter’s confession/profession of faith. Both the play upon words and the natural reading are against it. The church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors−living men. This interpretation of Peter as the rock is confirmed by his actual role in the early church (Acts 1:15; 2:14, 37; 3:2; 4:8; 5:15, 29; 9:34, 40; 10:25-6; Gal 1:18).

St. Francis de Sales: “When he makes St. Peter its foundation, he makes him head and superior of the family…. [H]e who takes away the foundation knocks down the house. If, then, the gates of Hell can in no wise prevail against the Church, they can in no wise prevail against its foundation and head…. The supreme charge…is not beside the authority of his Master, but…a participation in this…. St. Peter is the foundation, not the founder,…administrator and not lord, and in no way the foundation of our faith, hope, and charity, nor of the efficacy of the Sacraments…. So, although [Christ] is the Good Shepherd, he gives us shepherds (Eph 4:11) under himself, between whom and his Majesty there is so great a difference that he declares himself to be the only shepherd (John 10:11; Ezek 34:23).”

The Keys of the Kingdom
Mt 16: 19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of Heaven.”

Isaiah 22:20-22 “And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.”

Rev 3:7 [Christ describing Himself]: “…the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one shall shut, who shuts and no one opens.” (cf. Job 12:14)

The power of the “keys” in the Hebrew mind had to do with administrative authority and ecclesiastical discipline and, in a broad sense, might be thought to encompass the use of excommunication, penitential decrees, a barring from the sacraments and lesser censures, and legislative and executive functions. Like the name “rock,” this privilege was bestowed only upon Peter and no other disciple or apostle. Jesus’ commission to Peter may be interpreted as an assignment of powers to the recipient in his stead, as a sort of authoritative representative or ambassador.
The “opening” and “shutting” (Isa 22:2) appears to refer to jurisdictional power that no one but the king could override. It was literally the prime minister’s prerogative to deny or allow entry to the palace and access to the king.
The symbol of keys always represented authority in the Middle East.
When Old Testament usage and culture of the hearers is taken into account, the phrase “keys to the kingdom of Heaven” must have great significance.

The Power to Bind and Loose
Mt 16:19 “Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven.”

Binding and loosing were technical rabbinical terms meaning, respectively, “to forbid” and “to permit,” with regard to interpretation of Jewish Law. In secondary usage, they could mean “to condemn” and “to acquit.” This power is given to the Apostles in Mt 18:17-18, where it apparently refers particularly to discipline and excommunication in local jurisdictions. In John 20:23, it is also granted to the Apostles (in different terminology, which suggests the power to impose penance and grant indulgences and absolution). Generally speaking, binding and loosing usually meant the prerogative to formulate Christian doctrine and to require allegiance to it, as well as to condemn heresies that were opposed to the true doctrine (Jude 3).

Feed My Sheep
John 21:15-17
Rev 7:17

The Greek word for “tend” in 21:16 is applied to Jesus Christ in Rev 2:27, 7:17, 12:5, 19:15; Mt 2:6. It is used of bishops in Acts 20:28 and 1 Peter 5:2. Clearly, an awesome amount of spiritual authority is being given to Peter. No other individual disciple is likewise instructed by our Lord and in such momentous terms as in Jn 21.

Peter’s ministry to the Church is always universal; his jurisdiction knows no bounds, and the language Christ himself applies to him is strikingly sublime and profound. For to no one else was it granted the keys of the kingdom of Heaven. No one else was renamed “Rock,” and proclaimed to be the foundation upon which he would build his Church. Peter is given extraordinary privileges and where they are not exclusive, they are obviously applied to him in a pre-eminent sense. The Scriptural relation between Christ, Peter, and the disciples is precisely that found in the teaching and practice of the Catholic Church with the Pope as the supreme shepherd and leader of the Church, yet not in such a fashion as to exclude Christ as Head or his fellow members of the Body of Christ. Only Catholicism does justice to the Scriptural data and the course of the early Church in the formative years of her development. The abundant Petrine evidence in the Bible must be dealt with in an open and consistent manner.

Strengthen Your Brothers
Lk 22:31-32 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren.”
Nicholas Russo and St. Francis de Sales: Infallibility is nothing else but a supernatural gift by which the recipient is shielded from all error against faith. But this is clearly expressed in “that thy faith fail not,” implied in the command to confirm his brethren, and supposed in the very failure of Satan’s attempts to destroy the Church, which is personified in the Apostles…. [T]he prayer was offered for Peter alone. By strengthening the head, Jesus wished to prevent the rest from staggering. Peter abides always in his successors. For it would be strange to confer infallibility to Peter only to have it die with him and to leave the rest of his successors vulnerable in times of greater danger. By charging Peter to confirm his brothers, Jesus does nothing less than declare him their head once again. If he has the task of feeding the pastors, must he not be sovereign pastor himself?

Paul’s Rebuke in Gal 2:9, 11-14
The rebuke instead of implying a denial of Peter’s supremacy, implies just the opposite. St. Paul says the EXAMPLE of St. Peter compelled the Gentiles. St. Paul’s example had not the same compelling power. The duty of fraternal correction (Mt 18:15) may often require an inferior to rebuke a superior in defense of justice and truth. In fact, St. Bernard, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and St. Catherine of Siena all rebuked Popes, while fully acknowledging their supreme authority.
The rebuke however did not refer to the doctrine, but to the CONDUCT of Peter. Peter had not changed his mind on the views he had set forth at the Council of Jerusalem. His action was most imprudent and certain to cause harm because of his great influence and authority. St. Paul uses St. Peter’s own teaching to reprove him. No doctrinal error was involved. St. Paul did not act as if he were St. Peter’s superior. He practically said, “I had to resist even Peter−to whom chief authority belongs.” There was no theological dispute, just an inconsistency of belief and behavior on Peter’s part.

If St. Peter (and all the popes that followed him, including Leo X, for that matter) were guilty of hypocrisy, this is no disproof whatsoever of the Catholic dogma of papal infallibility, since the teaching does not extend to behavior and applies only to the decrees on faith and morals. Granted, hypocrisy and bad example are not conducive to the successful propagation of a viewpoint, yet one must critique an idea according to its actual content.

The Council of Jerusalem
St. Peter, not St. James, presided at the Council of Jerusalem. Peter was the head of the council and the supreme arbiter. He spoke first and decided the matter unhesitatingly (Acts 15:7-11). He claimed to exercise special authority in the name of his special election by God to receive the Gentiles (Acts 15:7), and he severely rebuked those who had the opposite view (Acts 15:10). After he had spoken “all the multitude held their peace” (Acts 15:12). Those who spoke after him merely confirmed his decision, including St. James, whose obvious deference to the ecumenical position of St. Peter as the chief Apostle is clear from his first words: “Symeon [Peter] has related….”

Advertisements

15 Responses to “The Keys of the Kingdom: The Papacy and Papal Infallibility in the Bible”

  1. NikFromNYC said

    The words ‘pope’ nor ‘papal’ do not appear in The Bible, so how does some guy named the Pope, who lives in a the world’s biggest and most expensively constructed palace have any say on anything related to The Bible?

    • vikki said

      amen and agreed, because the pope claims to be messiah on earth, he’s the false messiah basically ONE of the antichrist spirits

  2. foospro86 said

    There are a lot of terms and concepts that are not explicitly stated in the Bible yet are accepted by all Christians (e.g. Trinity). The title of “Pope” as reserved for the Bishop of Rome dates as far back as the 4th c. AD.

    No offense, but did you even take the time and effort to actually read the above post which cites verses from the Bible demonstrating Peter’s unique authority? Combine that authority with the concept of apostolic succession (See last part of https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/09/18/the-visible-hierarchical-apostolic-church-in-the-bible/) and it becomes clear that the papacy has biblical support and has the authority to interpret Scripture definitively.

    Please also see the link below for more Scriptural evidence that Peter was preeminent among the 12 Apostles:
    https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2007/09/19/50-new-testament-proofs-for-the-pre-eminence-of-st-peter/

  3. Gail Taraschuk said

    They may not have but I have ! I also went through the whole book of Acts line for line only I read them in context and not as one liners as you have. They ALL were brothers and took responsibility for sharing God’s words and about Jesus. They all drew people to Christ ! They ALL healed and performed miracles and wondrous signs, they ALL laid on of the hands to gave others the gift of the Holy Spirit. I will NOT dispute that Peter had some special place of authority BUT I can see clearly from History, writing of many sources and the Bible itself !!!
    That this was NEVER passed down to any ROMAN Church and especially NOT the Catholic Church of ROME or the ROMAN Papacy !
    So far I have written every fact down that I have learned to disprove this and I have almost 20 pages of evidence to share with other. I always pray for the Holy Spirit to guide me and show me what I need to see.To reveal things to me. Anyone who sincerely ask this and is opened to what ever the HOLY SPIRIT shows to you and is willing to accept this light he shares can see the same thing I have been shown. It is not inclusive to me only but to everyone ! If God can show an ordinary person like me he will show others too. Only I am open to Him and I accept whatever that God shows. I like anyone else have preconceived ideas but If I learn something other than that and it is scriptural then I accept it and also accept I was wrong in my previous understanding. I am not attacking individuals of any church, including Roman Catholics But I WILL speak out what God has shown me and He has shown me from scriptures alone that in NO way. Absolutely NO way the Papacy is the successor to Peter the Apostle. Like I said I have about 20 pages and I am not even done yet of evidence to show the Papacy is Not Peter’s successor. When I am done I will be posting them all on youtube so everyone can see them and think for themselves what they believe based on scriptural facts. Feed Jesus sheep? YES, of course…but please! feed them the word’s of God , the teachings of Christ and not that of the Papacy! The Papacy teaches things not from scriptures ,things based on human presumption, twisted versions of the bible truths, and the twisting of God Commandments, something humbled Peter would never have dared to do himself!He already learned his very hard lesson denying Christ!He was not about to tamper with God’s won teachings..
    Peter never claimed the authority of God or the right to change God’s laws or Jesus teachings.BUT the Papacy has !
    Peter would rebuke the Papacy as he has done with Simon Magus who thought he was so great! Secondly Jesus said, “Simon ( son of Jonas) feed my sheep” Jesus called him SIMON. The Papacy was NOT a successor to Simon (Peter) the Apostle of Jesus ! YOU have the wrong Simon
    , your Simon is Simon Magus ! In fact if you compare the papacy to Simon Magus you can see the same character traits and coveting ambitions. The Papacy is NOTHING like Simon Peter Jesus’ Apostle !
    NOTHING !!

    If you want to worship the Papacy and do as THEY say that is your choice but do not make excuses for them and their false teachings.
    Get off that big ego trip that they are successors to Simon Peter because the bible clearly shows that the Papacy is NOT !
    I do not care for your ”other” writings where the papacy gets their information. Those sources have no proof for most are written by those who fell away from the pure and simple teachings of Christ and the word of God, In fact they feel from the teaching and example of Peter also ! I will trust God’s word alone for the real truth. Unfortunately Rome and the so called Roman church has had much influence on the minds of the translators though out time and even some of these scriptures are tampered with and altered. One has to be careful of the individual that interprets the scriptures to watch for those biased translations !

    Galaxygayle

  4. Gail Taraschuk said

    YOU SAY :The name “Peter” derives from the word for “rock” (kepha in Aramaic) Thus Catholics contend that Peter himself is the rock (foundation) of the Church. Many prominent Protestant scholars have agreed with this assessment.
    Protestant Greek Scholar Marvin Vincent: The rock is not Jesus.

    What about the” Rock” not cut out by hands..the rock that crushes Rome and every other power and kingdom (Daniel)We should know that this ROCK is Jesus and His Kingdom, it will crush all the other kingdoms to dust! Including the Roman Kingdom and it’s Rulers.

    In the bible every ones name meant something… they all had meaning.
    Peter meant rock. Jesus said SIMON feed my sheep. Simon does not mean rock. Or Simon Magus would be rock also ! Secondly there were MANY Peters in bible times!

    YOU SAY:Matthew 16:18 “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.”

    Read it in context will ya ! Remember I told you that you have a habit of using one liners… The bible tells us to study line upon line, precept upon precept..why…for a full picture !

    Take a look at the full picture!
    Matthew 16: 13 When Jesus came into the coasts of Caesarea Philippi, He asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?
    14 And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets.
    15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
    16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
    17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
    19 And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

    I would like to point out these things…First off Peter was the ONLY one who stated that ”Jesus” was the CHRIST the MESSIAH and the SON OF GOD.. the other Apostle were confused about who Jesus was..they did not give a personal statement of who they believed Jesus to be.They babbled . Peter was the only one there that was sure about his belief in Christ..

    Second,Jesus said blessed are you Peter for flesh and blood did not reveal this to you BUT GOD the Father in heaven did!
    It is GOD who reveals himself to you! He was blessing Peter because he knew that God revealed this to Peter and Peter believed it. Not like the others… I this way peter would be a good candidate to lead others…He was on a more solid foundation than the others.. I mean would Jesus build his church on a statement as confusing as what the other disciples gave. They were not sure in there hearts of who Jesus was yet… peter was sure!
    The Foundation is not the man Peter but that the Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. This is why we even have a church at all in the first place. Because of Jesus NOT peter. peter only started one and lead it..The foundation the church is built on is Jesus alone! Not a mere man ! After all Peter later after Jesus said these things denied Jesus 3 times….why would Jesus build a church on Peter mere man?
    can you imagine the troubles that would come from building a whole church on a mere man? For one thing that man would end up boastful and corrupt like the papacy is and was.Eventually with all that authority and power one would abuse it as the Papacy has and does. Nebuchadnezzer had the same problems as the Papacy, boastful and abusing power, forcing people to worship his way.God tore him down and his so called kingdom.

    YOU SAY: Protestant Greek Scholar Marvin Vincent: The rock is not Jesus. The emphatic “this” naturally refers to the nearest antecedent; and besides, the metaphor is thus weakened, since Christ appears here not as the foundation, but as the architect (“I will build”). Neither is the rock Peter’s confession/profession of faith. Both the play upon words and the natural reading are against it. The church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors−living men. This interpretation of Peter as the rock is confirmed by his actual role in the early church

    Tell me where in Daniel is this ROCK cut out without human hands NOT Jesus and His kingdom? It obviously is! Wouldn’t Christ being the Son of God be a better foundation to build any church on since his or THIS kingdoms (foundation) crushes all the others ?
    In fact the PAPACY WILL BE CRUSHED ALSO ! Yes, the Vatican, the Papacy, the Roman kingdom will be crushed too. It is a kingdom cut out WITH human hands! The Papacy has done horrific evils in killing God true people. Isn’t it a fact that the Vatican city has place where you can pay money to go under the cathedrals to see all their instruments of torture that they used on God’s people and others…making money off of it ! Sick !

    And YES, Jesus can build the whole church upon a statement that He is the Son of GOD, the Christ. You think in literal terms, an actual material foundation or you cannot see it any other way BUT the foundation the church is built upon is a spiritual truth of who Jesus is.Build the church on any other material foundation other than the spiritual foundation than Jesus being the SON of GOD, the Christ..and you will have no church that can stand at Jesus second coming… Jesus is the Rock we build our churches on because in the storm they will NOT fall…Unlike building it on a mere man equal to sand…

    See Matthew 7:24-27 (King James Version)
    24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:
    25 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock.
    26 And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand:
    27 And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

    The foundation the church is built upon is a spiritual principle..which as Jesus says is “his words”, “His teachings”…he likens us as men who build their houses upon a ROCK…..here Jesus says his words and teachings are a ROCK !!
    On the opposite side who don’t build on the teaching of CHRIST and HIS WORD are building on sand ! The storm came and washed it away, destroyed it…

    The Roman Catholic Church and the Roman Papacy are NOT built on GOD’S WORD or the straight teachings of CHRIST alone…
    They get much of their teaching from so called older writings from so called church father who strayed from the simple teachings Of Jesus and God’s word to follow man’s traditions over them…secondly the Papacy has altered and mutilated God 10 commandments and even thinks they can change them. if they obeyed the simple teachings of CHRIST, they would not change the 4th commandment, GOD’S Holy 7th day Sabbath and do away with the second commandment by deleting most of it… among other untruths they teach.

    I wonder what Jesus thinks of having people PAY to see the torture devices of the Roman Inquisition as if it is something to make money off of and boast about? Jesus will crush them too!
    How can you even think Peter the Apostle would build up a church this evil? peter did NOT kill people because they didn’t worship as he said to..he left that for God to do and went about his business witnessing for Christ. The Papacy is NO witness for Christ but for the dragon! Please don’t point out that other denominations have done evil too…They don’t claim to be Peter’s successors!They have NOT committed near as many evils as the papacy..even all of them put together and they don’t have torture chamber and keep records as the papacy did of their evils!It is apparent that the Papacy and the Roman Catholic church are NOT build on Rock and NOT Peter’s successors !
    I will say that your articles are real good at swerving around and blindsiding the truth.. But then the Papacy has had a lot of practice ! Revelation describe the Roman papacy to an exact not one else has all the marks in Revelation and Daniel other than the Papacy…Oh My..I just gave you something else to try to swerve around ! Whoops!

  5. Gail Taraschuk said

    YOU SAY: Neither is the rock Peter’s confession/profession of faith. Both the play upon words and the natural reading are against it. The church is built, not on confessions, but on confessors−living men. This interpretation of Peter as the rock is confirmed by his actual role in the early church

    Notice how the writer says ” natural reading” !!! We know that the carnal minds cannot understand the deep , spiritual things of God..
    God’s words are deeply spiritual and only can we understand them through the Holy spirit… Through a carnal reading of this scripture it might seem against the Foundation being Jesus, the SON of GOD….But with deeper study and guidance by the Holy Spirit it becomes clear that it is not against the fact that the Church is built on Christ, not Peter. Jesus chose Peter to instruct the new church in Christ, to feed them with the word’s of God and truth…Not to be their foundation !

    God’s word’s are SPIRITUAL NOT CARNAL !

    see Matthew 7:24-27 and Luke 6:46-49

    These are parables to show you what Jesus means by ”Rock” and ”foundation” to build the church on ! Ask the Holy Spirit to guide you and teach you and be open to the wonderful truth he will open up to you ! How to study God’s word:

    Isaiah 28:9-11 (New King James Version)

    9 “ Whom will he teach knowledge?
    And whom will he make to understand the message?
    Those just weaned from milk?
    Those just drawn from the breasts?
    10 For precept must be upon precept, precept upon precept,
    Line upon line, line upon line,
    Here a little, there a little.”

    God bless!

  6. Gail Taraschuk said

    The church is NOT built on Peter or the confession of Peter BUT on the one whom Peter confessed….That foundation is CHRIST !
    Build on anything else and you will fall !
    Jesus says :
    Matthew 16
    16 And Simon Peter answered and said,THOU ART THE CHRIST, THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD”………………..

    18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and UPON THIS ROCK I WILL BUILD MY CHURCH ; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    “That thou art Peter” is only Jesus stating a fact..it was Peter He was speaking to…

    Upon this “ROCK”. Jesus was referring to HIMSELF truly being the Christ whom Peter just confessed!

    You are right in saying it is not the actual confession of Peter the church can be built upon. But the Man Jesus whom he confessed!
    Peters name means ROCK but Peter sure didn’t act like this ROCK when he denied Jesus 3 times to save himself…

    Don’t read me wrong…I love Peter, he is my brother in Christ Jesus. Popes love and compel people to bow down to them and worship them, kiss their feet etc…it make them feel powerful and exalted to have people worship them… In fact they even love the fact that these same people bow to statues and pictures of them…I have many of these pictures….

    Here is Peter in comparison to the Popes :

    Acts 10:24-26 (King James Version))24 And the morrow after they entered into Caesarea. And Cornelius waited for them, and he had called together his kinsmen and near friends.
    25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
    26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

    Peter was NOT a Roman Pope…The Papacy could learn a thing or two from Peter…

    Face the facts!…you have been duped by a false system of religion that has only plans to exalt themselves and have power over everything that is God’s…

    Sounds much like Lucifer…

    Isaiah 14: 12- 14…
    12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
    13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
    14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

    “We hold upon this earth the place of God almighty…”Leo XIII

    “We, define, declare, assert that it is absolutely necessary to salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff…” Boniface VIII

    “….Union of minds, therefore, requires complete submission to the will of the church, and to the pontiff, as to God himself..” Leo XIII

    “This is our last lesson to you: receive it, engrave it in your minds, all of you: by God’s commandment salvation is to be found nowhere but in the Church; the strong and effective instrument of salvation is none other than the Roman Pontificate.”
    (Pope Leo XIII, Allocution for the 25th anniversary of his election, February 20, 1903; Papal Teachings: The Church, Benedictine Monks of Solesmes, St. Paul Editions, Boston, 1962, par. 653).

    Where?.. is it anywhere in scriptures does God COMMAND that salvation is to be found no where but in the church, ( the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH ) and that the POPE is the instrument of it ???

    Since you quoted scriptures so will I….
    ACTS 4…Peter says himself referring to Jesus:
    12 Salvation is found in NO ONE ELSE, for there is NO OTHER NAME UNDER HEAVEN given to men by which we must be saved.”

    If the Papacy is successor to Peter why then does the Papacy’s teachings oppose not only scriptures but Peters clear teachings??
    Peter teaches that NO MAN other then Jesus can save but the papacy teaches that we can only be saved through the CC and the POPE??

    Galatians 1:6-9 (New International Version)

    6 I am astonished that you are so quickly deserting the one who called you by the grace of Christ and are turning to a different gospel— 7 which is really no gospel at all. Evidently some people are throwing you into confusion and are trying to pervert the gospel of Christ. 8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should preach a gospel other than the one we preached to you, let him be eternally condemned! 9 As we have already said, so now I say again: If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let him be eternally condemned!

    It say not even an angel teaching a different gospel is to be trusted..he says let them be eternally condemned if they do ! The papacy teaches so different than the Gospel of Christ, the bible that it is a new gospel !

    Titus 1:9-10 (New International Version)
    9 He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it.
    10 For there are many rebellious people, mere talkers and deceivers………………

    I for one am holding firmly to the message taught in GOD’S word not this new doctrine invented by the papacy, those deceivers, rebellious against God’s word !

    The Papacy claims sovereignty but the bible says different:

    Jude 1:4 (New International Version)
    4 For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny JESUS CHRIST OUR ONLY SOVEREIGN and LORD.

    To attempt to push aside Christ and His sole authority which he alone has earned by His sacrifice on the cross for us sinners against God, His right to sit at the right hand of God in full authority and to claim that you now are that authority in Christ’s place is DENYING CHRIST and what CHRIST alone has earned and deserves ! This scripture speak rightly in stating that Jesus ALONE is SOVEREIGN ! NOT the Pope or the Church !!

    The Papacy speaks of Christ outwardly but in all their teachings, doctrines and actions they deny Him, their blasphemous claims to have the power and authority that belongs to Christ alone is pure evil !!

    When you have enough guts to look at the whole picture in regards to the Papacy system you clearly see something evil going on against Our Lord Jesus Christ.

    Don’t let fancy words and speeches, or kind acts once in awhile, outward appearances , fancy doctrines and grand cathedrals etc…blind you from what is really going on…

    Come back to the simple, uncomplicated teachings of Christ , God’s word and his apostles and trust your salvation in Christ alone!!

    ACTS 9:5 And he said,Who art thou Lord? and the Lord said,
    ” I am Jesus whom thou persecutest; it is hard to kick against the pricks”

    The Papacy might heed these words, as with Saul who once who persecuted God true people . He in this way persecuted Jesus also.The more you persecute us the more God will cause us to grow.
    If it seems like the CC and the Papacy is gaining power or influence over people don’t be worried, Jesus promised it would NOT be for long and then He will put an end to it and save His people who listen to HIM alone!

    Truth hurts sometimes at first hearing of it but it also can set you free !

    God Bless !

  7. Gail Taraschuk said

    To NikfromNYC,

    There are many Christians who believe things not in scriptures…
    The dangerous thing in that is that most of the stuff they believe is from pagan origins or the Papacy. If they read their bible more and studying it they would see that they are false and also what God’s view of doing these things are…

    The actual word Trinity is not in scriptures itself but the idea of it is in the scriptures…Trinity is a word used to describe three persons in the godhead, The Holy Spirit,the son of God and God the father….Three co-eternal persons… Jesus said that to see him is to see the Father but remember Jesus also said that he came down to earth lower than even angels as a man like us and in the form of man never considered himself to be equal with God the Father…Philippians 2:3-11

    It says we should imitate this humility ourselves but the papacy thinks they are equal to God and that they have His authority to do what ever they want to God’s word, scriptures and doctrines, even to change God’s commandments if they chose to!

    Pope is no where in scripture and there is NOTHING to back any such thing up. Bishop is used but not Pope and I believe the only reason that anyone thinks they are the same is because of the papacy them selves and their teachings… after all they believe they can teach anything they want even that NOT in scriptures!

  8. Gail Taraschuk said

    [Middle English, from Old English pāpa, from Late Latin, from Latin, father (title of bishops), from Greek pappās; see papa in Indo-European roots.]

    In all the dictionaries I have looked all definitions were influenced by the Roman Catholics… but according to dictionary.com it comes from the word pappās which means father.
    it is according papacy another name for Bishop which is in the NT.
    Only Peter would never have anyone call him father , never did!
    Jesus says in :
    Matthew 23:8-12 (New International Version)
    8 “But you are not to be called ‘Rabbi,’ for you have only one Master and you are all brothers. 9 And do not call anyone on earth ‘father,’ for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. 10 Nor are you to be called ‘teacher,’ for you have one Teacher, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you will be your servant. 12 For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.

    Jesus here is referring to calling ANYONE your spiritual father, only God in Heaven is our father according to Jesus… it also says we are all brothers….not one above the other… he also says HE is our teacher no one else therefore no one has the right to teach anything but what Christ taught.. we are just witnesses to what Jesus taught and share it with others…NOT teach something different…one master and that is Christ not the pope…
    Jesus also says those greatest among you should be your SERVANTS, Why then does the Pope who claims he is so great in authority and the Vicar of Christ act so different than Christ. Jesus was humble, poor and never even had a place to lay his head he says, yet the Pope is filthy rich, lives in a palace with servants who provide his every want, his own guards and rich fancy cloths and treasures when Jesus had nothing on earth?

    Here is something the Pope should hear and obey …
    Jesus said to a rich man once…” go sell ALL your riches and then come follow me”…

    I highly doubt the Pope would ever give up his riches and glory to follow Christ!

  9. Patrick said

    Just a simple note. The Pharisees wasted no time informing everyone that they were the “Infallible ” spokesman for Jehovah. They made it clear that Jesus was not the Messiah, but that he was of the devil. They also claimed priestly succession back to Moses. They in short claimed the same thing Roman Catholic apologists are trying to sell the rest of Christianity – “authoritative privilege”

    “By their fruits you shall know them.” – Jesus

    By reviewing the fruits of Roman Catholic history and papal behavior, it is very clear what they can do with their Infallibility doctrine.

  10. foospro86 said

    You cannot merely say that I have taken Scripture verses out of context. You must provide the correct context with verses before and/or after the verses I cite and provide then the correct interpretation.

    The fact that many of the other apostles also performed miracles does not take away from preeminence of St. Peter. I’m glad you are willing to acknowledge a “special place of authority” for Peter; that is more than most Protestants are willing to do.

    Many heretics over the centuries have appealed to the Holy Spirit for the so-called authority of their teachings. Why should anyone believe you over the myriad of other wild heretics? The Catholic Church has history of the early Church on her side. As Cardinal Newman once said, “To know history is to cease to be Protestant.”

    Peter was already acknowledged as the authority in the Church (which is why Paul visited him before beginning his mission), thus Peter did not have to assert his authority explicitly.

    ::sigh:: Catholics do not worship the Papacy. We obey it. There is a difference, obviously. Maybe you need to learn more about Catholicism before throwing around wild accusations.

    I demand you give evidence/proof of any tampering of biblical translations by the Catholic Church. The only tampering I know of is on the Protestant side: Luther arbitrarily inserted “alone” to form “faith alone” in his German translation of Rom 3:28, for which he had no basis in the original Greek.

    There were also a lot of people named Jesus in “bible times”! Does that mean Jesus was not the Son of God? What is your point is saying there were a lot of Peters back then? You aren’t making any sense.
    You want to look at the word “rock” from a wholly biblical context? See this post: https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/the-rock-in-scripture/

    Yes, exactly! You make my point for me without knowing it. Why would Jesus build his Church on a “mere man”? He didn’t! Peter was no “mere man” but filled with the Holy Spirit and his faith prayed for especially by Jesus (Lk 22:32). Peter had the promise that the Church founded upon him would not fail (Mt 16:18). There was nothing special about Peter except that he was chosen by Jesus to lead the Church! The Catholic Church, as the heritage of Peter, will not be “crushed,” according the Jesus’ promise.
    The fact that Peter sinned throughout his life, like all the apostles, is no proof against his authority. There is a difference between the behavior of Church leadership and the doctrine they establish. The Church is and has been full of sinners but is sinless as an institution.
    The Papacy certainly abused its temporal power historically (as did many Protestant leaders), but it never abused its authority to determine Christian doctrine and orthodoxy.

    You are so uninformed. Do you really think the Church wants to exhibit some of the past evils that its members have committed?? Show me the proof that there is a “place where you can pay money to go under the cathedrals to see all their instruments of torture.”
    Moreover, do you really want to turn this into a body count contest? Shall I begin to list off the atrocities that Protestants and their leaders committed or condoned?? It doesn’t matter if they don’t claim to be Peter’s successors; they claim to be the true Church.
    Seeing as communism, fascism, and modern American liberalism have their philosophical roots in the Protestant Revolution, we would all do well to take heresy seriously.
    Regardless, the Inquisition, in its establishment and procedure, pertained not to the sphere of belief, but to that of discipline. The dogmatic teaching of doctrine by the Church is in no way affected by the question as to whether the Inquisition was justified in its scope, or wise in its methods, or extreme in its practice. See more on the Inquisition here: http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/11/inquisition-crusades-catholic-scandals.html
    You might actually want to read some hard historical facts about the Inquisition rather then bow to pop culture exaggerations.

    I would point out that Jesus says he who hears his words is LIKE a man who builds his house on rock. It is a parable clearly. He does NOT say that his words ARE the rock. In contrast, Jesus says that Peter IS the rock on which He will build His Church. Peter is not like a rock; he IS the rock by the authority of Jesus’ own words. Peter’s authority is derivative from Jesus’. Your argument falls flat with a rigorously thorough reading of verses.
    You want to look at the word “rock” from a wholly biblical context? See this post: https://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/2008/08/11/the-rock-in-scripture/

    A lot of people have come up with a lot of crazy theories about what Daniel and Revelation refer to. You are no exception. I suggest you stick to one wild accusation at a time.

    The notion that the individual believer is the sole judge and authority of Scripture, and thus owes no obedience except to himself, seems to me a pretty CARNAL reading of Scripture. It unleashes the private fallen desires of the individual by demanding no obedience to the common, external authority. At least, as a Catholic I know that my beliefs are founded in long historical practice going back, in its essentials, to the early Church. Appeal to the authority of the Holy Spirit all you want, but that doesn’t mean that your interpretations are truly graced by it.

    Do you not understand that Jesus GAVE Simon the NEW NAME Peter??? Saying “Thou art Peter” was not just a throw-away line by our Savior.

    When are you Protestants ever going to understand and accept the difference between belief and action? Peter is the Rock of true doctrine; he was not the Rock of pure and holy action as Scripture demonstrates to us a few times. Peter was a hypocrite on these occasions; that DOES NOT mean that the beliefs he held were false. The same goes for the Catholic Church historically.
    Did you not notice Peter is redeemed from his three-fold denials by a three-fold profession of love for Jesus in the last chapter of the Gospel of John?

    Again, Catholics do not worship the Pope. We obey him. There is a difference, obviously. Maybe you need to learn more about Catholicism before throwing around wild accusations!
    I’ve never worshiped the Pope and neither do other devout Catholics. The real problem is that Protestantism has killed any sense of reverence and authority through its egotistic doctrine of the supremacy of individual Scriptural interpretation, so that any manifestation of reverence and obedience to authority is impulsively and ignorantly labeled as “worship.” You are merely peddling superficial, ignorant, and false stereotypes. You obviously have no idea what it is like to be a devout Catholic.

    You are taking the words of the Popes out of context:
    “But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty…We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ, Who, when about to return to Heaven, implored of God, His Father, in earnest Prayer, that His Disciples and followers should be of one mind and of one heart….”

    Clearly, Pope Leo XIII is NOT claiming to be God himself, like Lucifer strives, but to be the Chief Imitator and Servant of Christ. I shall assume you were merely careless or lazy rather than malicious in not reading the entire paragraph from which your quote comes.

    YES, only Jesus saves! We agree.
    But salvation is to be found ONLY in Christ’s One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. That is NOT to say that all non-Catholics are going to hell. The Church is more than us here on earth. Christ is merciful, and no Catholic, not even the Pope himself, passes the final judgment, which is Christ’s alone. But the Catholic Church, as the one true Church, possesses the fullness of Christian truth and grace and thus plays a vital role in salvation.

    Why are Protestants so divisive or dichotomous in their theological thinking? Why do you insist on separating the Church and Peter from Jesus? The bond between Christ and his Church is like that of a groom and his bride. What God has joined together let no man, including you, separate. Why is it so hard for Protestants to accept that Jesus uses the Church, clergy, saints, Mary, etc. for His own salvific purposes??

    Christ’s command “go and sell all your riches” was meant only for that person at that time. He doesn’t tell that to everyone in Scripture. Otherwise, I assume if you really believed that was a command for everyone for all time, including the Pope, you would have sold your computer by now and not be talking to me online right now. But you haven’t. What a surprise.
    The Catholic Church attained its wealth through the voluntary donations of Christians over centuries. There is nothing wrong with that and there is nothing wrong with beautiful buildings for the glory, worship, and housing of God in the Eucharist.

    Patrick,
    If “authoritative privilege” is so evil, then Protestantism is exponentially more evil than Catholicism! For we Catholics have one Pope, while Protestantism makes every believer his own Pope, his own infallible authority.

    Show me the evidence that the Pharisees had any concept of infallibility. Prove you really know what you’re talking about. The Pharisaic line of succession from Moses had no Rock! It had no promise from God that the gates of hell would not prevail against it. Of course then, many of its traditions became corrupted.

    Seeing as the fruits of the Protestant Revolution have been communism, fascism, and modern American liberalism, I feel quite fine in saying that the fruits of Catholicism have been quite good overall.
    Again, infallibility DOES NOT mean purity of behavior. It does not mean free from hypocrisy. It means purity of doctrine. True, consistent doctrine is the fruit of Catholicism. The fruit of Protestantism has been schism after schism after schism to where there are tens of thousands of so-called Christian sects with wildly varying doctrines and thus heresies.

  11. Ferinannnd said

    Просто замечательно – очень интересные мысли

  12. […] 16:16-19 “Simon Peter said in reply, ‘You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.’ Jesus said to him in reply, ‘Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. 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.’” This is the key Catholic passage that stymies Protestants. The first thing to notice is that Jesus confers upon Simon a new name, Peter, which literally means “rock.”  So Jesus is actually using a play on words: “you are Rock, and upon this rock….” “Rock” is a highly significant title in Scripture and no other apostle receives a new name or title from Jesus. Next, Jesus says that His church is built upon the rock that is Peter. Protestants have desperately tried to deny that Peter is the rock either by ignoring the literal translation or by gender gymnastics, saying the gender of rock and Peter don’t match. This is such a flimsy exegetical route because Jesus spoke Aramaic in which the gender “problem” disappears. Moreover, this church will not succumb to death; it will prevail over death. Combine Peter’s title with Jesus’ parable at 7:24-27 and then you have a church that will not be swept away by the raging rain, floods, and winds of time, space, and fallen human nature. Then Jesus, still talking to Peter, says He will give him alone the “keys to the kingdom of heaven.” Thus there is an intimate connection between, but not an identification of, the Church and the kingdom of heaven. Now at that time and place in history, keys were strong symbols of power and authority that belonged to great rulers. In fact, it probably refers back to Isaiah 22:15-25 where Eliakim is given “the key of the house of David” which he authoritative “opens and shuts” (22:22), keys which are passed down as with the succession of popes. Lastly, Jesus confers upon Peter (and later on the other eleven) the authority to “bind and loose.” Again, the Christian has to consider the cultural context of such a phrase to truly understand what this verse of Scripture is saying. That phrase, “bind and loose,” is found often in rabbinical literature. It refers to the giving of binding, authoritative teaching and also to excommunication from the religious community. All of this is strong, if not conclusive, Scriptural support for papal primacy and authority. […]

  13. Tuesday said

    I can only ask and pray that you read this Bible study…

    http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm

    There is absolutely no proof that Peter was ever in Rome. Please look up the actual location of Peter’s tomb, which was found in Jerusalem.

    Even the Bible says how Peter will die…of old age.

    John 21:18 Verily, verily, I say unto thee, When thou wast young, thou girdedst thyself, and walkedst whither thou wouldest: but when thou shalt be OLD, thou shalt stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry [thee] whither thou wouldest not.

    Yet, it is the catholic church that tries to say that Peter was crucified upside down. This is clearly not what Jesus said.

    Isn’t it interesting that the Bible only follows Paul and Peter and makes rare mention of the other apostles? Clearly, the other apostles went out and taught the Word of the Gospel. However, the reason Paul and Peter are followed so closely is because, the Lord wanted you to be clear as to was in Rome (Paul), and who was not (Peter). It was Peter who was sent to preach to the Jews, not the gentiles.

    Paul makes it clear while in Rome that “only Luke is with me.” 2 Tim 4:11

    All anyone has to do is read the book of Acts to have a clear understanding that Peter was nowhere near Rome.

    Please go to catholic apologetic sites. The only thing they have to show that “proves” Peter being in Rome are references that are second hand and, from only catholic sources. The earliest one I found was from 110 A.D. They have absolutely NO first hand proof of Peter being in Rome.

    Don’t you think that if the catholic church was the ONLY church you could obtain salvation from, as the popes have always claimed, Jesus would have made that fact clear?

    As was stated by other posters before me, it is OBVIOUS that the church is to be built upon Jesus and not a mere man. Even the most ignorant among us can clearly see the fallacy of building a church upon a man.

    I am a recovering catholic so, I know exactly what the church teaches. A clear look at history and from writings of Justin Martyr, as well as others, will clearly show that it is Simon Magus that is your true fist “pope” in Rome.

    An honest reading of the Bible will reveal to you that doctrines such as repetitive prayer (rosary), Mary worship, original sin, transubstantiation, indulgences, infant baptism, purgatory, eternal hellfire, celibacy, ect…the list goes on and on…go against everything that the Bible teaches you. In fact, most every doctrine of the church is the exact opposite of what G-d has commanded you not to do!

    G-d Bless you and, please REMEMBER to keep the Sabbath…the SEVENTH day holy. Isn’t it so amazing that the Bible’s ONLY commandment that begins with the word REMEMBER has to do with the Sabbath? He knew His people would forget. Look how they worship on Sunday.

    • foospro86 said

      haha, you are so misguided.

      Jesus says NOTHING about how Peter will die in that verse from John. You act as if old ppl can’t be martyred.

      No, your heresy is not obvious at all. Moreover, the early Church interpretted Peter as the Rock, which is the literal interpretation and which IS obvious from the etymology of the name Peter.

      Jesus did make it clear–to the apostles who PREACHED. Your sola Scriptura blinds you to what the apostles actually did to establish the Church and how they intended it to be preserved.

      NO, your Protestant traditions blind you to the verses and writings of the earliest Church leaders after the apostles that support Catholic doctrines (which can be found in other posts of mine and other Catholic websites).

      Have the humility to realize you don’t know how to interpret texts that are so far removed from you in time, place, culture, and language. Study the early Church fathers’ interpretations of Scripture and the history of the early Church. Your beliefs are de facto wrong because they have no roots in the early Church; your doctrines/interpretations can be traced back no further than Luther.

      The early Church fathers are unanimous in their testimony that Peter went to Rome. Just because it is not clear that he did so in Scripture (“Babylon” was a code word for Rome (1 Pet 5:13)) doesnt mean that he didn’t and that the Church fathers are wrong.

      Again, have the humility to put your man-made traditions aside and study the historical pedigree of Catholic traditions which go back to the 2nd c. AD. “To know history is to cease to be Protestant.” -Cardinal Newman

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: