The Pope: My Explanation

[Mere Nick]

I have no problem calling myself a catholic but I'm not a Roman Catholic.  It seems to me Roman Catholics look at the pope in matters of the church like folks look at Bud Selig in matters of baseball.  Others disagree and look at him as a cricket player.  I kinda look at him as a Joe Morgan.  Joe understands alot about baseball, can explain it better than most folks, but he's not Bud Selig.

[broach972]

I have no problem calling myself a catholic but I'm not a Roman Catholic.  It seems to me Roman Catholics look at the pope in matters of the church like folks look at Bud Selig in matters of baseball.  Others disagree and look at him as a cricket player.  I kinda look at him as a Joe Morgan.  Joe understands alot about baseball, can explain it better than most folks, but he's not Bud Selig.

[CDHealy]

A clarification from the Orthodox corner:

We agree that the Pope is first among equals--it's in the canons--and my own priest has said (and I agree) that if the Church was to be universally administered by a single bishop it would make sense that it be from Rome (I won't go into his argument).

But it's that caveat: "if the Church was to be universally administered by a single bishop" . . .

It seems to me that just about everything that Roman Catholics can say about the Bishop of Rome could also be affirmed, at least in spirit, by the Orthodox.  It's the part when the Roman Bishop claims to himself, and uniquely to himself, perogatives that other bishops as a synod have (infallible teaching for one, though even this must be clarified)--that's where we must part company as these claims have, in the Orthodox view, no biblical or historical or canonical precedent or foundation.

But I'll still stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend what we hold in common.

[Reformer]

"......The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals - i.e. intepreting the deposit of faith - and even then, he is only infallible when he specifically says he is going to speak Ex Cathedra. And do you know how many times that has happened in the last hundred years? ONCE. Thats right, ONCE, in the document "Munificentissimus Deus", put out by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. "

     No offence. but where in the scriptures is this viewpoint relating to doctrinal infallibility recorded? Just curious.

[Tu Es Petrus]

"......The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals - i.e. intepreting the deposit of faith - and even then, he is only infallible when he specifically says he is going to speak Ex Cathedra. And do you know how many times that has happened in the last hundred years? ONCE. Thats right, ONCE, in the document "Munificentissimus Deus", put out by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. "

     No offence. but where in the scriptures is this viewpoint relating to doctrinal infallibility recorded? Just curious.

I appreciate the fact that you approached me in a respectful manner. Hopefully we can continue down that road.
I will give a long and short answer:

1) Here is the long answer at this link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
I suggest you give it a read. You will likely not agree with it, but it will clarify MY position.

2) My short answer is that the Bible itself is proof, not necessarily of papal infallibility, but of the concept of infallibility itself. The Scriptures are the Word of God, yet they were written by men. Therefore, God held the writers infallible temporarily while they were penning the Scriptures. That is something to mull over for a while. So then next question becomes: Was this a one-time gift, or was it handed to through apostolic asuccession. For that I refer you to the above link.

[Reformer]

"......The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals - i.e. intepreting the deposit of faith - and even then, he is only infallible when he specifically says he is going to speak Ex Cathedra. And do you know how many times that has happened in the last hundred years? ONCE. Thats right, ONCE, in the document "Munificentissimus Deus", put out by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. "

     No offence. but where in the scriptures is this viewpoint relating to doctrinal infallibility recorded? Just curious.

I will give a long and short answer:

1) Here is the long answer at this link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
I suggest you give it a read. You will likely not agree with it, but it will clarify MY position.

2) My short answer is that the Bible itself is proof, not necessarily of papal infallibility, but of the concept of infallibility itself. The Scriptures are the Word of God, yet they were written by men. Therefore, God held the writers infallible temporarily while they were penning the Scriptures. That is something to mull over for a while. So then next question becomes: Was this a one-time gift, or was it handed to through apostolic asuccession. For that I refer you to the above link.

     Thanks for your input, but I'm interested more in the exact verse of scripture, or verses, that teach this doctrine.  I can connect to your link later.

[ole Jake]

"......The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals - i.e. intepreting the deposit of faith - and even then, he is only infallible when he specifically says he is going to speak Ex Cathedra. And do you know how many times that has happened in the last hundred years? ONCE. Thats right, ONCE, in the document "Munificentissimus Deus", put out by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. "

     No offence. but where in the scriptures is this viewpoint relating to doctrinal infallibility recorded? Just curious.

I will give a long and short answer:

1) Here is the long answer at this link: http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp
I suggest you give it a read. You will likely not agree with it, but it will clarify MY position.

2) My short answer is that the Bible itself is proof, not necessarily of papal infallibility, but of the concept of infallibility itself. The Scriptures are the Word of God, yet they were written by men. Therefore, God held the writers infallible temporarily while they were penning the Scriptures. That is something to mull over for a while. So then next question becomes: Was this a one-time gift, or was it handed to through apostolic asuccession. For that I refer you to the above link.

     Thanks for your input, but I'm interested more in the exact verse of scripture, or verses, that teach this doctrine.  I can connect to your link later.

Where is the exact verse that perspicuously instructs sola scriptura?

[Tu Es Petrus]

     Thanks for your input, but I'm interested more in the exact verse of scripture, or verses, that teach this doctrine.  I can connect to your link later.

I'm just going to go off the top of my head because I'm at work right now:

1) The famous verse about binding and loosing in Matt 16. If what Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, ifallibility is implied, because God would not bind error in heaven. Thefore if the pope chooses to invoke the authority to bind, what he binds must be correct, lest error be bound in heaven.

2) There is a verse where Jesus tells the apostles that Satan seeks to sift them like wheat. Then Jesus turn to Peter. The plural "you" in Greek turn to the singular "you" when Jesus addresses Peter and says "but I have prayed for you Peter that you faith will not fail you. Strangthen your brethren." (I quoted that from memory. It may be a bit off.)


These are "implied" texts. I'm rushing through thisd answer, so maybe Jake can build on it. But I suggest you read the link.

[Reformer]

I'm just going to go off the top of my head because I'm at work right now:

1) The famous verse about binding and loosing in Matt 16. If what Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, ifallibility is implied, because God would not bind error in heaven. Thefore if the pope chooses to invoke the authority to bind, what he binds must be correct, lest error be bound in heaven.

2) There is a verse where Jesus tells the apostles that Satan seeks to sift them like wheat. Then Jesus turn to Peter. The plural "you" in Greek turn to the singular "you" when Jesus addresses Peter and says "but I have prayed for you Peter that you faith will not fail you. Strangthen your brethren." (I quoted that from memory. It may be a bit off.)

These are "implied" texts. I'm rushing through thisd answer, so maybe Jake can build on it. But I suggest you read the link.

     It seems, then, that the whole matter of papal doctrinal infallibility hinges on two themes. 1) The absolute infallibility of the authors who framed the new covenant letters; and 2) Whether or not the apostleship continued after the last apostle died, which was probably John.

     Considering the info you're submitted here, plus the link, I think I have enough substance to compose my next column, Reformation Rumblings, in which I will address both of these themes and post said column in this forum, after which you and others will have a chance to reply to any part of it. I may have it completed and posted by Friday of this week.

     Consequently, I will not add anything else at the moment on this subject until after I have posted the aforementioned column. Thanks for the help.

[Tu Es Petrus]

I'm just going to go off the top of my head because I'm at work right now:

1) The famous verse about binding and loosing in Matt 16. If what Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, ifallibility is implied, because God would not bind error in heaven. Thefore if the pope chooses to invoke the authority to bind, what he binds must be correct, lest error be bound in heaven.

2) There is a verse where Jesus tells the apostles that Satan seeks to sift them like wheat. Then Jesus turn to Peter. The plural "you" in Greek turn to the singular "you" when Jesus addresses Peter and says "but I have prayed for you Peter that you faith will not fail you. Strangthen your brethren." (I quoted that from memory. It may be a bit off.)

These are "implied" texts. I'm rushing through thisd answer, so maybe Jake can build on it. But I suggest you read the link.

     It seems, then, that the whole matter of papal doctrinal infallibility hinges on two themes. 1) The absolute infallibility of the authors who framed the new covenant letters; and 2) Whether or not the apostleship continued after the last apostle died, which was probably John.

     Considering the info you're submitted here, plus the link, I think I have enough substance to compose my next column, Reformation Rumblings, in which I will address both of these themes and post said column in this forum, after which you and others will have a chance to reply to any part of it. I may have it completed and posted by Friday of this week.

     Consequently, I will not add anything else at the moment on this subject until after I have posted the aforementioned column. Thanks for the help.

If you really REALLY want a comprehensive understanding of this matter, I suggest two books:

"Jesus, Peter and the Keys", by Scott Butler



.. and "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray



You can't just go off my rinky-dink post.

Later I will give you a link to an MP3 of Dr. Scott Hahn addressing this issue

[ole Jake]

Is the Pope a sinful men or a infallible representative of Jesus on earth?....

Both, just like the apostles were sinners and wrote scripture at the same time. Can't you wrap your head around that concept?

As I said in my last post:

"......The Pope is only infallible in matters of faith and morals - i.e. intepreting the deposit of faith - and even then, he is only infallible when he specifically says he is going to speak Ex Cathedra. And do you know how many times that has happened in the last hundred years? ONCE. Thats right, ONCE, in the document "Munificentissimus Deus", put out by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950. "

And  these atrocities were  is  of the Catholics doctrine

Oh please. This is bordering on the ridiculous. Please go to the Catechism and show me one Catholic teaching that says its okay to commit attrocitiues.

Let me know when you are ready to deal with realities. Until then, please stop screwing up my thread with absurdities.

Sorry, but what a Pope says means nothing to me.   He is just a man just like me.

Diotrephes made the same declaration of John as he refused to bend his ego before one trained and ordained to shepherd the flock.

[ole Jake]

I'm just going to go off the top of my head because I'm at work right now:

1) The famous verse about binding and loosing in Matt 16. If what Peter binds on earth is bound in heaven, ifallibility is implied, because God would not bind error in heaven. Thefore if the pope chooses to invoke the authority to bind, what he binds must be correct, lest error be bound in heaven.

2) There is a verse where Jesus tells the apostles that Satan seeks to sift them like wheat. Then Jesus turn to Peter. The plural "you" in Greek turn to the singular "you" when Jesus addresses Peter and says "but I have prayed for you Peter that you faith will not fail you. Strangthen your brethren." (I quoted that from memory. It may be a bit off.)

These are "implied" texts. I'm rushing through thisd answer, so maybe Jake can build on it. But I suggest you read the link.

     It seems, then, that the whole matter of papal doctrinal infallibility hinges on two themes. 1) The absolute infallibility of the authors who framed the new covenant letters; and 2) Whether or not the apostleship continued after the last apostle died, which was probably John.

     Considering the info you're submitted here, plus the link, I think I have enough substance to compose my next column, Reformation Rumblings, in which I will address both of these themes and post said column in this forum, after which you and others will have a chance to reply to any part of it. I may have it completed and posted by Friday of this week.

     Consequently, I will not add anything else at the moment on this subject until after I have posted the aforementioned column. Thanks for the help.

If you really REALLY want a comprehensive understanding of this matter, I suggest two books:

"Jesus, Peter and the Keys", by Scott Butler



.. and "Upon This Rock" by Stephen Ray



You can't just go off my rinky-dink post.

Later I will give you a link to an MP3 of Dr. Scott Hahn addressing this issue

Buff is not going to read either book. Buff is going to read his Bible and be certain that his interpretation is infaillible and inform us all that Apostolic succession is not biblical, which means that the seat of Peter is not biblical. And he is going to do that without proving to us that scripture declares sola scriptura or how he knows that Luther was infallible in culling his Bible (which was produced to promote sola fide, the doctrine Luther created, whic he felt required the ohter new doctrine sola scriptura to promote because Luther was certain that scrupture was perspicuous in teaching sola fide.

[Reformer]

Buff is not going to read either book. Buff is going to read his Bible and be certain that his interpretation is infaillible and inform us all that Apostolic succession is not biblical, which means that the seat of Peter is not biblical. And he is going to do that without proving to us that scripture declares sola scriptura or how he knows that Luther was infallible in culling his Bible (which was produced to promote sola fide, the doctrine Luther created, whic he felt required the ohter new doctrine sola scriptura to promote because Luther was certain that scrupture was perspicuous in teaching sola fide.

     Please allow me to decide what I want and intend to do. But I'll keep you in mind should I need help in making my decisions. Thanks.

[Tu Es Petrus]

Later I will give you a link to an MP3 of Dr. Scott Hahn addressing this issue

Okay. Here is the link:
http://www.bringyou.to/ScottHahnCatholicObjectionsCOMPLETE.mp3

Its a long mp3, about 6 hours. But don't worry: Only the first hour & ten minutes is about the pope. Its a little slow to start off with: Dr. Hahn doesn't really get hot until about 25 minutes into it, but it shoud be heard from the beginning.

Please listen to it - the same goes for everyone else too. Its well worth the time. Just kick back in your den, relax, and hear it out.

[kensington]

I keep wondering why someone thinks they need to "Explain" the Pope...??

I don't need to "explain" Billy Graham... but why the need to explain the Pope. If you a confident he is who you say he is... what is the point. Why not let it play out to God's conclusion?

Just wondering.

[SpiritHappy]

Glorify the KING of KINGS. This is not complicated but religion makes it complicated.

The bible clearly states there is no other name under heaven by which men shall be saved.

Jesus blood allows us in to the Holy of Holies. Something only a priest could do before in Hebrew times.

Why lift up a mere man?  a pope is a sinner like anyone eles , maybe even more so..Go directly in repentance to the King of Kings and be saved

[CDHealy]

I keep wondering why someone thinks they need to "Explain" the Pope...??

I don't need to "explain" Billy Graham... but why the need to explain the Pope. If you a confident he is who you say he is... what is the point. Why not let it play out to God's conclusion?

Just wondering.

Because there is a lot of misinformation and false claims made here on these boards about the Pope in ways that there are not false claims and misinformation made about Billy Graham.

[kensington]

I'm sure from what I have read, these things are not said about this Pope personally, but about the office of Pope and the reality of it concerning the Word of God. 

I believe that one thing the office of Pope has done is solidify and secure the fact that according to the Word of God, there is no such office.  I see men of God dig in and teach the word and soundly concerning this idea of a Pope.  I know it's helped me to understand and know it's a man thing, not a God thing.  IMPHO. 

[mclees8]

The great 20th century protestant theologian, R. T. France, stated in his work entitled "Gospel According to Matthew":  "The word-play, and the whole structure of the passage, demands that this verse is every bit as much Jesus' declaration about Peter as verse 16 was Peter's declaration about Jesus. Of course it is on the basis of Peter's confession that Jesus declares his role as the Church's foundation, but it is to Peter, not his confession, that the rock metaphor is applied" (Gospel According to Matthew, 254).

I'm sure you don't want me to start quoting what the Protestant reformers thought of the Pope again, do you?

Hi My name is Mike and i am new here bu i am not new the catholic Protestant disputes. I have spent about five years in a simaler board befoe Aol axed several boards and mine was one of them. Iw ish to speak with respect and i am not biased in opinion for I do not beleive in Protestant denominationalism  either but that is not that i endorse the RCC.

I take a common sense veiw and rely on it more than facts and evidences. How ever I have on occasion.

The RCC has long looked to Peter as being the first pope. I do not agree but I will give the RCC the benifit of the doubt. My question to ponder is would Peter Sat as a pope.

Would he recieve worship or sit on a throne in a palace and be adorned with vestments ?

Not likely

would he sought after religious political power and forced christianity as the religion of

the land
Not likely

Next would Jesus said for his church to be politicaly motivated. Remembering that thaere is no where in scripture the Jesus ever instructed his apostles or succesors do be of religious political ambition.
Jesus  himself was tempted of Satan to have the whole world if he would worship Him. Think now Jesus could have been the first world ruler but was not tempted. So why did the bishops of Rome seek after this three hundred years latter'

Again i  am just pointing out some lagitamate questions and i do not attack anyone personally.  [/b] [/color]

[papist1]

I'm sure from what I have read, these things are not said about this Pope personally, but about the office of Pope and the reality of it concerning the Word of God. 

I believe that one thing the office of Pope has done is solidify and secure the fact that according to the Word of God, there is no such office.  I see men of God dig in and teach the word and soundly concerning this idea of a Pope.  I know it's helped me to understand and know it's a man thing, not a God thing.  IMPHO. 

So I guess someone should have informed Jesus before He asked Peter(cephas) to ten His sheep and fed His sheep?

I mean Jesus IS our Shepherd, right? hy in the world would he take peter, alone, to the side and ask Him to feed us and tend us?

whew, i am sure glad you were here to put Jesus in his place and tell Him he made a mistake when commanding peter to be His earthly shepherd! What nerve.....

:)
peace, papist

[mclees8]

I'm sure from what I have read, these things are not said about this Pope personally, but about the office of Pope and the reality of it concerning the Word of God. 

I believe that one thing the office of Pope has done is solidify and secure the fact that according to the Word of God, there is no such office.  I see men of God dig in and teach the word and soundly concerning this idea of a Pope.  I know it's helped me to understand and know it's a man thing, not a God thing.  IMPHO. 

So I guess someone should have informed Jesus before He asked Peter(cephas) to ten His sheep and fed His sheep?

I mean Jesus IS our Shepherd, right? hy in the world would he take peter, alone, to the side and ask Him to feed us and tend us?

whew, i am sure glad you were here to put Jesus in his place and tell Him he made a mistake when commanding peter to be His earthly shepherd! What nerve.....

:)
peace, papist


Mike 123> How do you know he took him to the side. He was not the only one Jesus was speaking to. When he adressed Peter hae meant for all of them to hear. Did not all the apostle feed the sheep. They all went out to witness and make believers of of all men. Paul started many churches and he also fed the sheep. 

[TheCatholic]

This is excellent.
One of the best explanations I have read.

This thread is an offshoot from another thread where the pope was brought up. I did not want to throw that thread off-topic so I started this thread. I will attempt to put forth my view of the Pope. I sure hope this thread doesn't turn intudslinging festival. I know many of you will disagree with me. That is okay. But, at least you may understand my perspective, and thats good enough for me.

Much has been said about the Pope. I'm sure we all know the scripture most Christians argue over by heart by now:

"...Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." And Jesus said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven."

I will try to make clear what the Pope actually is. Many people have mistaken ideas about what the Pope is, which is why they don't see the office in scripture.

Simply, the Pope is the fulfillment of the office of Prime Minister that existed in the Kindoms of David and his successors (as many things in the NT are fulfillments of their OT "types".)

"And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will call My servant Eliakim the son of Helcias, and I will clothe him with thy Robe, and I will strengthen him with thy Sash, and will give thy Power (authority) into his hand; and he shall be as a FATHER (the word 'Pope' means 'Father') to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. And I will lay the Key of the House of David (the symbol of primacy) upon his shoulder; and he shall open and none shall shut; and he shall shut and none shall open. And I will fasten him as a peg in a Sure Place(the Papal Office), and he shall be for a Throne of glory to the house of his Father. And they shall hang upon him all the glory of his Fathers house, diverse kinds of vessels, every little vessel, from the vessels of cups even to every instrument of music." (Isaiah 22:20-24)

In the Davidic Kingdoms, there was the office of Prime Minister (who actually wore a key on his robe as a symbol of office). This position is what is referred to in the abouve text and in other historical documents.

So now let's fast-forward to the New Testament: JESUS is the King, the "son of David", in the line of David. These Jewish men, steeped in there Jewish culture, knew EXACTLY what it meant when Jesus gave Peter the keys. Peter was to be the Prime Minister of Christ's Kingdom, the "Keeper of the Keys".

So this is what the Pope is: Prime Minister of the King's Kingdom. Also, the Pope has a pastoral role, which is established in John 21: 15-17, when Christ told Peter: "feed my lambs.. ..feed my sheep.. ..tend my sheep."

This is the Pope: Prime Minister of Christs Kingdom, and Pastor of the flock. With that in mind, I see the Papacy is ALL THROUGH the scriptures. Now, throw into that mix the fact there is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13) ; sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32). Peter was the one who generally spoke for the apostles (Matt. 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 12:41, John 6), and he figured in many of the most dramatic scenes (Matt. 14:28-32, Matt. 17:24-27, Mark 10:23-28 ) . On Pentecost it was Peter who first preached to the crowds (Acts 2:14-40), and he worked the first healing in the Church age (Acts 3:6-7). It is Peter's faith that will strengthen his brethren (Luke 22:32) and, as I said, Peter is given Christ's flock to shepherd (John 21:17). An angel was sent to announce the resurrection to Peter (Mark 16:7), and the risen Christ first appeared to Peter (Luke 24:34). He headed the meeting that elected Matthias to replace Judas (Acts 1:13-26), and he received the first converts (Acts 2:41). He inflicted the first punishment (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic (Acts 8:18-23). He led the first council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), and announced the first dogmatic decision (Acts 15:7-11). It was to Peter that the revelation came that Gentiles were to be baptized and accepted as Christians (Acts 10:46-48 ) .

So, as Cyprian of Carthage said in 251 A.D. (almost a hundred years before Constatine):

"The Lord says to Peter: 'I say to you,' he says, 'that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven' [Matt. 16:18–19]). ... On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were also what Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" - The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

This is the best way I can explain it. I hope any disagreements are posted in charity.