Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Behold]

Repent is a verb that can be used in a couple of ways:

1. To turn from sin and dedicate oneself

When a person is in court, because they murdered their children, they are very repentant.

However, the "dedication" is not the repenting...
The repenting, is the stopping of the behavior... .only

make amends.

Repenting from sin, is to stop.
Repenting from anything, is to stop.

Jerome, redefined this as "do penance".....which is not what "to repent" means..
And because He lied, Catholics are doing penance, till they die.

 

[Behold]

Penance is a supernatural

'"DOING Penance""", in the Catholic sense is : "100 hail mary's and some ash Wed"...

Nothing "supernatural" about it.

Please try to be honest, @Jude Thaddeus , or you'll have to confess to your priest and then do some penance.

So, be careful.

 

[RedFan]

Thanks for your opinion Redfan. Your theory would almost make sense if we didn't look at what others had to say about Rome presiding.

In 80AD Clement of Rome wrote to the church in Corinth, which is NOT "in the Italian peninsula" giving them guidance on how to handle a certain problem with the church in Corinth. Why would Clement write such a letter? Because they wrote him, the Bishop of Rome, seeking guidance. They looked to Rome for guidance. Add Ignatius letter in 110AD suggesting Rome was presiding over The Church. Add Hermas letter in 140AD showing the importance of Clement in Rome. Add Dionysius of Corinth letter in 170AD holding Soter, the bishop or Rome, in high regard to The Church. When one also considers that Peter, who was chosen by Christ to lead the Apostles, died in Rome and according to historical records his successors were in Rome, it is clear to see that Rome was the seat of power for The Church from Peter thru 170AD.

I think I will need to bow out from further discussion with you on the point, my friend, because we seem to be chasing two different rabbits down the same hole. Your goal is to show Roman primacy in the early church. Accurate or not, it isn't my goal. I limited myself to whether the Letter to the Smyrneans supports this notion. And reading it in the original, it doesn't. Even if Clement, Dionysius and every church father you mention declared Rome's bishop to be the head of the worldwide church a hundred times apiece, my analysis of Ignatius' actual words would still make complete sense. Not "almost." Complete.

You could marshal a thousand pro-Roman early writings that were absolutely unassailable in declaring the Papacy supreme, but THIS ONE would still not qualify as one. The reason has nothing to do with whether the Papacy was in fact viewed as supreme (even by Ignatius!) and everything to do with the words he used. Gotta go to the Greek! Gotta go to the Greek! I can't stress this enough. Gotta go to the Greek!

I rarely take sides in debates on this forum, but I often call out posters for overreaching in support of their thesis -- even when I agree with their thesis. For instance, I am a Trinitarian, but not shy about calling out my fellow Trinitarians when they adduce flawed reasons in support of the Trinity. (Or at least I used to, before the topic got banned.)

You have made some terrific arguments on this forum, @Marymog. And I respect your analyses. We'll just have to disagree on whether the Letter to the Smyrneans supports second century Roman primacy.

 

[Brakelite]

One can readily recognise the harmony between Francis's rebuke of those who believe it important to have a relationship with Jesus, and the Catholic dogma that promotes the concept of Christians having to surrender their lives to the Popes instead.

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not you. Not me. THE CHURCH. Christians are to obey The Church and if we don't we are kicked out of The Church

And it was your church that established Sunday sacredness, not scripture, not Jesus, nor the apostles.

You have chosen your church, which was started in the 1800's by a woman, and I have chosen my church, which was started with Peter. Obey your church and I will obey mine.

Careful, you are showing your lack of knowledge of the ones you are debating with here. Ellen White started nothing. And Peter certainly was heavily involved as a foundation stone to the Christian church. But not your church. Though the Catholic church began in the Apostolic age, the Catholic church as you know it today was the fruit of those people the apostles warned about who would come in after their death and teach heresy and fables, instigating the great falling away spoken of by Paul.

 

[Brakelite]

YOU have decided what the truth of Scripture is. If anyone disagrees with YOU then you have made it clear that YOU will not obey them.

No. The magisterium of the Catholic church decides "what the truth of scripture is". And you, without any reference to scripture, decide that the magisterium must be right, therefore you shall obey them.
I have decided that the scripture itself is true. So I obey the scripture. The subtle difference must be too difficult for you to comprehend, which is why

We have been thru this MULTIPLE time

 

[Brakelite]

The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth. Not you. Not me. THE CHURCH. Christians are to obey The Church and if we don't we are kicked out of The Church.

You have chosen your church, which was started in the 1800's by a woman, and I have chosen my church, which was started with Peter. Obey your church and I will obey mine.

Does you church teach you to obey Jesus's Commandments? I know it does. Remember, I was a Catholic long before you were converted. I'm sure such basic teachings haven't changed in that time.
When the commandments of the church are contradictory to commandments of Jesus, you obey the church.
If the commandments of my church contradict the commandments of Jesus, I will obey Jesus. If my church kicks me out for doing so, so be it.

 

[Brakelite]

P

YOU DIDN"T ANSWER THE Question DODGEBALL:

Does the SDA teach the truth? Is that why you joined?

I thought this topic was about the origins of papal authority? I answered that question in posts #405, 893, and elaborated on a little further in posts #1007 and 1061. The SDA church isn't the subject of this thread.

 

[Brakelite]

You crack me up Brakelite....What happens if you don't obey your church?

Oh wait....here is what happens: If members of the church go contrary to these rules, they make themselves subjects for church discipline,.....

So if you don't believe your elders, you get disciplined?

I'm not sure what direction you are heading, or the purpose, as this thread topic isn't about me. Care to elaborate on the agenda you are following?

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

'"DOING Penance""", in the Catholic sense is : "100 hail mary's and some ash Wed"...

Nothing "supernatural" about it.

Please try to be honest, @Jude Thaddeus , or you'll have to confess to your priest and then do some penance.

So, be careful.

Your constant irrational insults is like the school yard bully and must be ignored. goodbye.

 

[Marymog]

I'm not sure what direction you are heading, or the purpose, as this thread topic isn't about me. Care to elaborate on the agenda you are following?

Nice dodge Braklite. Ask a question to deflect from answering a question. Not gonna work with me kiddo......It's a simple question based on the rules of your SDA denomination. Let's try again:

If you don't believe your elders, do you get disciplined?

 

[Marymog]

P

I answered that question in posts #405, 893, and elaborated on a little further in posts #1007 and 1061. The SDA church isn't the subject of this thread.

I checked those posts. No, you didn't answer that question in any of those posts. I now see you don't think that the men of the SDA teach the truth. It appears you have never said that on this forum. You don't even trust your own men to teach you the Truth

So, back to the subject of this thread: The Church teaches the Truth and the Pope gets his authority from Apostolic Succession. Apostolic Succession is something your church can't claim since it was started by a woman in the 1800's.

 

[Marymog]

When the commandments of the church are contradictory to commandments of Jesus, you obey the church.
If the commandments of my church contradict the commandments of Jesus, I will obey Jesus. If my church kicks me out for doing so, so be it.

When the commandments of the church are contradictory to the commandments of Jesus according to who? YOU!!!

Which is what I have been saying all along. YOU decide what the truth is and if the men of the SDA disagree with YOUR TRUTH then they are wrong and you are right.

 

[Marymog]

No. The magisterium of the Catholic church decides "what the truth of scripture is". And you, without any reference to scripture, decide that the magisterium must be right, therefore you shall obey them.
I have decided that the scripture itself is true. So I obey the scripture. The subtle difference must be too difficult for you to comprehend, which is why

Yes, I obey The Church, which is the pillar and foundation of truth! I obey The Church that was given the authority by Christ to decide if I am right or wrong and should be kicked out of The Church if I don't obey it....Just like Scripture says.


Here is what you believe/practice which is opposite of what Scripture says: YOU are the pillar and foundation of truth because you reference Scripture to see if you are right about your interpretation of Scripture therefor you shall obey YOU. You have even admitted that you won't obey the men of your church if YOU think THEY are wrong. You, a single man, are your own magisterium. Yet you try to make me sound like a fool for obeying the MEN of The Church. You crack me up.....

What I presented is NOT such a subtle difference that you CLEARLY can't comprehend and won't acknowledge which is why we have been thru this multiple times.

You are afraid to admit that you think you have been given the truth and everyone else is wrong until they agree with YOU. You dance around it with hundreds of words, but just can't seem to say that you think you are right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[RedFan]

If the commandments of my church contradict the commandments of Jesus, I will obey Jesus.

May I propose a slight correction? If the commandments of your church contradict what you understand to be the commandments of Jesus, you will obey Jesus. Fair?

 

[Behold]

Your constant irrational insults is like the school yard bully and must be ignored. goodbye.

Catholics dont enjoy talking to me, because i reveal their denomination in a way that causes them to have to realize it.
And that is not pleasant.
This particular Forum, allows for it, so, i always appreciate this, very much.

But do understand this, @Jude Thaddeus ... = Its not personal.. I have zero animosity towards you, or Marymog..., In fact... many of my "hero's of the Faith", were Catholics.. but that is not related to the "cult of the Virgin" doctrine that is man made and so much of it is false... and often insulting to the Cross, and extremely deceptive.
Calvinism is probably worse, but the "cult of the virgin" has been deceiving people for a much longer period.

However, and regarding the History of the "cult of the Virgin", it has some unique "Saints"..that lived in the past, that i can relate to, who were Mystics, and they were devout "cult of the virgin" members.
This means that their Theology was not good, not biblical in many cases, and extremely Legalistic...., but some of these people were related to God's LIGHT,.. immersed in it.... in a way that I see it, and i can read their spiritual text and its "home" to me.

Sad about this cult being so dangerous, regarding its Theology.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

No. The magisterium of the Catholic church decides "what the truth of scripture is".

For only 7 verses?

And you, without any reference to scripture, decide that the magisterium must be right, therefore you shall obey them.

"without any reference to scripture" is a false assumption. We refer to scripture as much as anybody else around here.

I have decided that the scripture itself is true. So I obey the scripture. The subtle difference must be too difficult for you to comprehend, which is why

Catholics have to interpret every verse of the Bible according to some dogmatic proclamation of the Church? This is another ridiculous (and highly annoying) myth that we hear all the time. Indeed, the orthodox, faithful Catholic must interpret doctrines he derives from Scripture in accordance with the Church and tradition, but so what?

Every Protestant (and anti-Protestant sects like the SDA) does the same thing within their own denominational tradition. No five-point Calvinist can find a verse in the Bible which proves apostasy or falling away, or one that teaches God’s desire for universal, rather than limited atonement (and there are many such passages). He can’t deny total depravity in any text, or irresistible grace. We all have orthodox and dogmatic boundaries that we abide by. The Catholic exegete is bound by very little, and has virtually as much freedom of inquiry as the non-Catholic exegete. The online (1910) Catholic Encyclopedia article on “Biblical Exegesis” states:

(a) Defined Texts
The Catholic commentator is bound to adhere to the interpretation of texts which the Church has defined either expressly or implicitly. The number of these texts is small, so that the commentator can easily avoid any transgression of this principle.

Scripture Passages Definitively Interpreted by the Church

Many people think the Church has an official “party line” about every sentence in the Bible. In fact, only a handful of passages have been definitively interpreted. The Church does interpret many passages in Scripture to guide her teaching. Other passages are used as the starting point and support of doctrine or moral teaching, but only these few have been “defined” in the strict sense of the word. Even in these few cases the Church is only defending traditional doctrine and morals.

It is important to realize that the parameters set by the definitions are all negative, that is, they point out what cannot be denied about the meaning of a passage but do not limit how much more the passage can be interpreted to say. In other words, the Church condemns denials of a specific interpretation of the text, without condemning meanings over and above but not contradictory to it.

All of the following passages were definitively interpreted by the Church at the Council of Trent, for each has to do with justification or the sacraments, issues that divided Catholics and Protestants.

1. John 3:5 “Unless a man is born of water and Spirit, he cannot enter the Kingdom of God.”

The Church condemned the denial that the words of Jesus mean that real (natural) water must be used for a valid baptism. At the time, the Anabaptists contended that water baptism was unnecessary because the mention of water was merely a metaphor. Other symbolic meanings in addition to the literal sense of real water can be found in the text, perhaps, but none are acceptable that deny the need for real water at baptism.

2. Luke 22:19 and
3. I Corinthians 11:24— “Taking the bread, he gave thanks, broke it and gave it to them, saying ‘This is my body given for you: do this in remembrance of me.”

The Church condemned the interpretation of these passages that denied that Jesus, in commanding his apostles to “Do this in memory of me” after instituting the Eucharist, conferred priestly ordination on them and their successors enabling them to offer His body and blood. More could be understood by the command to do this in remembrance, but that much could not be denied or contradicted by other interpretations.

4. John 20:22-23— “Receive the Holy Spirit. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven; whose sins you do not forgive, they are not forgiven,” and
5. Matthew 18:18— “Whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

The Church condemned the denial that in these two passages Jesus conferred a power exclusively on the apostles authorizing them and their successors in the priestly office to forgive sins in God’s name, and condemned the proposal that everyone could forgive sins in this sense.

6. Romans 5:12— “Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned…”

The Church condemned the denial of original sin to which all mankind is subject and which baptism remits, citing this passage to be understood in that sense.

7. James 6:14— “Is anyone of you sick? He should call the elders of the church to pray over him and anoint him with oil in the name of the Lord.”

Definitively interpreting these passages, the Church condemned the denial that the sacrament of the anointing of the sick was instituted by Christ and promulgated by the apostles against those who deemed it a human invention of the later Church.

In addition, the decree of Vatican I about Christ establishing Peter as head of the Church — which cites Mt 16:16 and John 1:42 — is a defined doctrine, even though the phrasing about the use and interpretation of the scripture cited is more implicit than explicit, by comparison with the above Scripture passages.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Brakelite:

I have decided that the scripture itself is true. So I obey the scripture.

You have decided that scripture says the historic Church has fallen away (much like the Mormons) that cannot be found ANYWHERE in scripture, you have decided to accept unbiblical polemics. You obey what YOU have decided.

The subtle difference must be too difficult for you to comprehend...

Your false polemical claim that the pope or future popes is the anti-Christ is NOT a subtle difference. It's plain STUPID.

 

[Brakelite]

Nice dodge Braklite. Ask a question to deflect from answering a question. Not gonna work with me kiddo......It's a simple question based on the rules of your SDA denomination. Let's try again:

If you don't believe your elders, do you get disciplined?

Still off topic.

 

[Brakelite]

this topic was about the origins of papal authority?

Not a very clever switcheroo, but you tried. The question I answered wasn't about my church, it was about papal authority.

I answered that question in posts #405, 893, and elaborated on a little further in posts #1007 and 1061

The SDA church isn't the subject of this thread.

 

[Brakelite]

Your false polemical claim that the pope or future popes is the anti-Christ is NOT a subtle difference. It's plain STUPID.

I have made no claim that any Pope or any future Pope was, or may be, the Antichrist.
What I do have is much biblical prophetic and historical evidence that the system of theology, soteriology, as taught by the church and the union of church and state as practised by the Papacy is Antichrist. The reason it is Antichrist is precisely the boast of Catholicism, that it's priests and popes etc are the vicar of Christ... Replacing, or standing in the stead of Christ in matters of spiritual authority and the exercise thereof.
The Bible does not describe individual popes as Antichrist. It does describe a system of religious power and government that grew from pagan Rome and developed into as global tyranny, warring against God's people and to a great degree, overcoming them. This same power is described elsewhere as the man of sin, and the harlot woman Babylon the Great. There are at least 10 criteria that are prophetically applicable to this Antichrist, all of which are met within the Catholic system. One individual Pope can not meet all the criteria. A succession of leaders within the system, does.