Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Marymog]

One of your "church fathers" titled your church this in 421ad.

the title "catholic" came later.

Initially, your denomination was titled the "cult of the Virgin"

Provide your (reliable) source on this alleged title that a church father gave.

You are lacking in your knowledge of Christian History. The title "Catholic" was first used by the church father Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (circa 110 AD).

 

[Brakelite]

Who is "they"? It seems you have chosen the leadership of the SDA? True or not?

"They" is everyone, be they SDA, Catholic, Presbyterian, or government employee who claims to have Spiritual or religious authority over anyone else, or claims to be a teacher of doctrine. Unless they can show me from scripture that what they are teaching is truth, and not just some random tradition built on hearsay, then I am not interested in accepting their doctrine. That Mary, is why I have no interest in Catholic Sunday sacredness.
"Remember the SABBATH day, to keep it holy". Exodus 20:8

 

[Marymog]

Yes, its your church's history.
You should learn some of this.... vs just obviously next to nothing... regarding the full history of your own denomination.

It's CHRISTIAN history and you should learn it from a reliable source instead of your anti-Catholic sources. Just because some cardinals didn't like the outcome of a UNANIMIOUS vote and selected, not ELECTED, a different person as pope, doesn't mean the person the SELECteD was THE Pope of The Church.

You crack me up.....

 

[Marymog]

Sure.

The Catholic "dark ages" is an era of time in Europe stretching from the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE until the Protestant Reformation of 1517.

Wow...Such a detailed summary of the "dark ages" of Christianity. You have an incredible grasp and teaching ability of Christian History. Thank you.....

 

[RedFan]

The title "Catholic" was first used by the church father Saint Ignatius of Antioch in his Letter to the Smyrnaeans (circa 110 AD).

Absolutely true! But Ignatius used καθολικός in reference to the consensus, universal, Christian church throughout the Mediterranean world. It was not particularly Roman then, nor did he think of it that way. What we call Roman Catholic today certainly traces its roots there, but so do the Greek Orthodox and other denominations sharing in apostolic succession.

 

[Brakelite]

Isaiah 8 and specifically vs 20 has NOTHING to do with what we are discussing.

KJV Isaiah 8:20
20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them....
Has an immediate context with spiritualist teachers or those who propose people that are living ought to pray to the dead. There is NO light in them. Why is that? Because
KJV Psalms 115:17
17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.

And,
KJV Ecclesiastes 9:5-6
5 For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.
6 Also their love, and their hatred, and their envy, is now perished; neither have they any more a portion for ever in any thing that is done under the sun.

Aside from that immediate context, it is also a general truth that can be applied universally in matters of faith and practice and doctrine.

Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will.
When Christ came to speak the words of life, the common people heard him gladly; and many, even of the priests and rulers, believed on him. But the chief of the priesthood and the leading men of the nation were determined to condemn and repudiate his teachings. Though they were baffled in all their efforts to find accusations against him, though they could not but feel the influence of the divine power and wisdom attending his words, yet they encased themselves in prejudice; they rejected the clearest evidence of his Messiahship, lest they should be forced to become his disciples. These opponents of Jesus were men whom the people had been taught from infancy to reverence, to whose authority they had been accustomed implicitly to bow. "How is it," they asked, "that our rulers and learned scribes do not believe on Jesus? Would not these pious men receive him if he were the Christ?" It was the influence of such teachers that led the Jewish nation to reject their Redeemer.
The spirit which actuated those priests and rulers is still manifested by many who make a high profession of piety. They refuse to examine the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the special truths for this time. They point to their own numbers, wealth, and popularity, and look with contempt upon the advocates of truth as few, poor, and unpopular having a faith that separates them from the world.
Christ foresaw that the undue assumption of authority indulged by the scribes and Pharisees would not cease with the dispersion of the Jews. He had a prophetic view of the work of exalting human authority to rule the conscience, which has been so terrible a curse to the church in all ages. And his fearful denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and his warnings to the people not to follow these blind leaders, were placed on record as an admonition to future generations.
The Roman Church reserves to the clergy the right to interpret the Scriptures. On the ground that ecclesiastics alone are competent to explain God's Word, it is withheld from the common people. Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the self-same principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the church; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to their creed, or the established teaching of their church.
Notwithstanding the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers, many are ready thus to commit the keeping of their souls to the clergy. There are today thousands of professors of religion who can give no other reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so instructed by their religious leaders. They pass by the Saviour's teachings almost unnoticed, and place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers. But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance unless we know from God's Word that they are light-bearers? A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world, leads many to follow in the steps of learned men; and by their reluctance to investigate for themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error. They see that the truth for this time is plainly brought to view in the Bible, and they feel the power of the Holy Spirit attending its proclamation; yet they allow the opposition of the clergy to turn them from the light. Though reason and conscience are convinced, these deluded souls dare not think differently from the minister; and their individual judgment, their eternal interests, are sacrificed to the unbelief, the pride and prejudice, of another. GC88 595.2 - GC88 596.3

 

[Marymog]

She was a Christian Mystic who is a very famous Historical Figure.

The "cult of the Virgin" captured her, then created a false trial, that led to her being sentenced by the "Cult of Mary", to be burned.

As She was burning, and crying out to Jesus, the Bishops who were there, realized they had made a mistake, by falsely accusing and then sentencing her to death.
This was in '1431

In 1920, the "cult of the Virgin", decided to try to soften that murder... so Pope Benedict XV had her "canonized".

Is the Arc in St. Louis named after her because that is the location she was "burned"?

So what you are telling me is the men of The Church falsely accused her and created a false trial and burned her! Those men clearly sinned. Does that mean the doctrine of The Church....Ooops, I mean "cult of the Virgin".......is false since some men in The Church sinned? If so, do the elders of your denomination sin? The men of your church do sin. That means your church doctrine is in question now also...OH NO, say it isn't so.

First off, Popes can't just on a whim have a person canonized as a saint to soften a murder. But your ignorance of your own Christian history wouldn't know that. There is a process to canonization. It took several years of investigation before her conviction was overturned and she was canonized. But your lack of historical knowledge and rabid anti-Catholic rhetoric won't allow you to realize that.

You crack me up Behold.......

 

[Marymog]

Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors,

Lol...Scripture LITERALLY says, OBEY THOSE (elders, leaders of The Church) THAT RULE OVER YOU which means we are to look to the bishops, pastors (elders, leaders of The Church).

And you say anyone that obeys Scripture is really obeying Satan.....

 

[Marymog]

Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. He leads the people to look to bishops, to pastors, to professors of theology, as their guides, instead of searching the Scriptures to learn their duty for themselves. Then, by controlling the minds of these leaders, he can influence the multitudes according to his will.
When Christ came to speak the words of life, the common people heard him gladly; and many, even of the priests and rulers, believed on him. But the chief of the priesthood and the leading men of the nation were determined to condemn and repudiate his teachings. Though they were baffled in all their efforts to find accusations against him, though they could not but feel the influence of the divine power and wisdom attending his words, yet they encased themselves in prejudice; they rejected the clearest evidence of his Messiahship, lest they should be forced to become his disciples. These opponents of Jesus were men whom the people had been taught from infancy to reverence, to whose authority they had been accustomed implicitly to bow. "How is it," they asked, "that our rulers and learned scribes do not believe on Jesus? Would not these pious men receive him if he were the Christ?" It was the influence of such teachers that led the Jewish nation to reject their Redeemer.
The spirit which actuated those priests and rulers is still manifested by many who make a high profession of piety. They refuse to examine the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the special truths for this time. They point to their own numbers, wealth, and popularity, and look with contempt upon the advocates of truth as few, poor, and unpopular having a faith that separates them from the world.
Christ foresaw that the undue assumption of authority indulged by the scribes and Pharisees would not cease with the dispersion of the Jews. He had a prophetic view of the work of exalting human authority to rule the conscience, which has been so terrible a curse to the church in all ages. And his fearful denunciations of the scribes and Pharisees, and his warnings to the people not to follow these blind leaders, were placed on record as an admonition to future generations.
The Roman Church reserves to the clergy the right to interpret the Scriptures. On the ground that ecclesiastics alone are competent to explain God's Word, it is withheld from the common people. Though the Reformation gave the Scriptures to all, yet the self-same principle which was maintained by Rome prevents multitudes in Protestant churches from searching the Bible for themselves. They are taught to accept its teachings as interpreted by the church; and there are thousands who dare receive nothing, however plainly revealed in Scripture, that is contrary to their creed, or the established teaching of their church.
Notwithstanding the Bible is full of warnings against false teachers, many are ready thus to commit the keeping of their souls to the clergy. There are today thousands of professors of religion who can give no other reason for points of faith which they hold than that they were so instructed by their religious leaders. They pass by the Saviour's teachings almost unnoticed, and place implicit confidence in the words of the ministers. But are ministers infallible? How can we trust our souls to their guidance unless we know from God's Word that they are light-bearers? A lack of moral courage to step aside from the beaten track of the world, leads many to follow in the steps of learned men; and by their reluctance to investigate for themselves, they are becoming hopelessly fastened in the chains of error. They see that the truth for this time is plainly brought to view in the Bible, and they feel the power of the Holy Spirit attending its proclamation; yet they allow the opposition of the clergy to turn them from the light. Though reason and conscience are convinced, these deluded souls dare not think differently from the minister; and their individual judgment, their eternal interests, are sacrificed to the unbelief, the pride and prejudice, of another. GC88 595.2 - GC88 596.3

So says your Goddess, Elen G. White, the woMAN you follow

 

[Marymog]

Absolutely true! But Ignatius used καθολικός in reference to the consensus, universal, Christian church throughout the Mediterranean world. It was not particularly Roman then, nor did he think of it that way. What we call Roman Catholic today certainly traces its roots there, but so do the Greek Orthodox and other denominations sharing in apostolic succession.

Generally True. But what else did Ignatius say that suggest that it was "particularly Roman":

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force”

 

[Marymog]

"They" is everyone, be they SDA, Catholic, Presbyterian, or government employee who claims to have Spiritual or religious authority over anyone else, or claims to be a teacher of doctrine. Unless they can show ME from scripture that what they are teaching is truth, and not just some random tradition built on hearsay, then I am not interested in accepting their doctrine.

This is what I have been saying all along. You think that YOU are the pillar and foundation of truth! If YOU don't agree with THEIR truth, you are not interested because YOU know the truth. you crack me up....

Sooooo does the SDA teach the truth? Is that why you joined?

 

[Marymog]

That Mary, is why I have no interest in Catholic Sunday sacredness.
"Remember the SABBATH day, to keep it holy". Exodus 20:8

Sunday sacredness is not a Catholic thing kiddo. It was a NT thing and 99.999% of Christians today practice it. Christian historical writings from 2,000 years ago show it was a Christian practice. It wasn't until your girl EG White came along and tricked some people into thinking Sunday isn't sacred.

You crack me up.....

 

[Brakelite]

Lol...Scripture LITERALLY says, OBEY THOSE (elders, leaders of The Church) THAT RULE OVER YOU which means we are to look to the bishops, pastors (elders, leaders of The Church).

And you say anyone that obeys Scripture is really obeying Satan.....

I literally said, quote...Satan is constantly endeavoring to attract attention to man in the place of God. The scripture says obey those who have the rule over you. Are those who themselves are not subject to Christ, have rule over others? Am I under any obligation to obey a tyrant who usurps government powers? Am I obliged to obey just anyone who claims to be the boss of whatever organisation or institution I choose to belong to? Would I not expect to see some credentials before submitting to their rule? Or do I bundle place my entire eternal future in the hands of any Tom, Dick or Harry that comes along? You cannot impose such a wide broad context upon one scripture and expect everyone to humbly bow down and merely surrender their spiritual welfare to others. Will they stand by me holding my hand and defend me when Jesus says, "depart from Me, I never knew you"? Will the Pope defend me? No. He won't even be there. We stand before the judgement seat of Christ alone. No-one else except Jesus Himself will be there to defend us. And His defense will be, "is this not a brand plucked out of the fire?"

 

[Brakelite]

This is what I have been saying all along. You think that YOU are the pillar and foundation of truth! If YOU don't agree with THEIR truth, you are not interested because YOU know the truth. you crack me up....

Sooooo does the SDA teach the truth? Is that why you joined?

Careful to not be presenting yourself the hypocrite. Surely you do not blindly obey the church regardless of whether they teach scripture or not?
KJV Acts 17:10-11
10 And the brethren immediately sent away Paul and Silas by night unto Berea: who coming thither went into the synagogue of the Jews.
11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
According to the Bible, it is a noble thing to search the scriptures and confirm that teachers are telling the truth.
Why did you join the Catholic church? Because you believed the priest, or because you believed the word of God?

 

[Brakelite]

Sunday sacredness ...was a NT thing

Then you'll be able to prove it right? A biblical text showing the sacredness of Sunday? Oh, and it is a Catholic thing. Protestants honour Sunday in obedience to Catholic theology...not because of scripture.

 

[Brakelite]

It wasn't until your girl EG White came along and tricked some people into thinking Sunday isn't sacred.

.. you may read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find a single line authorizing the sanctification of Sunday. The Scriptures enforce the religious observance of Saturday, a day which we never sanctify.
—The Faith of Our Fathers, by James Cardinal Gibbons, Archbishop of Baltimore, 88th edition, page 89. Originally published in 1876, republished and Copyright 1980 by TAN Books and Publishers, Inc., pages 72-73.

...pastoral intuition suggested to the Church the christianization of the notion of Sunday as "the day of the sun", which was the Roman name for the day and which is retained in some modern languages.(29) This was in order to draw the faithful away from the seduction of cults which worshipped the sun, and to direct the celebration of the day to Christ, humanity's true 'sun'.
—John Paul II, Dies Domini, 27. The day of Christ-Light, 1998

Council Of Liftinae, Belgium - A.D.745 (Attended By Boniface)

"The third allocution of this council warns against the observance of the Sabbath, referring to the decree of the council of Laodicea." Dr. Hefele, Counciliengfesch, 3, 512, sec. 362

Sabbath was observed by numerous churches throughout the world in every century from Christ to the present day. It has been the Catholic church's determined purpose to rid the world of it, and it's observers.

"The ancient Christians were very careful in the observance of Saturday, or the seventh day...It is plain that all the Oriental churches, and the greatest part of the world, observed the Sabbath as a festival...Athanasius likewise tells us that they held religious assembles on the Sabbath, not because they were infected with Judaism, but to worship Jesus, the Lord of the Sabbath, Epiphanius says the same." "Antiquities of the Christian Church," Vol.II Book XX, chap. 3, sec.1, 66. 1137,1138. (4th century).

"In the last half of that century St. Ambrose of Milan stated officially that the Abyssinian bishop, Museus, had 'traveled almost everywhere in the country of the Seres' (China). For more than seventeen centuries the Abyssinian Church continued to sanctify Saturday as the holy day of the fourth commandment." Ambrose, DeMoribus, Brachmanorium Opera Ominia, 1132, found in Migne, Patrologia Latima, Vol.17, pp.1131,1132.

The SABBATH did not begin with Ellen White.
KJV Genesis 2:1-3
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.
2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.
3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

 

[RedFan]

Generally True. But what else did Ignatius say that suggest that it was "particularly Roman":

“Ignatius . . . to the church also which holds the presidency, in the location of the country of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of sanctification, and, because you hold the presidency in love, named after Christ and named after the Father” (Letter to the Romans 1:1 [A.D. 110]).

“You [the church at Rome] have envied no one, but others you have taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force”

I think the comma after "presidency" is misleading, and a poor translation. The concept Iggy was expressing with ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥωμαίων is that the church at Rome was presiding in the Italian peninsula, not worldwide. A better translation would be "which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans." Exactly as we see in CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Romans (St. Ignatius)

 

[Marymog]

I think the comma after "presidency" is misleading, and a poor translation. The concept Iggy was expressing with ἥτις καὶ προκάθηται ἐν τόπῳ χωρίου Ῥωμαίων is that the church at Rome was presiding in the Italian peninsula, not worldwide. A better translation would be "which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans." Exactly as we see in CHURCH FATHERS: Epistle to the Romans (St. Ignatius)

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.

 

[Marymog]

Then you'll be able to prove it right?

It's been done and proven to you by bible theologians and Christian history. You ignore it and listen to your goddess EG White.

Why would I waste my time with you on this when you have already decided that you are going to follow the teachings of your woman? Ooops...I apologize. You don't follow the teachings of anyone.....do you? YOU decide what is true and what isn't....EG White just happens to agree with YOU even though she came before you

 

[Marymog]

Careful to not be presenting yourself the hypocrite. Surely you do not blindly obey the church regardless of whether they teach scripture or not?

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.