Interactive Graphic: The Story of Every Pope In History, From Saint Peter To Pope Francis

I have read a great deal of ‘real history”. There simply was no collected, canonized Bible before Pope Demasus. Sure, there was scripture here and there, but there was no collection of the entire Bible before the Council of Nicea. There was just no authority to proclaim which verses of scripture were inspired. Even the bishops who convened (at the bequest of Constantine who was worried about all the schisms present, argued over what was to be included and what not), (Revelations, Hebrews, and some of Peter were disputed). I know it must be hard to acknowledge, but that is the truth. The notion that there were primitive non-universal churches that had complete Bibles before the middle of the 4th century is a fable. If so, where are the records, the writings, of these churches? And by the way, I would never call your church a “cult” if it professed to believe in the Trinity. In this day and age when people around the world want to kill us, persecute us, and corrupt us with homosexual marriage and abortion, I don’t believe it is in the best interests of Christians to be calling each other cults. Peace.

Deny what? That somehow this friendship made him into a “pope”? Sure, I would deny it. There is no such Scriptural statement in existence. The Roman organization has fashioned an extra-biblical history to match its own fanciful imaginings. And, Paul is the one selected to teach you and I. Peter to the Jews, Paul to the Gentiles.

You may wish to consider the writings of the NT in total and notice Paul penned 14 of the 27 books. Peter, but 2. Paul is far and away the premier Apostle, the man who publicly rebuked Peter (Gal.). He is the one who spent 3 years with Jesus in Arabia, alone, mentored personally. When you get your arms around Romans 9, let me know.

"Except that Rome has no chains. And you certainly don’t have to leave Christ Church - the Catholic Church - to be saved."

Actually, I have said that it is quite likely some within that monstrosity are being rescued. But, that is in spite of the errant teaching, not because of it. It is because they are among the elect and Jesus has sought them, even as Rome has attempted to brainwash them.

Leaving an organization which makes the ridiculous claims Rome has made is simply a good idea. Leaving would allow the escapee to receive better teaching, but not guarantee it. Only Christ can manage the destiny of a man. And, yes, remarks such as the following become chains:

Boniface VIII... "There is one holy Catholic and apostolic church, outside of which there is no salvation...it is altogether necessary for salvation for every creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff." Unam Sanctum 1302AD.

Sounds cult-like to me.

I will say it again: Peter was the one who Jesus appeared to after the resurrection. When speaking to his disciples, it was to Peter that he first spoke. Peter was the one who Jesus said in Matthew 16:18 that HE was the one chosen as the rock “Cephas” on which he would be his church, and that the gates of hell would not prevail against it, and, guess what? After all these centuries, that is exactly what has happened. Peter was the one who walked on water and raised the dead. Paul(who is also buried in Rome) never physically met Jesus and yes, he and Peter did have a disagreement about the Jewish Law, in which Paul convinced Peter to reconsider his own first original position. I can see that it is of no use arguing with you. You can go ahead and proclaim that there is some grand conspiracy and that 2000 years of history and 1.2 billion people living today are all wrong and you are right, but just don’t use scripture collected and canonized in the 4th century by the Catholic Church to do it. I suppose all those martyrs through all those centuries just had it wrong. The whole idea sola scripture does exist in scripture. And just because something is not mentioned in the Bible does not mean it doesn’t exist or never happened, in fact, maybe you should read more Christian history and some “extra-biblical” history and find out how so many have been duped all these centuries. Start with Clement, who actually knew John, then try Iraneus, Esubeius and other church fathers. They were closer to the source. I don’t think you’ll find much of what they said in contrast to Catholic theology. And by the way, Peter was not the pope, he was the first bishop of Rome and the first in succession of other bishops of Rome to be named pope and after Rome gained ascendancy after the destruction of the temple in 70 AD.

"Paul(who is also buried in Rome) never physically met Jesus and yes, he and Peter did have a disagreement about the Jewish Law, in which Paul convinced Peter to reconsider his own first original position. I can see that it is of no use arguing with you."

Of course he did. Who do you think spoke to him saying, "I am Jesus whom you are persecuting,..." (Acts 9)? He then spent three years with Him in Arabia. But, there is such a strong inclination by the RCC to revise history just enough to make them look good that it can be enticing to folks like you. Possibly you want to believe them. When you get an opportunity, however, read Acts 15 noticing Peter was "enlightened" by Paul to the fact the Law was gone. Catholicism has taken the place of the Judaizers and become Judasim 2.0.

It was Peter who fell back into the separationist view held by Jews (practicing the Law) and Paul who, once again, had to straighten the fellow out (Gal.). These episodes, however, take study and a willingness to allow the text to teach one's mind. There is no getting around Paul's 14 contributions to the NT vs. Peter's 2. So, clearly, only if Jesus lifts the scales can a person see the real Gospel of Jesus Christ.

"And I’ve met liberal Protestants who think John 14:6 sounds “cult-like”."

Look, my FRiend, liberal Protestants are perhaps more screwed up than the Catholic organization. They bring nothing to the table but their philosophical fantasies. Fools like Marcus Borg and the so-called "Jesus Committee" cannot find their butts with both hands.

My point was not to defend the abberations, the outlyers, the true cults. I don't actually consider the RCC a "cult" in the formal sense. I see, however, that remarks such as Boniface made "cult-like". The exclusivity and pre-eminence of Rome is something not supported by the Scriptures. Sorry. That is a fig-newton of the organization's imagination. That is what makes it "cult-like". It loves itself, it promotes itself, even most of the threads around here are about "Look at all the recruits we have from other groups claiming to be Christians."

To make such claims is self-aggrandizing and wrong. Especially when it cannot rid itself of sacerdotalism, indulgences, purgatory, mariolatry, the sacraments, candles, chants, genuflecting, crossing oneself, and a host of other blasphemous concepts. When the RCC denounces itself, the believing world stands ready to welcome it back with open arms.

You wrote:

“The exclusivity and pre-eminence of Rome is something not supported by the Scriptures.”

It’s the Church and not Rome. If you want to call it the Roman Church - as Boniface did - fine, but you are calling one thing another, and as such, of course you can’t find it in scripture. Look for Church - rather than Rome (which is just a city) and you’ll find more than you realise. Look for what the Church is, rather than what the Church is called, and you’ll find even more. Don’t be intellectually lazy or dishonest. Try to be better.

I said “physically”. There is no indication Paul ever met Jesus physically. It is not revising history to note that Paul never physically met Jesus. The incident at Antioch on the issue of Jewish Law happened only a couple of decades after Jesus’ death. Remember, that many of the first Christians were Jews, so much so that the early Roman emperors thought they were the same. Peter originally took the same view of Paul about the law, then that of Jesus who said, in Matthew 5:17, “I come not to abolish the law of the prophets ....but to fulfill them”. So, I suppose in your scenario Jesus himself was a “Judaizer”. This was a very important matter at a very early date and it was settled at Antioch, where Peter was bishop. It probably wouldn’t have mattered one way or another about the Law to the Jews because they had, as a group, already denied Jesus, and would continue to do so.

If you are keeping score about how many books the Apostles wrote, you have to consider that Mark also wrote and was instructed by Peter. I am not underestimating Paul, who was a spreader of the Gospel and a saint, but you can’t deny that it was Peter who was Jesus’ favorite (John 21: 20-25), it was to Peter who the Savior appeared after the resurrection, it was Peter who walked on water and raised the dead, and it was to Peter who Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom. I have read the Bible many times but I have also read a great deal of “real history” because the Bible is the Holy Book but it is not a history book. You have to go outside the bible to read the history of what early Christians said and believed, even those who knew the Apostles. I think they are closer to the source than we are.

"It’s the Church and not Rome. If you want to call it the Roman Church - as Boniface did - fine, but you are calling one thing another, and as such, of course you can’t find it in scripture. Look for Church - rather than Rome (which is just a city) and you’ll find more than you realise. Look for what the Church is, rather than what the Church is called, and you’ll find even more."

This is part of the difficulty Rome (or the CC) has created for itself. There is absolutely (did I mention absolutely) no such word as "Church" in the Scriptures. Go read the text in Greek. The word is "assembly" or "public gathering". It is the Roman organization which has morphed this common term into "LOOK AT ME" (or something similar). The Greek term "ekklasia" even referred to the riotous mob in Ephesus, which is closer to what the RCC actually is.

And, my point was that there is no preeminence ascribed to Rome or the bishop of Rome or anything even remotely close to Rome. The term "bishop" is actually derived from "elder gray beard", or older men. The important references to Rome occur in Paul's Letter to the Romans explaining how salvation is determined by God for those predestined to believe. Now, that should be a Roman doctrine!

"Don’t be intellectually lazy or dishonest. Try to be better."

My FRiend, perhaps you might review the posting rules around here. "Argue the issues all you like. Don't make it personal."

You wrote:

“This is part of the difficulty Rome (or the CC) has created for itself. There is absolutely (did I mention absolutely) no such word as “Church” in the Scriptures. Go read the text in Greek.”

The word “Bible” is also never used in the Bible. Strange how that still works though, huh?

“The word is “assembly” or “public gathering”.”

Yes.

“It is the Roman organization which has morphed this common term into “LOOK AT ME” (or something similar).”

No. We English speakers have done that. In Latin it is still ecclesia and nothing else. We English speakers, however, say “Church” - which is from kyriakos (meaning “of the Lord”, “belonging to the Lord”) - because we inherited that from our German linguistic ancestors. So, while you’re spinning some nonsense about “the Roman organization which has morphed this common term into “LOOK AT ME”” the reality is no other word than ecclesia is used in official documents.

“The Greek term “ekklasia” even referred to the riotous mob in Ephesus, which is closer to what the RCC actually is.”

I have no doubt that the early Church was sometimes riotous - isn’t that clear from the writings of St. Paul?

“And, my point was that there is no preeminence ascribed to Rome or the bishop of Rome or anything even remotely close to Rome.”

Except there is a preeminence ascribed to Peter. And Peter is “remotely close” to Rome in the history of the Church.

“My FRiend, perhaps you might review the posting rules around here. “Argue the issues all you like. Don’t make it personal.””

Oh, I know the rules. I also know the truth. And it should be said even if it violates rules don’t you think?

You wrote:

“Kindness given up for lent?”

I don’t confuse cbeing charitable with being nice. The word “nice” is originally from French and meant, essentially, “stupid”. A Christian should always be charitable. That’s not the same thing as “being nice”.

“And someday it might be useful to address the points made rather than use Roman dissemblance.”

I did address them. I directly addressed the fact that you apparently mistakenly believe the Catholic Church uses the word “Church” when it in fact uses “ecclesia” in all of its official statements written in its official language. The word “Church” is a common usage in English only.

You absolutely avoided the problem of the absence of a word which can be designated "Church". And, its absence is conspicuous. If Rome claims a name or a spot which does not exist (the true "Church") around 1500 years of self-aggrandizement goes down the tube. But, I understand how much is invested in making the party line work...perhaps a lifetime. That "Bible" doesn't appear in the Bible is obfuscation, not explanation.

If the Roman organization understood that Paul uses the term "ekklasia" in the common sense of "assembly", it would also understand the plural, "assemblies" (I Cor.) removes it from the throne upon which it has propped itself. There is no "Church" central, nor submission to a "pope" indicated anywhere in Scripture. There are many "assemblies" meeting all over the world. Some teach truth, others teach religion. Rome falls on the wrong side.

"I don’t confuse cbeing charitable with being nice. The word “nice” is originally from French and meant, essentially, “stupid”. A Christian should always be charitable. That’s not the same thing as “being nice”."

I didn't say "nice". But, not to worry...those remarks of yours were not nice, not kind, and certainly not charitable.

You wrote:

“You absolutely avoided the problem of the absence of a word which can be designated “Church”.”

That’s a complete falsehood. Again, the Catholic Church used the term “ecclesia”. It is only in English translations that it uses the word “Church” - which is ultimately from the Greek work “kyriakos”. What part of that do you not understand?

“And, its absence is conspicuous. If Rome claims a name or a spot which does not exist (the true “Church”) around 1500 years of self-aggrandizement goes down the tube. But, I understand how much is invested in making the party line work...perhaps a lifetime. That “Bible” doesn’t appear in the Bible is obfuscation, not explanation.”

No, it’s explanation. Do you know what the Bible is? I bet you do. Yet the word is not in the Bible itself as a definition or even descriptive term for what Christians commonly call the Sacred Scriptures. Thus, there can’t be anything wrong with using the term “Church” for the Church/ecclesia/ekklesia.

“If the Roman organization understood that Paul uses the term “ekklasia” in the common sense of “assembly”, it would also understand the plural, “assemblies” (I Cor.) removes it from the throne upon which it has propped itself.”

No. “Assemblies” is about a number of local assemblies, not different KINDS of assemblies. There’s only one Church. Christ did not establish competing Churches. And He certainly never established a single Protestant sect as is demonstrated by the fact that none of them existed until 1500 after Christ’s time on earth.

“There is no “Church” central, nor submission to a “pope” indicated anywhere in Scripture. There are many “assemblies” meeting all over the world. Some teach truth, others teach religion. Rome falls on the wrong side.”

No, scripture makes it pretty clear that Christ established ONE Church and only men with Protestant like tendencie could twist some Christians in a local congregation but none of them could overwhelm the whole Church - just as Christ promised it would be able to withstand even the gates of Hell.

“I didn’t say “nice”. But, not to worry...those remarks of yours were not nice, not kind, and certainly not charitable.”

They were charitable. The Truth hurts those who attack Christ’s Church as you do. Anti-Catholicism is a mental illness. It makes its adherents stupid, belligerent, ignorant, and arrogant. Speaking bluntly to such a person is charitable for he needs to hear the truth even though he hates it.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.