In Defense of the Papacy: 9 Reasons True Christians Follow the Pope

stpeterslist ^ | February 21, 2013 | HHAMBROSE

[PeevedPatriot]

THANK YOU for your apology to boatbums and (I hope) by extension to all nonCatholic Christians. I was embarrassed and scandalized that a fellow Catholic would post an article whose title states that nonCatholics aren't "true" Christians. That kind of mindset is neither charitable nor in keeping with Catholic teaching. I can understand and empathize with any nonCatholic Christian who felt poked by a stick (or worse) by this post.

Please excuse me if my words come across as harsh. They aren't intended to be. I sometimes say something with the best of intentions and only later realize how thoughtless it was. I don't believe you had negative motives for your post but I can understand that others might disagree.

Peace be with you.

[Syncro]

You don't have to make Christians look bad in order to make Catholicism look good. Or maybe you do.

a strange comment indeed.....

Well I see from your other statements that it appears you still do have that need.

God is patient with you, so I will be too.

The fact that your Catholicism keeps drawing a circle with Biblical Christianity outside of Catholic Christianity causes God to draw a bigger circle encompassing Biblical Christianity and Catholic Christianity.

Any Catholics wishing to take part in Biblical Christianity God welcomes to break through the wall and join His True church.
The church that is made up of EVERY born again person that has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and lives his/her life with Jesus inside them and them inside Jesus.

And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.

Christianity is what was just explained to you above.

if you care to follow some lesser "denomination" so be it, but whatever it is, it is NOT full Christianity.

There are no second class Christians, you either are a Christian in it's fullness, or you are not.

You may follow your denomination, but Biblical Christianity has not followers of denominations, just followers of Jesus as the Bible commands.

For Catholics to put themselves above Biblical Christians is not from God.

Just because Catholism requires putting your denomination between you and God doesn't mean that Biblical Christianity has to follow that "strange" belief.

there can only be one true Christian Church on Earth

There is and it is explained above. It is NOT Catholicism.

Catholicism CAN be included, it's an individual decision.

Personal relationships with Jesus are just that...and between each individual and Jesus.

All other denominations are indeed Christian, but not FULLY Christian

LOL, there you go again as Reagan would say.

An individual is either fully Christian, or not Christian. Period.

You can't be "kinda" Christian any more than you can be "kinda" preganant. You either are or you are not.

Gosh, Catholics have such a hard time accepting Biblical Christians as complete Christians.

Well God does, His word confirms it.

All other denominations are indeed Christian, but not FULLY Christian. Close doesn't count, they fell away from the true Christian church and became outsiders looking in....not wrong, not evil, just incomplete.

There are literally millions of Biblical Christians that have never had anything to do with the Catholic Church, so to claim that they "fell away" from it is pure foolishness.

Biblical Christians ARE members of the True Christian church and yes...they do look into Catholism, but from a perspective of Jesus looking at a broken system that enslaves to traditons and following a man, the pope, instead of God Incarnate.

You can be set free.

John 8:31-32 "If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. 32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."

36: If the Son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed.

Jesus is standing at the door.

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened." Matthew 7:7-8

[wintertime]

I am very confused by these pings. I am not participating in this thread.

[Syncro]

nifster:You view history through the lens of Rome . I on the other hand have studied history....Rome claims much that is untrue and always has been. God on the other hand is truly infallible

terycarl: You have not studied history or you would never make the claim that Rome claims ANYTHING that is untrue

terycarl, are you calling nifster a liar?

That is not allowed on the Religion forum.

You should apologize.

What is it you have posted to Christians here? Oh yea, you should be ashamed. Own it.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“...nonCatholics aren’t “true” Christians...”

I grew up knowing that occasionally there might be a Catholic who was a true Christian. I had some who were in my family (cousins, etc). I got a lively conversation going one time by stating that I believed John XXIII really knew the Lord...how sacrilegious...in the eyes of some of you reading this...

I would say today, without doubt, that there will be many more true followers of Christ in ‘Heaven’ that there are ‘Catholics’...some of those true followers will be Catholics, many will not be Catholic. All will be members of the one, holy, catholic church (small ‘c’ is not a typo).

All that being said, there are many ‘professing’ Christians who do not know Yehshua as Lord and Savior, do not have a personal relationship with Him.

I believe that personal relationship is key...knowing Him...I do not need an intermediary between Him and me. I do not need an intermediary to hear my ‘confession’. I do not need a ‘priest’ to celebrate communion with Him. We who know Him are kings and priests,

“John to the seven churches which are in Asia: Grace be unto you, and peace, from him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from the seven Spirits which are before his throne; And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.”
(Revelation 1:4-6 KJV)

“And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth.”
(Revelation 5:10 KJV)

[Salvation]

**And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.**

Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass?

It is divided into two parts -- the first part, The Liturgy of the Word, centered usually on an Old Testament Reading, a Psalm, and something from one of St. Paul's letters. Then the Gospel -- often with the words of Jesus Christ. Just who do you think Catholicism is centered on? It's Christ!!!!!

Hopefully you will not be repeating this untruth.

The second part is the Litrugy of the Eucharist is completely focused on Jesus Christ. The priest is the alter Christus there for us in place of Christ.

[Salvation]

**And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.**

Have you ever attended a Catholic Mass?

It is divided into two parts -- the first part, The Liturgy of the Word, centered usually on an Old Testament Reading, a Psalm, and something from one of St. Paul's letters. Then the Gospel -- often with the words of Jesus Christ. Just who do you think Catholicism is centered on? It's Christ!!!!!

Hopefully you will not be repeating this untruth.

The second part is the Litrugy of the Eucharist is completely focused on Jesus Christ. The priest is the alter Christus there for us in place of Christ.

[Nifster]

we could start with something as simple as Peter having ever been in Rome....The New Testament is clear through Paul’s writings that Peter was the apostle carrying the message to the Jews and Paul was carrying the message to the Gentiles.

But why bother with basics???

[Syncro]

The priest is the alter Christus there for us in place of Christ.

The priest is another Christ in place of Jesus? [that is completely unscriptural and borders on blaspheme]

Why? What's wrong with having the REAL Jesus Christ via his Holy Spirit in your church service as the Biblical Christian services do?

**And as usual it is your statement--Catholicism is Christianity-- that is strange indeed.**

Sorry, but as you would see if you read my whole post I reject the fallacy that "Catholicism is Christianity" which discounts Biblical Christian Christianity and pretty much says it doesn't exist.

Millions of Biblical Christians who have never had any connection with the Catholic church would dispute that pretty strongly, led by the Holy Spirit.

[BlueDragon]

We are not talking here about camels or noses.

Oh yes we are!

This is the camel's nose;

They were handed down by what we have come to know as the oral tradition from Peter and his apostles to his successors the Popes may of whom were the early Church Fathers and saints of the Church.

Notice the "jump", the assumption that something crucial was passed down...but no definition of what that was in the slightest.

It IS THE SAME EXACT ARGUMENT some of the early gnostics made, except that there were being specific as to what information was explained much by;"Oh, we were told this by an apostle". "We were told these things, but not anyone else was told." Later gnostics, not having had much direct access to apostles, nor any records of some teaching or another having been given directly to them, claimed to have gotten things "through revelation".

[notice the italicized in the above]

When such departed from scripture, introducing new ideas, or adding to, distorting that which is contained in scripture, such was battled against by, as I made mention of "early church notables". In other places those can be seen to be referred to as "Early Church Fathers".

I've seen the argument you are trying to make here, be so thoroughly shredded it's not even funny. Yet it keeps coming back...because the same faulty premises keep getting repeated by folks whom should know better! (that might not be you).

Those that do know better, at least try to doll the argument up, by calling it "unpacking". The trouble with that is, once some of the stuff is unfolded, it's so far off track of the original message (as can be found in the scriptures) that it is opposition to scripture itself (and many times in opposition to the writings of "Early Church Fathers too!) being as it either adds new themes, or undoes old ones by changing definitions, sometimes in mid-sentence, adding requirements which makes grace itself (the unmerited favor of God) something one must "do works" to obtain.

Thank God for the Reformation. The approaches found there, towards "grace' and justification (this latter one of those things which can be seen to be redefined in mid-sentence in RCC pronouncements) which were pressed by the Reformers, have positively (for the good) affected RCC teachings, at least in some quarters. That it may be said that such as is now taught of in the RCC (at times and places), aligns much with that which the Reformers stressed as being of primary importance, which also can be found to be supported by "early church fathers", buttresses the case that either and both groups are on the right track when they do also stress the same "primary" principles.

So what is it exactly that was passed down from the ORIGINAL apostles, what theme or set of ideas that we cannot otherwise find CLEAR evidence of in what scripture we have? If you cannot show me that, then what is left but to fall back on the the later arising "traditions"?

We can in many ways show and reasonably track items like "papal supremacy" not being an early tenet of the church (and much resisted even within the Latin church when first being strongly pressed, somewhere around the sixth century, if memory serves) and so on.

I realize my having said so will invite someone to bring an out-of-context quote from some 3rd or 4th century "church father", but even those in context in which they are found, seldom if ever cut the mustard, besides being a bit too late to get under the wire (edge of the tent? haha) of being able to be plausible as "oral tradition" "passed by Christ" "to the Apostles" as is the case which is being presented.

So tell me;
WHEN exactly was this information, this otherwise unrecorded "oral tradition from Christ" first incorporated? Hundreds of years later? That's usually the case. If not --- please feel free to prove otherwise. Or drop the empty claim. Your choice.

To repeat myself for sake of clarity, WHAT was in this "oral tradition" not otherwise found in scripture?
Was there;
Important stuff, themes pressed as being somehow crucial. not directly addressed in scripture, not present in the law (Torah), nor touched upon or addressed by the prophets of Israel (books of the prophets) nor addressed by Christ nor His own Apostles' written works speaking specifically of events and the words of Christ? Let us include Paul's numerous Epistles, his extensive writings towards both "Law" and prophesy which Christ came to fulfill, including also that which is significant to the Gospel record found in the book of Luke (along with the other Gospels, themselves regarded to have been written directly by Apostles themselves, of course).

As towards things not found therein, but much pressed in later centuries, somehow... we are supposed to accept, "oh, this is the way it's always been from the beginning".??? This was handed down by Christ? For that IS what you are more or less advocating is "truth".

What indication (beyond the oft repeated assumptions you repeat here) is there that this unspecified, unwritten, unrecorded "oral" information, popping up centuries later "came from/through Peter" who recieved it directly from Christ? If you are trying to tie the "oral tradition" to words alleged to have been spoken of by Christ, to things which can be seen to have developed over time--- that argument is a both a loser and the very "camel's nose" I speak of.

Egads, what a load. The "camel" has dropped a pile. To those whom have grown up surrounded by the "smell", perhaps it is not as noticable? For myself, I'll accept no such uncouth creatures in my own dwelling place, temporary as that dwelling may be...

The bleating denials are just that. Just so much empty bleatings. Your argument lacks coherence (just like I said). Having high up muckyty-mucks in the RCC state the same doesn't make it into "truth", either. Just a "version" ... and one far from being unimpeachable.

[boatbums]

you have to be kidding....Jesus was a human being and He said zillions of things that were not recorded...He didn't even know the apostles until He was an adult. How many wonderful things must He have said to His parents, relatives, friends, that we will never get to hear. Maybe one of His boyhood friends fell and was injured...perhaps Jesus wiped away the injury and comforted His friend.....they were ten years old, chances are that it didn't make the big book. For you, or anyone, to claim that everything that Jesus said was somehow recorded is nonsense!!!

Perhaps in your rush to mock and ridicule you missed my entire point! I never said EVERYTHING Jesus ever said was recorded in Scripture. What I DID say is that what was written in Scripture was so we would believe and have eternal life, like John said many times in his writings. The problem with conjecture, and that IS what imaginings about Jesus during times not spoken of in Scripture are, is that any number of things can be described. We have several writings from people back then that purported to be eye witnesses to Jesus as a kid doing certain things such as healing little baby birds or cursing someone and something bad happened to them, stuff like that. There are thousands of stories that have been and will continue to be written about Jesus and, without some verifying proof, they are nothing more than fiction - someone's fanciful and creative imagination. If the believers back in Jesus' time didn't give them any credence then, who are we thousands of years later to come along and say, "Oh, that COULD have happened. We don't really know."?

What we DO know is that whatever DID make the "book" was intended to be there for specific reasons and, as it is Divinely-inspired and God-given, it is the objective authority we have for the rule of our faith. John said he wrote what he did so that we can KNOW we have eternal life. Did he leave out anything or fail to mention something critical to our salvation? Nope. So, of course Jesus said "zillions" of words, but we can have confidence that those words he said that we, today, need to know about are there in Scripture. Holy men of God "spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" and that is what we have - God's love letter to us. The Holy Spirit did not gyp anyone. We don't need some theologians centuries after the fact to tell us all the stuff we SHOULD know about that got omitted.

[boatbums]

That has been my intent for the last several years. I try very hard to stick to the discussion and not make personal insults. I’m not sure what you mean by “not taking the bait”. If you mean to simply IGNORE the offending threads, then sorry, I won’t, nor do I think any of us should. If someone posts something that is wrong or vindictive or condescending about my faith, I have every right to join the discussion. What I have asked repeatedly for is more discretion by those who are the usual posters of such threads. So far, I’ve seen little evidence they care and plenty that demonstrates they enjoy stirring the pot - complete with provocative titles. I don’t fall for the bait instigating me to get nasty where the RM has to intervene and most of us show plenty of self discipline by not falling for the game either. And, sadly, that was the game. I’m much more interested in speaking the truth and winning souls to Christ. Anyone who truly loves the Lord would do the same. Thanks for standing up for peace among brethren.

[BlackElk]

GeronL:

I agree with that and I firmly wish that the inter-religious sniping here come to an end. I have never doubted the good faith Christianity of Reformed Christians here. Likewise, I certainly hope that my fellow Catholics would also act in good faith and give credit where credit is due to our Reformed brothers and sisters in Christ. I would also like to see all Christians here pay proper respect to Jews and vice versa and to other faiths and vice versa. Also, believers and non-believers here ought to grant each other mutual respect.

In earlier years, I participated in the religious wars here until it struck me that overwhelmingly, those who participate on Free Republic are my fellow conservatives on matters of public policy and usually on matters of morals and on many shared concepts of faith, differ though we may on some points.

We ought to be united in the effort to resist and defeat our common enemies and the enemies of God and of His will. Those of us who are Christian should seek to follow the leadership of Jesus Christ and of His Father in Heaven and of the Holy Spirit.

I read posts from Reformed Christians that may temporarily boil my blood as yours is probably boiled by some Catholic posts. I tell myself to calm down, that the posts that aggravate me may well, in turn, be inspired by posts of fellow Catholics who have angered those Reformed Christians. Jesus Christ called upon us all to love one another as we have been loved and are loved by God. In the early days of Christianity, it was said that the Roman pagans knew the identities of the Christians because they were the ones who loved one another.

Each of us should strive to be as much more like Christ as we are able to the extent that we can discipline our sinful natures in order to move in that direction. Man fell when Adam and Eve sinned. It is our nature now to struggle against our own tendency to sin, each and every one of us falls short of the standard set by our Savior.

If it is OK with you, I am not going to recreate the lengthy post that I lost because I am older than I once was and tired and it is late at night and I prefer this post anyway as a response to you with whom I share so very many principles and beliefs. I know that you have no real beef with Catholics. You may disagree with us on this or that point of theology but that is very much a reflection of your principled approach and also of that of many Catholics. If I ever have offended you, I apologize because you did not and do not deserve it.

My specific disagreements with #57 were that, to the best of my knowledge, 1) no emperor or king or any other royal figure EVER crowned himself pope. If you know of any, please let me know the specifics, and 2) the title of pope is derived from the Italian il papa or the father and the Italian language, and the specific title of pope did not exist in Jesus Christ's time, and 3) The scriptural sources of the papacy are the Peter Passage in Matthew 16: 13-20 and Christ's guarantee to be with the Church to the end of the world. Matthew 28: 20. I also understand that you may well disagree with what I believe those passages to mean and I have no doubt that any disagreement is with respect and good faith as are mine.

May God bless you and yours, now and forever.

[BlackElk]

It had appeared to me that you had been attacked in a post to which I was pinged as were you. I responded to that post and pinged you as a courtesy. If you wish me not to do so, I will respect your wishes. As you know, I very often agree with you on matters involving homeschooling and, ummmm, other venues for schooling, but have differences with you (as I do with many) on the specifics of religion. I mean you no disrespect.

May God bless you and yours, now and forever.

[wardaddy]

Wow

Some of these claims are preposterous r they not?

I have Catholic blood kin and have never ever heard some of these exclusivity bagging rights

Alter Cristos?

Man....i would not say that in the middle of a summer thunderstorm in Dixie

Or in combat

Or on my lit de mort

[wintertime]

Although I have differences with the Catholic Church, I would be pleased beyond words to have every Catholic in this nation fully practicing their faith.

Imagine the blessings, peace, and prosperity that everyone in this nation would enjoy.

Have a great day. :-)

[Boogieman]

Exactly, and all of the other times that the Pope, or church officials are speaking, not ex cathedra, then they are just as fallible as the rest of us, and they can even, believe it or not, say and do things which are in opposition to Christ. Since that is most of the time, according to your own admission, your previous comment is pretty meaningless.

[Iscool]

In other words, it was the Dark Ages only for the non Catholics...

Interesting thing that Middle Ages stuff...Who thought that up???

Middle Ages went from about 500 AD to 1500 AD give or take a few...The first 5 Centuries then were the beginning ages...That leaves the last 5 Centuries for the end of the ages...

Who ever thought that up must have believed in the 6 days of Creation...

[Iscool]

What was pointed out to you was the sheer absurdity of this proposition because it suggests that Christ remained speechless when He performed a vast array of acts.

Maybe, if one is ignorant of scripture, or just refuses to believe it...

But for those of us who do read and believe the scriptures, we know that John recorded everything that Jesus ever said that we needed to know for our salvation...

Of course Jesus wasn't silent...But we know that Jesus did not say nor teach anyone that there was more than we can find in the written scriptures that is required knowledge for our salvation...

This is why Peter and his successors were entrusted with teaching ONE TRUTH, not a multitude of interpretations that have been spawned since the schism.

Fact is, Peter didn't teach all that much...His epistles are more of an encouragement than doctrine...

So Jesus taught scores of truths...Paul taught a multitude of truths as well as Matthew...What truth did Peter teach???

The Church as the rock, is founded on scripture, tradition as handed down by the successors of St. Peter, revelation, and experience and has become the mustard tree that now covers all corners of the world.

Your Catholic religion is not a rock and certainly is NOT THE ROCK...

Think about it...Don't you think Peter cringes and covers his face in embarrassment and shame every time some schmuck bows down to one of your popes and calls him 'holy father'???

Act 10:25 And as Peter was coming in, Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and worshipped him.
Act 10:26 But Peter took him up, saying, Stand up; I myself also am a man.

Among MANY of the truths that the apostles taught, one was that Christians do not bow down to another man...

[Iscool]

Amen to that...