Where does the Pope get his authority?

[Jude Thaddeus]

Good point. Apostolic succession is a real thing, and a mark of legitimacy.

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch is the successor of St. Andrew the Apostle, correct?

 

[RedFan]

The Greek Orthodox Patriarch is the successor of St. Andrew the Apostle, correct?

I've heard that said before. But I don't know.

 

[Brakelite]

Nope, Paul didn't help to begin the church in Rome "Before all this..." (when Christ started The One Church with One Doctrine).

Marymog said no such thing. Use the quote feature and stop making things

Yep, she did. See above.

I never suggested that the churches in Milan and Turin had broken away from The Church.

Neither did I. What I said is that history suggests they were never allied with Rome.

I never suggested they were denominations soooo once again, you are wrong.

I didn't suggest that either. Not did I suggest you said it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

​

What "common good' means, is that if the church decides that what you own is too much, they have the right, even the responsibility, to take it from you and give it to some one they believe needs it more. That's called theft. This they claim authority to impose themselves over and above the authority of God Himself as declared in His law.

No, that's not what "common good" means.
First, the right to own private property is partially expressed in the few paragraphs you quoted above.
Second, a person starving to death has the right to receive goods, the Church has no right to steal it, that's your perverted conclusion.
It's necessary for your church,. or whatever you call it, to misrepresent, distort and change the meaning of words so it fits your anti-Catholic narrative. Why? Do we do that to you?
Only the Church can correctly interpret its own teachings, not some embittered individual with an authority complex.
Matt Slick, pope of CARM, abuses the catechism the same way you do.

Gaudium et spes

Constitución pastoral Gaudium et spes

www.vatican.va

Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981) | John Paul II

Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891) | LEO XIII

Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII, 15 May 1891

www.vatican.va

Quadragesimo Anno (May 15, 1931) | PIUS XI

Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno of Pius XI, 15 May 1931

www.vatican.va

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987) | John Paul II

Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December 1987) for the twentieth anniversary of Populorum Progressio

www.vatican.va

It takes a black heart to turn these documents into the opposite of what is taught. Your editorializing is stupid and insulting.

 

[Jude Thaddeus]

Neither did I. What I said is that history suggests they were never allied with Rome.

Ambrose, a late 4th-century bishop of Mediolanum, dominated the life and development of the city during his episcopate. He was appointed bishop of on 7 December 374. One of the four original doctors of the Church, he is patron saint of Milan. (wiki)

Please cite from any non-Catholic historian or scholarly source that suggests Milan and Turin were never allied with Rome. This is why discussion with you is impossible, you have your own history.

 

[Augustin56]

The Greek Othodox and the Roman See were both parts of the Catholic Church until 1054 A.D. "Catholic" didn't mean "Roman" Catholic back then. It just meant the church that was spawned on Pentecost and had spread throughout the western world (and beyond) as the true church of Christ..

"Roman" was never part of the official name of the Church. It was just the "Catholic Church." The "Roman" part was a perjorative started by the Anglicans when they splintered off. There was but one Church. The Eastern part of the Church schismed in the Great Schism in 1054 A.D.
Here's an informative video about what went on:

 

[Aunty Jane]

I am aware of the injustices, persecutions and war crimes committed against the JW in WW2. Over 10,000 were killed in the Holocaust, and that's just the Germans. There were 3,000,000 Polish Catholics killed in the holocaust, so Christians of any sort in the death camps were united in blood. They had more on their minds than doctrinal differences.

I would hasten to add that the persecution of Polish Catholics was because of their ethnicity, not their religion. Because their opposition to the Nazi regime was political, and not religious, this is why they suffered....otherwise fellow Catholics in the Nazi military should have had reservations about killing their “brothers” of another nation “in the faith”, but we never saw this in wartime.
Their patriotism was always stronger than their Christianity, and to this day those in the military are supported by their clergy as if their nation alone is backed by the god they worship....yet if Jesus said we are to “love our enemies”, those who claim to be Christians could never take up arms against anyone for purely nationalistic reasons, let alone their brethren. (1 John 4:20-21)

True Christians have no national allegiance that would make them violate Christ’s teachings. They are citizens of God’s kingdom and it is to this heavenly kingdom that they give their allegiance. This gives them neutral status in all political matters. What the world does is basically none of our business and when Jesus told us to be “no part of the world” (John 17:16; John 18:36) we obey him, even if it means opposition and persecution...even death.

The Holocaust Archives don't lie. The reason there were no SDA members listed is because Hitler liked what they were teaching about the Pope so they were given a free pass.

Jehovah's Witnesses in the Holocaust

Encyclopedia of Jewish and Israeli history, politics and culture, with biographies, statistics, articles and documents on topics from anti-Semitism to Zionism.

www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org

If people read the link you shared, they would see the contrast between us and those who compromise with the world. Some who avoided persecution took on roles that still supported the war effort, but in a non-combatant way....we would not support the war effort an any way....neither would we offer resistance or try to escape....they did not know what to do with a group that they could not control by force, and who would not resist them physically. Jesus and his apostles showed us this by their own example.

The “heil Hitler” salute was tangible support for all that Hitler stood for....we resisted Hitler without resorting to any physical weapons or resistance. He was enraged because he could not break us even in the face of death. The SS were told to emulate our resolute stand...but for Hitler, not God.

Sadly, in history is also the persecution of Catholics under the Nazi regime.....yet those who capitulated did so very publicly.

How did this in any way represent Christ to many of the German people who were thoroughly brainwashed by Nazi propaganda? To them Hitler was a hero. This kind of support gave people the wrong message.
To their credit many of the Catholic clergy did resist Hitler, but as a collective, the church appeared to support his leadership.

When reading the historical accounts it is clear that the political support of those who declared their “Christianity” under Hitler’s regime, basically showed that they were “friends of the world” by trying to use use the political system for their own benefit. (James 4:4)

When Jesus told us to be “NO part of the world” it was for good reason...
1 John 5:19....
“We know that we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one.”
What part of “the whole world” is satan not controlling....? In a world ruled by the devil...there are no “good guys”....all are under the devil’s control. This world’s governmental systems are God’s way of demonstrating to us that no human system of government, no matter how well they sell themselves to the people, will ever be successful....they have all been tried and failed, monumentally.
Only the “government” of the “Prince of Peace” will usher in God’s rulership (Isa 9:6-7).....his kingdom, which Jesus taught us to pray for. Only then can God’s will be “done on earth as it is in heaven”.

 

[Aunty Jane]

Good point. Apostolic succession is a real thing, and a mark of legitimacy.

Well...it’s a way to legitimise Catholic teachings...there is no apostolic succession mentioned in the Bible of the kind that the Catholic faith promotes. The early church fathers lived in the time of the apostasy, which was beginning at the close of the first century...and exploded once the apostles died....once the ones who were acting as “a restraint” were gone, there was nothing to stop what Jesus and his true apostles foretold. (2 Thess 2:3-12)

The Catholic Church is a product of that apostasy. There is no resemblance to first century Christianity in their beliefs or practice.....

 

[RedFan]

"Roman" was never part of the official name of the Church. It was just the "Catholic Church." The "Roman" part was a perjorative started by the Anglicans when they splintered off. There was but one Church. The Eastern part of the Church schismed in the Great Schism in 1054 A.D.
Here's an informative video about what went on:

Please re-post the video.

 

[Aunty Jane]

"Roman" was never part of the official name of the Church. It was just the "Catholic Church." The "Roman" part was a perjorative started by the Anglicans when they splintered off. There was but one Church. The Eastern part of the Church schismed in the Great Schism in 1054 A.D.
Here's an informative video about what went on:

Very interesting video......and the take away from all of that was.......“spot the Christians”.......where was Christ in these hateful exchanges, disunity and the resulting bloodbaths?
I can safely say that before a drop of blood was shed...Christ had washed his hands of this shameful excuse for “Christianity”......supporting the faithful few who managed not to involve themselves in such conduct unbecoming a disciple of Christ.

Can we not see why “few” would be found “on the cramped and narrow road to life”? (Matt 7:13-14) It was cramped and narrow for a reason.....those who deviated off that path would throw away the teachings of the Christ and adopt the ways of the nations with horrendous bloodshed, unsanctioned by God, but sanctioned by the church leaders out of spiteful hatred....following the “commands of men”. Pharisees much? (Matt 15:7-9)

How can you not see it?

 

[Marymog]

You must think I'm an absolute fool. Do you seriously believe that I was saying Paul established the church before Christ? Seriously? No. I don't believe you are serious. I think you deliberately looked for an opening to confuse the discussion, create a straw man, and "win" the argument. Follow my conversation in the original post. When I said,

No, I do not believe that you were saying that Paul established The Church before Christ. I didn't say that. It's very clear what I said.

I don't have to create a straw man or confuse the discussion to win the discussion. All I have to do is repeat what you say, show that it's a lie or bring it to its illogical conclusion and I win.

 

[Marymog]

Yep, she did. See above.

.

No, I didn't. Read it again. There is The Church and then there is the church in Rome, Corinth, Paris, New York, etc etc. You are confusing the two.

 

[Marymog]

Neither did I. What I said is that history suggests they were never allied with Rome.

Ah.....I see what you are saying. Thank you.

I looked back at our conversation and the reason I said that was because I never brought up Milan and Turin and you brought it up out of the blue to make some weird point that had no bearing on our discussion. I have no desire to go whatever rabbit hole you are going down.

 

[Marymog]

I didn't suggest that {they were denominations} either. Not did I suggest you said it. Stop putting words in my mouth.

I should have never thought that you were talking about denominations when you said, "They weren't 'denominations',.."

And you used quotes around the word denominations as if you are quoting me even though now you are saying that you did not suggest I said it.


You are wearing me out kiddo.

 

[Marymog]

My apologies. Google correction. My question in response to your post...

I know....That dang auto correction has gotten me a few times also

 

[Marymog]

Is, does the church really mirror scripture? For example. Please explain how an individual sinner is saved according to the church. Perhaps some quotes from the catechism?

Yes, The Church mirrors Scripture. If it didn't then it wouldn't be The Church.

I know you Brakelite and I know you already have a quote from the Catechism in your quiver that you want to use to "win" the discussion. Sooooo go ahead and give me your quote so we can begin this discussion.

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

Right. And the challenge of Roman Catholicism is to demonstrate that the Bishop of Rome is the only bishop who cannot use his power to deviate from the One Doctrine of the One Church that is teaching One Truth. The Protestant protests, with some justice, that this may not be established by definition (as the RCC has sometimes claimed), but must be shown independently.

That is a challenge......

 

[Marymog]

@Brakelite are you ever going to answer post #1,203? Or do you want ALL OF US instead of just you to pretend your lie didn't happen?

Curious Mary

 

[Marymog]

Well...it’s a way to legitimise Catholic teachings...there is no apostolic succession mentioned in the Bible of the kind that the Catholic faith promotes. The early church fathers lived in the time of the apostasy, which was beginning at the close of the first century...and exploded once the apostles died....once the ones who were acting as “a restraint” were gone, there was nothing to stop what Jesus and his true apostles foretold. (2 Thess 2:3-12)

The Catholic Church is a product of that apostasy. There is no resemblance to first century Christianity in their beliefs or practice.....

What apostolic succession is the Catholic Church promoting that isn't biblicaly based?

Do you believe that the Apostolic Fathers (Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp) were part of the "apostasy"?

There is a single resemblance to 1st Century Christianity that I can think of that you and your ilk don't practice or believe. Jesus said you must eat my body. You and your ilk say, Yuck, you don't mean that Jesus. Jesus, while holding up bread said, This IS my body. You and your ilk say, No it isn't Jesus, it's a symbol of your body. It's just bread. Paul said, The bread we eat IS a communion in His body. You and your ilk say, No it isn't Paul. You are a liar. The Apostolic Fathers say the bread IS His body. Your JW men call Jesus, Paul and the Apostolic Fathers liars.

Sooooooo who truly isn't resembling 1st Century Christianity?

 

[RedFan]

That is a challenge......

Are you up to it?