Rock Peter

[Behold]

Catholics overreact to what Jesus said to Peter

The MaryCult is built on it.
They built their cult on false teachings , = that Peter is the Rock, and Mary is co-author of Salvation, and water baptism saves you.
-

 

[Matthias]

The MaryCult is built on it.
They built their cult on false teachings , = that Peter is the Rock, and Mary is co-author of Salvation, and water baptism saves you.

In the words of the Protestant scholar Barnes (whom I quoted in the thread), it as an abuse; although I find the word needlessly inflammatory. However, I see no need to throw away identifying Peter as “rock” when it is easily reconciled with what Paul said about the apostles, prophets and Messiah in the Ephesians passage. The Protestant scholars I quoted achieved a balance which I find persuasive.

 

[Matthias]

“So then you are no longer foreigners and noncitizens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints and members of God’s household, because you have been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the cornerstone.”

(Ephesians 2:19-20, NET)

That foundation is solid, like ... what’s the word I’m looking for here?

 

[dak]

only in the Catholic Church has Peter been called the Rock, they also have decided He was the first pope...Not so....they are lying for Peter is never in Rome in the Bible or in the History. If your jewish you should know better...Peter was in the 'inner circle' of Jesus along with two others.

False insinuation: I said nothing about the Roman Catholic, or Catholic church, or their teachings on Peter and their Popes. Moreover if you knew the scripture you would have recognized that the immersion I spoke of was foretold by the Master himself, in John 21:18-19, (an immersion into death, but not physical death), and then you might understand how what I brought up from the Acts 12 passage is a fulfillment of that immersion, which in itself utterly rebukes the R.C. mythology of Peter having been crucified upside-down in Rome. Does Elohim desire physical death for his beloved creation and His faithful?

 

[ScottA]

“(ii) It is then said by Jesus to Peter: ‘I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Matt. 16.19). The possession of keys always implies very special authority and power. The rabbis for instance had a saying that the keys of birth, and death, and the rain, and the resurrection from the dead belong to God and to God alone. In the New Testament the keys are specially connected with Jesus. It is the Risen Christ who has the keys of death and Hades (Rev. 1.18). It is Jesus who has the key of David and who opens and no man shuts, and shuts and no man opens (Rev. 3.7). These sayings all have a common background. They all go back to Isaiah’s picture of the faithful Eliakim who had the key to the house of David on his shoulder, and who alone opened and shut (Isa. 22.22). Now Eliakim was the steward of the house of David; he was the doorkeeper who brought people into the presence of the king. So, then, Jesus is saying that Peter is to be the steward of the Kingdom. If that be so, the whole emphasis is on the opening of the door, for the steward is the person who answers and opens the door. Peter was to be the man who opened the door of the Kingdom, and indeed he did. At Pentecost it was the preaching of Peter which opened the door to three thousand souls (Acts 2.41). It was Peter who adventurously opened the door of the Kingdom to the Gentile Cornelius (Acts 10). It was Peter who at the Council of Jerusalem gave the decisive witness which flung open the door of the Church to the Gentiles at large.”

(William Barclay, The Mind of Jesus, p. 174)

Still--it should not be overlooked or denied--that Jesus, with Peter as an example, set before the church "life and death, blessing and cursing" not unlike what Moses set before Israel. Distinctly stating by what means He would and would "not" build His church--Peter being the example of both.

 

[Matthias]

Still--it should not be overlooked or denied--that Jesus, with Peter as an example, set before the church "life and death, blessing and cursing" not unlike what Moses set before Israel. Distinctly stating by what means He would and would "not" build His church--Peter being the example of both.

That strikes me as a reasonable and balanced approach.

 

[jaybird]

My position is that he wasn’t.

i wasnt sure, your post are often in that mystic metaphorical style that leaves simple minded people like me scratching my head

My position is that he wasn’t establishing them either.

I’m neither Catholic nor Protestant. I’m a primitive 1st century Christian living in the 21st century.

i knew that, i thought i remember you being messianic Jewish or something like that but couldnt remember. what church you go to does not change anything IMO, Jesus said dont cheat on your wife, which doesnt change if your Catholic, Baptist or Morman. people use the name calling when they want to avoid engagement.

 

[jaybird]

Hi Jaybird, I remember your screen name from somewhere but cannot remember where from. Anyway there is an interesting note to the passage you've referrenced. In Codex Bezae we find in this passage a mention of "the seven steps".

Acts 12:10 Bezae (D)
10 And when they were past the first and the second ward, they came unto the iron gate that leadeth into the city, which opened to them of its own accord, and they went out, and went down the seven steps, and passed on through one street; and straightway the angel departed from him.

Translation of the Book of Acts in Codex Bezae

The only reason I can imagine for the author to include this statement is to imply that the whole episode was figuratively an immersion. However I suppose it may have been deemed "too Jewish", and perhaps that may be why it dropped out of the text, (of course I have no way of knowing that for sure, but there are several other things which remain in Bezae that seem to confirm this possibility). Just a side note, not meaning to derail the discussion.

i remember your name, it always made me think of someone that would have traveled on adventures with conan the barbarian.
i never heard of the seven steps, lots of sevens, threes and twelves in the mystic traditions, its mostly over my head, i am just a simple working guy from rural arkansas.

 

[DJT_47]

“And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.”

(Matthew 16:18, NET)

”There can be no higher tribute than to call a man a rock.”

(William Barclay, The Mind of Jesus, p. 173)

You are misunderstanding the scripture



Peter NOT the 1st pope: Analysis Matthew 16 - Peter and the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

 

[Matthias]

You are misunderstanding the scripture



Peter NOT the 1st pope: Analysis Matthew 16 - Peter and the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16 analysis - Peter being the first so-called pope and provided with the keys of the kingdom

Matthew 16:15-19 - Catholics erroneously use these verses, and primarily verse 19, as rationale and justification for claiming Peter was established thereby as the first pope. However, when you read and study these scriptures closely along with others related thereto, you clearly find that is not the case nor is the logic sound.

When linked with Matthew 18:18, Acts 2, Acts 10, and Acts 11, you get the complete and true understanding of the aforementioned Matthew 16 verses. Note Matthew 16:15-19 below:

15He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? 16And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. 17And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. 19And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

Establishment of the church, the earthly kingdom - First of all in the above scripture, notice it says "keys of the kingdom of heaven" and not "to the kingdom of heaven" which is of significance and often glossed-over by most, with "to" being superimposed for “of”. The word "of" means, 'origin', 'connected to', 'belonging to', from' or "pertaining to', whereas 'to' infers 'direction', 'going toward' or 'entry into'; "to" therefore would imply entry into the kingdom whereas "of" would imply the keys are not for entry, but rather, originating from, for, or emanating and/or coming from the kingdom; the origin of the keys being the kingdom of heaven.

Peter was entrusted with the "keys of the kingdom of heaven”, not 'keys to’ the kingdom of heaven or simply for the means of entry into it, and was empowered or sanctioned by heaven as confirmed by the Holy Ghost (Acts 2 and 10), with authority to bind his actions as well. The same words almost verbatim are used in Matthew 18:18-19, providing all of the Lord's disciples with authority likewise to bind on earth, however the reasons were different for this authority which excluded the "keys of the kingdom", and the authority was provided to all the disciples (ye, in the original Greek) as opposed to just Peter (thee per the original Greek) in Matthew 16.

When you consider or link Matthew 16 as relates to Peter and "the keys of the kingdom" with the book of Acts, you find that Peter was the one responsible for establishing the church, the earthly kingdom, first amongst the Jews at Jerusalem (Acts2), and then amongst the Gentiles commencing with the conversion of Cornelius (Acts 10), which action he then defended to the council at Jerusalem in Acts 11. Peter being the one that established the early church, is therefore validation of Matthew 16 and the Lord’s unique statement to him, creating the setting and providing him with the opportunity, wherewithal, and confirmation by heaven via the Holy Ghost to do so (collectively, “the keys”). Note too, that the Holy Ghost falling on individuals uniquely as it did on both occasions, were the only times recorded in the bible for such happening in the manner it did. Both events, that of Acts 2 and Acts 10, were done with heavenly power and authority as noted above, since in both cases, the Holy Ghost demonstrated said power and authority by its physical presence, falling on individuals in both cases as a sign to those present, giving validity to, and substantiation from heaven of Peter’s actions, consistent with the use of the word “of” in Matthew 16:19.

The rock - In Matthew 16:18, it's obvious that Peter isn't the rock but rather Christ is, since he is recognized as being the chief cornerstone and/or foundation per the scriptures (Ephesians 2:20, Psalm 118:22-23, Isaiah 28:16, Matthew 21:42-44, 1Cor 3:11, Acts 4:11). Also, Peter in Greek is 'Petros' Πέτρος or Cephas, [masculine gender in the Greek meaning a stone or boulder (Strong's), or rock, individual stone, more insecure or moveable], and the “rock” in Matthew 16:18 is “petra”, πέτρα (feminine gender in the Greek), being rock, cliff, solid formation, solid foundation, bedrock, large rock formation, immoveable and enduring. Also, the church is referred to as being the “bride”, “chaste virgin”, “her” (feminine), etc., and Christ being the bridegroom, which further substantiates the use of “petra” rather than “petros”. If Christ's intent was to build his church upon Peter, why wouldn't he have said "and upon you I will build my church", or “upon petros, or you, Petros I will build my church” and not "upon this rock" (petra)? Also note that if Peter was established as the so-called first pope and head of the church (as erroneously claimed by Catholics), 1. Why did the Lord say “get thee behind me Satan” to him in Matthew 16:23? and 2. Why did the disciples quarrel amongst themselves (Luke 9:46) as to who would be the greatest among them, which occurred AFTER Peter’s statement as to who Jesus was (Luke 9:20 and parallel verse Mat 16:16)? and 3. Why was there contention between Peter and Paul as recorded in Acts 15:2 and Gal 2:11-14 if Peter was the head of the church? and 4. Why did the council at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria (Acts8:14) if Peter was the head of the church, yet taking direction from the council at Jerusalem? Also note that no man (in a religious sense, Mat 23:8-9), is to be called father on earth, yet the pope is commonly referred to as the “Holy Father”. And too, Christ is the head of the church which is his body, not Peter (Eph 5:23, Col 1:18)

I stopped reading after you said Peter isn’t the first Pope. I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a Catholic. I even stated explicitly that Peter is not the first pope.

 

[Matthias]

i wasnt sure, your post are often in that mystic metaphorical style that leaves simple minded people like me scratching my head

”Mystic metaphorical style” -> that’s a new criticism of my communication style that I haven’t heard before. I’m really not sure how to process it. How would you like for me to speak with you?

i knew that, i thought i remember you being messianic Jewish or something like that but couldnt remember. what church you go to does not change anything IMO, Jesus said dont cheat on your wife, which doesnt change if your Catholic, Baptist or Morman. people use the name calling when they want to avoid engagement.

 

[JohnDB]

I stopped reading after you said Peter isn’t the first Pope. I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a Catholic. I even stated explicitly that Peter is not the first pope.

It's amazing to me....

People like to talk AT each other instead of with each other. They don't bother with what has been said or discussed....at BEST they gloss over....very low reading comprehension used.

We're, I think, in agreement that the "Rock" is a euphemism for the elephant of sin that everyone ignores while explaining how good God/Jesus is. (Thanx for the intro into Barclay's stuff....gonna look more when I get time)

Considering the two most important commandments (as Jesus described them) you would think that people would focus on relationships more....especially layup relationships.

Just talking here....

What do you think?

 

[Matthias]

It's amazing to me....

People like to talk AT each other instead of with each other. They don't bother with what has been said or discussed....at BEST they gloss over....very low reading comprehension used.

We're, I think, in agreement that the "Rock" is a euphemism for the elephant of sin that everyone ignores while explaining how good God/Jesus is. (Thanx for the intro into Barclay's stuff....gonna look more when I get time)

Considering the two most important commandments (as Jesus described them) you would think that people would focus on relationships more....especially layup relationships.

Just talking here....

What do you think?

I think he went to a lot of effort based on a misunderstanding of my position. Perhaps he hasn’t read all that I said. Maybe he assumes that only a Catholic could believe Jesus called Peter “rock” and didn’t read the Protestant commentaries I quoted. It’s unfortunate but not something that would endanger further conversation between us, if he wants it.

 

[Muna]

I stopped reading after you said Peter isn’t the first Pope. I’m a Jewish monotheist, not a Catholic. I even stated explicitly that Peter is not the first pope.

Yeah, I mean if we would even use the word pope for kicks, (which basically means papa, or father) we could say true Pope is the Holy Father (which is in heaven) Who was the one that revealed His Son (the Petra) unto Peter (Petros) upon which the church would be built.

I don't see how Peter's profession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God would somehow make him a chief stone, or some sort of Apostle and High Priest above all the rest of them that would remain Christ's

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus

Their would be profession

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him,

Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,

but my Father which is in heaven.

Later Jesus said,

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The pope (as he is called on earth) usurps the position of the Apostle and high priest of their sect's profession by replacing it first with the apostle Peter (which place, and profession belongs to Jesus Christ), not only that but giving the honourable title of "Holy Father" which belongs to God the Father only.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father.

But Jesus (again) tells the apostles themselves not to do this

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The church would still be built upon the foundation of the plurality of apostles but the first foundation to be laid in the construction of a masonry foundation is the cornerstone and that would be Christ.

Ephes 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

I don't get the whole pope thing, never made sense. Him and his bullet proof mini van, if he is afraid to die, what hope have we?

Just pulling your chain

 

[Bladerunner]

Yeah, I mean if we would even use the word pope for kicks, (which basically means papa, or father) we could say true Pope is the Holy Father (which is in heaven) Who was the one that revealed His Son (the Petra) unto Peter (Petros) upon which the church would be built.

I don't see how Peter's profession of Jesus Christ as the Son of God would somehow make him a chief stone, or some sort of Apostle and High Priest above all the rest of them that would remain Christ's

Hebrews 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus

Their would be profession

Matt 16:16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.

Mat 16:17 And Jesus answered and said unto him,

Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee,

but my Father which is in heaven.

Later Jesus said,

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The pope (as he is called on earth) usurps the position of the Apostle and high priest of their sect's profession by replacing it first with the apostle Peter (which place, and profession belongs to Jesus Christ), not only that but giving the honourable title of "Holy Father" which belongs to God the Father only.

John 17:11 And now I am no more in the world, but these are in the world, and I come to thee. Holy Father.

But Jesus (again) tells the apostles themselves not to do this

Mat 23:9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

The church would still be built upon the foundation of the plurality of apostles but the first foundation to be laid in the construction of a masonry foundation is the cornerstone and that would be Christ.

Ephes 2:20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;

I don't get the whole pope thing, never made sense. Him and his bullet proof mini van, if he is afraid to die, what hope have we?

Just pulling your chain

the Pope accordingly is the "Vicar of Christ" or the replacement of Jesus Christ here on earth.

 

[Muna]

the Pope accordingly is the "Vicar of Christ" or the replacement of Jesus Christ here on earth.

That too, The term "Pope" originates from the Latin word pāpa, meaning "father," and is derived from the Ancient Greek word πάππας (páppas), which also means "father". This title was historically used for all bishops in the early centuries of Christianity, but it eventually became specifically associated with the Bishop of Rome. The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome and the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church, is thus referred to as "Father" in a formal and reverent sense. The title "Holy Father" is used as an honorific for the Pope, signifying his role as the head of the Church, though the Catholic Church teaches that this title reflects the sanctity of the office, not the personal holiness of the individual, as only God is truly holy.

Which is another thing concerning the pope, and given the title "Holy Father" (which belongs to God the Father) for the signifying that his role is as "Head of the church"

When the head of the Church is Jesus Christ

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

And the head of Christ is God

1 Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Doesn't make any sense that the pope is in there at all.

 

[Bladerunner]

That too, The term "Pope" originates from the Latin word pāpa, meaning "father," and is derived from the Ancient Greek word πάππας (páppas), which also means "father". This title was historically used for all bishops in the early centuries of Christianity, but it eventually became specifically associated with the Bishop of Rome. The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome and the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church, is thus referred to as "Father" in a formal and reverent sense. The title "Holy Father" is used as an honorific for the Pope, signifying his role as the head of the Church, though the Catholic Church teaches that this title reflects the sanctity of the office, not the personal holiness of the individual, as only God is truly holy.

Which is another thing concerning the pope, and given the title "Holy Father" (which belongs to God the Father) for the signifying that his role is as "Head of the church"

When the head of the Church is Jesus Christ

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

And the head of Christ is God

1 Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Doesn't make any sense that the pope is in there at all.

Vicar of Christ

Vicar of Christ, A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ

www.catholic.com

 

[Bladerunner]

That too, The term "Pope" originates from the Latin word pāpa, meaning "father," and is derived from the Ancient Greek word πάππας (páppas), which also means "father". This title was historically used for all bishops in the early centuries of Christianity, but it eventually became specifically associated with the Bishop of Rome. The Pope, as the Bishop of Rome and the spiritual leader of the Roman Catholic Church, is thus referred to as "Father" in a formal and reverent sense. The title "Holy Father" is used as an honorific for the Pope, signifying his role as the head of the Church, though the Catholic Church teaches that this title reflects the sanctity of the office, not the personal holiness of the individual, as only God is truly holy.

Which is another thing concerning the pope, and given the title "Holy Father" (which belongs to God the Father) for the signifying that his role is as "Head of the church"

When the head of the Church is Jesus Christ

Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

And the head of Christ is God

1 Cr 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

Doesn't make any sense that the pope is in there at all.

Yet, the Church of Christ is not the Church that Jesus built. the church (RCC) was not thought of at that time.

 

[Muna]

Vicar of Christ

Vicar of Christ, A title of the pope implying his supreme and universal primacy, both of honor and of jurisdiction, over the Church of Christ

www.catholic.com

I tried not click on links, you have a quick summary of what you want me to look at?

 

[Muna]

Yet, the Church of Christ is not the Church that Jesus built. the church (RCC) was not thought of at that time.

That went over my head, the Church of Christ is not the church that Jesus built?