Where does the Pope get his authority?

  • Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.

    You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Jesus later explained that there was always a deeper meaning to His words than a simple literal perspective.
KJV John 6:53-63
53 Then Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56 He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57 As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
59 These things said he in the synagogue, as he taught in Capernaum.
60 Many therefore of his disciples, when they had heard this, said, This is an hard saying; who can hear it?
61 When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you?
62 What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?
63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing:

And here is the clincher, Jesus being the Word and the Bread of Life...
the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.
It is the Word of God, the scriptures, that bring life. The Word of Truth,

KJV John 17:17
17 Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.
Yup, He said THE flesh profitieth nothing. He didn't say MY flesh profiteth nothing.

In John 6 He TOLD us that we must eat His flesh of which he compared to manna (bread).

Several months later He SHOWED us HOW to eat His flesh (bread) at the Last Supper saying it IS His body.

30 years later Paul said that the bread which we eat IS a participation in the body of Christ.

You say HIS flesh profiteth nothing when He didn't say that.
You say He wasn't being literal when he literally said You must eat my flesh.
You say that the bread at the Last Supper was not His flesh when he said it IS his flesh.
You call Paul a liar when he says the bread which we eat IS a participation in the body of Christ.

That's 4 strikes...you're OUT +1 ;)

Sooooo how do you eat his flesh Brakelite?
 
Last edited:

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Dead Bread, you didn't answer the question.

BTW, let's be honest. If NAMBLA ever held a "Pastoral Pedophile Olympics" the papacy would win Gold, Silver, and Bronze before the rest of Christianity even finished lacing up their shoes.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From Scripture!
Ain't if funny how the papacy claims its authority is superior to the very book it claims to derive it's authority?

Maybe they ought to read where Paul said, "the less is blessed of the better" and not the other way around.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Berean

Brakelite

Well-Known Member
Feb 6, 2020
8,568
6,415
113
Melbourne
brakelite.wordpress.com
Faith
Christian
Country
Australia
Your warped, Ellen White-vomited Biblical perversions aside – the Pope got his power from Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:18-19, John 21:15-19)not a dragon and not the Beast,
Jesus did not give any man the authority or power to persecute those that disagreed with him. That power, that authority, came from the emperor Justinian, which was later included in Roman law, and spread into Catholic canon law.
Justinian’s ambitions to reunite the Roman Empire were matched by a desire to create complete ecclesiastical unity. Therefore, he also—so far as the West was concerned—“regarded his project somewhat as a crusade to rescue the Catholics from Arian rule.” To this end, he took a step quite contrary to the normal tendency at Constantinople: he decided to elevate the Roman pontiff over the entire church. According to several historians, the emperor stated this in a letter to Pope John II (b. ?–535, reigned from 533) in that pontiff’s accession year. Justinian said he had taken pains to unite all the priests of the Eastern church, subjecting them to the pope, “because you are the Head of all the holy churches (quia caput est omnium sanctarum ecclesiarum).” This decision was incorporated in the Civil Code. In various parts of it, the same idea is repeated—as in the 131st Novella, which states: “Hence, in accordance with the provisions of these Councils, we order that the Most Holy Pope of ancient Rome shall hold the first rank of all the Pontiffs, but the Most Blessed Archbishop of Constantinople, or New Rome, shall occupy the second place after the Holy Apostolic See of ancient Rome, which shall take precedence over all other sees.”

KJV Revelation 13:2
2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.

Elsewhere in scripture, the dragon is described as that power, Satan, that stood before the woman to kill the child as soon as he was born. This is clearly a reference to the attempts by the Roman puppet King Herod to kill Jesus as an infant. The child however as we know, survived and was taken to heaven, after which the woman, prophetically meaning the church, went into the wilderness to escape persecution. Satan could not personally persecute anyone. But he used agents to accomplish that instead. First were the Jews themselves through Saul who became Paul the apostle. Then the pagan Romans, then the Catholic emperors, especially Justinian, followed later by Roman pontiffs on the basis of the authority invested in them by Justinian.
They all represented the dragon, and did his work, and it was Justinian who granted the Pope his seat, his power, and great authority. That is where papal power came from. Petrine succession didn't enter into it, although succession of authority was an Italian tradition particularly among the aristocracy. Simony was also used on various occasions to secure the papal tiara, which Vigilius of that time did even while the former Pope Silverius was still alive. Interesting that while Silverius was canonized later, Vigilius is still recognised in the list of succession, supposedly after the invocation of the holy Ghost. Strange that God would arrange such a turn of events in order to establish the successor of Peter to the throne.
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
594
424
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Ain't if funny how the papacy claims its authority is superior to the very book it claims to derive it's authority?

Maybe they ought to read where Paul said, "the less is blessed of the better" and not the other way around.
The popes don't claim authority from the Bible. They claim their authority comes from Apostolic Succession.

That is, they make out like there is an unbroken succession of apostles who handed down their authority through the generations. Does that idea hold water? Not at all. A quick survey of the popes through the Dark Ages shows many of them were supremely evil men. If such a succession ever existed, it ended long long ago.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Fundamentalists are categorised officially by the US government as terrorists. The Pope Cumberland fundamentalists because they i are violent. As I said, join the dots.
Translation: I'm doubling down on my lie.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
From Scripture!
Lol....Scripture doesn't give you authority. Scripture tells us WHO has authority (The Church) and it NEVER at NO POINT is written in Scripture that YOU or I or your neighbor gets their individual authority from Scripture.

Here is what Scripture does say about men who think they can read, interpret Scripture on their own: 2 Peter 3:16
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The popes don't claim authority from the Bible. They claim their authority comes from Apostolic Succession.

That is, they make out like there is an unbroken succession of apostles who handed down their authority through the generations. Does that idea hold water? Not at all. A quick survey of the popes through the Dark Ages shows many of them were supremely evil men. If such a succession ever existed, it ended long long ago.
Hey Wick Stick,

The NT has many verses in them that show Apostolic Succession. Council of Jerusalem is the clearest incident. Since you know Scripture so well, I won't repeat all of them. With that fact in hand, when did Apostolic Succession end?

Also, if you had letters from a student of an Apostle, would what they wrote hold more water doctrine wise for you OR would what men from the Reformation wrote hold more water for you?
 

Berean

Member
Feb 29, 2024
31
15
8
Bronx
www.biblestudentsforum.com
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Here is what Scripture does say about men who think they can read, interpret Scripture on their own: 2 Peter 3:16
"speaking of it in all his letters. In them, there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable distort in the same way that they distort the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." - New Catholic Bible

Well there you have it. That definitely applies to the Papacy
 

Wick Stick

Well-Known Member
Sep 21, 2023
594
424
63
44
Phoenix
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Hey Wick Stick,

The NT has many verses in them that show Apostolic Succession. Council of Jerusalem is the clearest incident. Since you know Scripture so well, I won't repeat all of them.
In Acts 15? I don't see it there. You could make a case from Acts 1 (the appointment of Matthias) or from the pastoral epistles. I would reject both of those arguments, but you could make a reasonable case.
With that fact in hand, when did Apostolic Succession end?
It never started. The criteria to be an apostle is that one receives a commission directly from Jesus Christ. There are apostles after the original 12... Paul is the exemplar but if you read through the early church writings Jesus appeared to a number of people.
Also, if you had letters from a student of an Apostle, would what they wrote hold more water doctrine wise for you OR would what men from the Reformation wrote hold more water for you?
As a rule, I believe that works of prophecy trump everything else. Beyond that I generally place more weight on older books.

The early church fathers are more profitable to me. I am very fond of Justin, the Didache, and find some usefulness in Irenaeus. The Reformer's err where they create new theology. Their value lies in their scraping away bad bits of theology that had accumulated over the centuries, and in their work translating the Bible into the common tongues.

I'd take the Deuterocanon over both of them, as well as some of the Pseudepigraphal books. And of course the canonical books rate higher.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
In Acts 15? I don't see it there. You could make a case from Acts 1 (the appointment of Matthias) or from the pastoral epistles. I would reject both of those arguments, but you could make a reasonable case.
Matthias LITERALLY succeeded (replaced) Judas; And he (Matthias) was numbered with the eleven apostles. Peter cites the Psalms (“May their camp be a desolation, let no one dwell in their tents” [69:25] and “May his days be few; may another seize his goods!” [109:8]) when they replaced Judas with Mathias. Is your theory that once Mathias is dead no one replaces him via a vote or appointment? Or when anyone that Mathias appoints to lead a church dies that person isn't replaced by a vote?

In 1 Timothy 1:6 and 4:14 Paul reminds Timothy that the office of bishop had been conferred on him through the laying on of hands. In 1 Timothy 5:22 that Paul advises Timothy not to be hasty in handing on this authority to others. In Titus Paul describes the apostolic authority Titus had received and urges him to act decisively in this leadership role. In 2 Timothy 2:2 Paul says to Timothy, And the things that thou hast heard of me among many witnesses, the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also. That's 3 generations of Apostolic Succession. Are you suggesting Paul thought it was ok for Apostolic Succession to end after 3 generations?

In Paul's letter to Titus he wrote: For this reason I left you in Crete, that you should set in order the things that are lacking, and appoint elders in every city as I commanded you—That passage means that an appointed elder who is succeeding Paul, Titus, is authorized to appoint elders in every city. Titus succeeds Paul and anyone that Titus appoints succeeds him etc etc.

It doesn't matter what YOU reject. I accept Scripture...not your opinion.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
(Apostolic Succession) It never started. The criteria to be an apostle is that one receives a commission directly from Jesus Christ. There are apostles after the original 12... Paul is the exemplar but if you read through the early church writings Jesus appeared to a number of people.
Nope, not true. Apostolic Succession is when a man of The Church succeeds an Apostle. That LITERALLY happened with Mathias.
 

Phoneman777

Well-Known Member
Jan 14, 2015
7,405
2,596
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
The popes don't claim authority from the Bible. They claim their authority comes from Apostolic Succession.

That is, they make out like there is an unbroken succession of apostles who handed down their authority through the generations. Does that idea hold water? Not at all. A quick survey of the popes through the Dark Ages shows many of them were supremely evil men. If such a succession ever existed, it ended long long ago.
They appeal to the Bible as the proof of that Apostolic Succession. If you question it, invariably they point you to the Bible for "thou art Peter, and upon this Rock..."
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
"speaking of it in all his letters. In them, there are some things that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and the unstable distort in the same way that they distort the other Scriptures, to their own destruction." - New Catholic Bible

Well there you have it. That definitely applies to the Papacy
Lol....How does that apply to the Papacy? You make no sense....and crack me up.
 

Marymog

Well-Known Member
Mar 7, 2017
11,435
1,694
113
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
Fundamentalists are categorised officially by the US government as terrorists.
Ok....AND??? You said the Pope considers Fundamentalists as terrorists; not the US Government!!

You still won't retract your lie, will you? :jest:
 

The Learner

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2022
3,781
1,014
113
67
Brighton
Faith
Christian
Country
United States
If a person says, "the pope is the ringleader of a global child pedophile network who wears a lily white robe of wretchedness" - can he still go to heaven if he professes his utmost love for and implicit trust in Christ alone?
No because:

1 John 4:20
If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen.