|
|||||||
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
RC Church & Pope Invented in
586 AD
Andrew responds: Dear Nicholas, Have I been offensive to you? I will attempt with even greater purpose to leave you and your intentions out of this post and we shall see if you still delete it. Purged of any early asides, here are my comments. Nicholas writes: You MISS the obvious as well. To be the "first Pope" Peter would not only have to sell his soul to the devil he would also have to be well over 500 years of age!! The Catholic Church officially began in 538 AD. The "Gates of hell" have prevailed over this church since it's birth. How can this be the church Jesus spoke of? PLUS, Peter = Petre = Rock = Jesus! THAT's what the Lord meant. It was Peters FAITH that the Church would be built on. Truth is truth... Andrew responds: How do I respond to such a post? It makes no sense to me. Why would Peter have to sell his soul to the devil to be the first pope? Where do you get the date of 538 for the institution of the Catholic Church. Rather than proving your case from Scripture, you malign the papacy and the Catholic Church as under the authority of the gates of hell. Further, is it not possible that "rock" is sometimes used for Christ and in other contexts, for Simon PETER? Christ is the great rock of our salvation, that none can deny. Nevertheless, Simon's name is changed to Peter (rock) and he is given a ministerial charge from our Lord. The title "pope" comes from a Latin term, which is derived from Greek for a small child's word for his papa or father. There is historical evidence that it was used to refer to all Christian episcopoi or bishops as early as the third century. Between the fifth and the sixth centuries it became exclusive to the bishops of Rome. These are honest facts. The argument is with the scope of authority granted the head shepherd of the Church. Cyprian asserts the primacy of the bishop of Rome in the mid-third century. How could he do so if, as you say, there was no institution until 538? Some of your assumptions must be false. Catholics see themselves in the words of Matthew 28:18-20: And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age." And their papacy in Matthew 16:18: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death (gates of hell) shall not prevail against it." They would argue that the Scriptural testimony is clear, and is confirmed by history, the Church endures century after century despite all obstacles. They would claim that Christ's Church did not cease to exist and have to be reinvented at a later date. Such a hypothesis sounds ridiculous to all ears! They claim that man-made religions cannot compete against the divine institution of the Catholic Church. Adding the next verse, Catholics would contend that Matthew 16:18-19 illustrates that Peter had papal authority (although the title would only come into use later): "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death (gates of hell) shall not prevail against it. I will give you (Peter) the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. And 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. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, etc." Later Our Lord seems to make Simon-Peter pastor of both the lambs and the sheep, that is His whole flock in John 21: 15-17: When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep." Our Lord promised that Peter would confirm the faith of the other Apostles in Luke 22:32: " . . . but I have prayed for you [Peter] that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren." Catholics contend that changing Simon's name to Peter, our Lord established his Church with Peter at its head. They conclude that any church separated from the See of Peter is not the true Church of Christ. Nicholas writes: The Pope claims to be "Infallable" in Religious matters eh? Andrew responds: Actually Nicholas, the word is spelled INFALLIBLE. Nicholas writes: Notice these "Religious matters"... The commentator, Adam Clarke, gives the following information: "The Latin church, supreme in power and infallible in judgment (?), placed it on the twenty-fifth of December, the very day in which the ancient Romans celebrated the feast of their goddess Bruma.... Pope Julius I was the person who made this alteration, and it appears to have been done for this reason: the sun now began his return toward the northern tropic, ending the winter, lengthening the days, and introducing the spring."-- Notes to Luke 2:8. Andrew responds: You would take the word of a self-professed atheist over a man who professes Christ as Savior and Lord? Nicholas writes: The valuable testimony of J. Murdock, D. D., is in harmony with the above: "It was Julius I (Bishop of Rome, A.D. 337-352) who first ascertained this to be the right day; and though his authority is not the best, yet it is generally admitted that the designation of the twenty-fifth of December for the festival was first made about the middle of the fourth century."-- Ecclesiastical History, by Mosheim, Vol. I, page 279. From Johnson's Encyclopedia and other sources we also learn that Julius I, Bishop of Rome, appointed the twenty-fifth of December for the celebration of Christ's birth. All this proves very plainly, (1) that the birth of Christ was not universally celebrated by the Christians during the first three centuries; (2) that it was the Latin church which first ordained it to be celebrated on the twenty-fifth of December; (3) that it was Julius I, Bishop of Rome, who made the appointment; (4) and this proves that Christmas is a genuine Roman Catholic institution. I thought the Pope was infallable in the order of "religious things? Here we see that the Pope declared Jesus born on Dec 25. Yet anyone who has done the slightest bit of research in Biblical blood lines, and prophetic timings can tell you this is impossible, Jesus was NOT born in the Winter. One obvious reason besides the Biblical facts... The Shepards would not have been outside tending sheep to SEE the Angel in the Winter proclaiming the birth of Jesus. They do NOT tend sheep in Winter there. Luke 2:8-12, "And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid. And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people. For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord. And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger." Andrew responds: Ah, Nicholas, I hate to tell you this but the Catholic Church has always acknowledged that the designation of the date for Christmas was arbitrary. Evidently they sought to Christianize the feasts of the people to shore up their Christian faith. The Philocalian Calendar from the year 336 marks Christmas as December 25. The feast was then called NATUS CHRISTUS IN BETLEEM JUDEAE. Most Eastern Christians and Catholics celebrate the nativity on January 6 (the Epiphany). Clement of Alexandria (in the third century) speculated that the actual date was probably around May 20. This conflicts with how you read various authorities and your suggestion that the Catholic Church was only instituted in the sixth century. As for the Scriptures and the case of the shepherds, I have more bad news for you. I have been to the Holy Land and it is largely an arid desert. The climate is different (warmer) than what many of us know. Guess what? The nomadic shepherds still care for their flocks all year long. Please do not get upset. I am only trying to help. We must all remain honest. By the way, when do you celebrate Christmas? Do you? Nicholas writes: BTW... Comparing the Pope to Godly Men of the Old Testament is laughable to say the least. The men of old were Bible believers. the Pope is not. He believes in Evolution, Homosexuality, Gambling, Murder, Lies, Drunkeness, Wars, Torture, etc etc etc. (For all the DOCUMENTED PROOF of these claims, email me for a free copy!) Andrew responds: Have you read much of what this current Pope has to say? He wrote an entire letter on the Gospel of Life where he urged us to treat all life as irreplaceable and precious. He sees the dignity of life as being a core element to the proclamation of the Gospel. He has condemned the sin of sodomy while urging homosexuals to live chaste lives as beloved children of God. He has even chastised Allied bombing of Iraq and yet you claim he promotes war. Indeed, many claim that his active faith and work behind the scenes, particularly with the Polish Solidarity movement lead to the collapse of European Communism and the eminent threat of World War III. Who has he tortured? While complimenting scientists on their research into human origins, he has never denied in official documents the Church's stance that men and women were created by almighty God. I have tried to be a learned man and I have attempted to be fair. Never have I sought to shove aside God's Holy Word. I have not come here to insult you. Rather, I hope to come here as a colleague and friend. While my observations might seem adversarial, they are only small attempts at helping you to see things in a more comprehensive way. Yes, truth is the truth. But, before any of us, myself included, become self-righteous, we had better make sure that we have not closed our eyes to some element of it. I am not here to debate you, only to dialogue. I hope you will not be threatened by a few words. Did you keep copies of the concerns I posted and you deleted? Andrew "So we ought to support such men, that we may be fellow workers in the truth" (3 John 8).
|