RCC Theologians have accused the pope of heresy. The last time they did so in 1333

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

Waggles

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2017
1,984
343
83
South Australia
adelaiderevival.com
#21
History is history
Boniface III was the first Bishop of Rome to obtain supreme authority over all other Bishops
and also instigated rules concerning the election of future successors.
 

NHR

New member
Jun 11, 2018
29
5
3
#22
History is history
Boniface III was the first Bishop of Rome to obtain supreme authority over all other Bishops
and also instigated rules concerning the election of future successors.
Wrong, I have already quoted from the first century that states the pope in Rome is head of the entire church.

But to believe this myth you have to deny scripture that states Jesus left a steward to watch over His church (Luke 12).

Another obvious problem is that this pope was as you admit pope Boniface III. Hang on? doesn't that mean there were 2 pope Bonifaces before him? Really?
 

notuptome

Senior Member
May 17, 2013
11,865
625
113
#23
Wrong, I have already quoted from the first century that states the pope in Rome is head of the entire church.

But to believe this myth you have to deny scripture that states Jesus left a steward to watch over His church (Luke 12).

Another obvious problem is that this pope was as you admit pope Boniface III. Hang on? doesn't that mean there were 2 pope Bonifaces before him? Really?
The "steward" left to watch over the church is not any pope but the third person of the Godhead. The Holy Spirit is the Vicar of Christ.

John 14:15-18

For the cause of Christ
Roger
 

Nehemiah6

Senior Member
Jul 18, 2017
5,801
553
113
#24
If Jesus is not speaking of Peter then the sentence does not make sense.
Actually Jesus was speaking about Himself as the Rock. But we do not get that meaning when reading the English translation of Matthew 16:18.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

Petros (Πέτρος ) which is Peter means stone or boulder.

Petra (πέτρᾳ) which is Christ means a huge mass of rock or a cliff.

The Spanish translation from 1569 (Reformation period) clarifies this quite well:

Mateo 16:18 Spanish: Sagradas Escrituras 1569
Mas yo también te digo, que tú eres Pedro una piedra pequeña [small rock], y sobre la piedra grande [large rock] edificaré mi Iglesia; y las puertas del infierno no prevalecerán contra ella.
 

Waggles

Senior Member
Sep 21, 2017
1,984
343
83
South Australia
adelaiderevival.com
#25
nother obvious problem is that this pope was as you admit pope Boniface III. Hang on? doesn't that mean there were 2 pope Bonifaces before him? Really?
No it just means that there were two previous Bishops of Rome whose names were Boniface.
Also the RCC has rewritten much history to create the historical myth that the succession of Popes goes
in an unbroken continuous line of Papal rule back to the Apostle Peter himself.

Complete rubbish.
 
Jun 17, 2018
657
212
43
#26
I think Jesus got it right when he said let the dead bury their dead.

Unbiblical people arguing about unbiblical theology aren't worth bothering about.
I agree to an extent. I do think it a worthy endeavor to pray Roman Catholics find Christ and come out of an unbiblical circumstance.
 
Jun 17, 2018
657
212
43
#27
Actually Jesus was speaking about Himself as the Rock. But we do not get that meaning when reading the English translation of Matthew 16:18.

κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω ὅτι σὺ εἶ Πέτρος καὶ ἐπὶ ταύτῃ τῇ πέτρᾳ οἰκοδομήσω μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ πύλαι ᾅδου οὐ κατισχύσουσιν αὐτῆς

Petros (Πέτρος ) which is Peter means stone or boulder.

Petra (πέτρᾳ) which is Christ means a huge mass of rock or a cliff.

The Spanish translation from 1569 (Reformation period) clarifies this quite well:

Mateo 16:18 Spanish: Sagradas Escrituras 1569
Mas yo también te digo, que tú eres Pedro una piedra pequeña [small rock], y sobre la piedra grande [large rock] edificaré mi Iglesia; y las puertas del infierno no prevalecerán contra ella.
Jesus and the rock are also in the old testament. Psalm 118:22 The stone that the builders rejected became the chief cornerstone [Luke 20:17; Acts 4:11; Eph. 2:20; 1 Pet. 2:7].

Matthew 21:42
42 Jesus said to them, “·Surely you have read [L Haven’t you ever read…?] this in the Scriptures:
‘The stone that the builders rejected
became the cornerstone [capstone; keystone; L head of the corner; C the meaning is uncertain, but clearly refers to the most important stone in the building; Jesus is the rejected stone].
The Lord did this,
and it is ·wonderful [amazing; marvelous] ·to us [for us to see;L in our eyes; Ps. 118:22–23].’
 
Jun 29, 2018
63
75
18
32
#28
It takes some pretty heavy interpretive acrobatics to derive from Luke 2:35 that we are to make intercession through Mary. I've included verse 34 to establish context:
(Luke 2:34-35) Then Simeon blessed them and said to Mary, his mother: “This child is destined to cause the falling and rising of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed. And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

In the entirety of Simeon's proclamation, the only words directed towards Mary concerning herself are "And a sword will pierce your own soul too.”

As for Psalm 45, it flat out isn't about Mary at all. In keeping with the context of the entire Scriptures, the daughter spoken of is the daughter of Zion, aka the Church which is wed to the King at the marriage supper of the Lamb.

You can't expect to arrive at a correct interpretation if you start at the Catholic Catechism and try to hammer the Scriptures in around it. You have to start at the Scriptures and let them interpret themselves.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,526
189
63
57
#29
Here is the biblical description of the church.
Show any faith other than catholic that meets this description...
Jesus [did not] gave Peter authority over the church, and is
so wrong to say the pope is now the the vicar of Christ.

The Rock

Then Jesus added: “And I say also unto thee, That thou art
Peter” (Greek inspired original word, Petros, meaning a stone),

“and upon this rock” (Greek inspired original word, petra,
meaning a ledge or shelf of rock or a crag) “I will build my
church …” (Matthew 16:18).

Peter was also called Cephas (Greek Képhas, from the Aramaic Kêpha).
In John 1:40-42 is related how Andrew,Simon Peter’s brother, found Peter,
and brought him to Jesus.“And when Jesus beheld him, he said,
Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas,
which is by interpretation, a stone”

The English word stone is translated from the Greek word petros,
meaning a single stone or loose stone. Also the Greek word Kephas
means such a stone, referring definitely to a human man.

when Jesus said “upon this rock I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18),

the Greek word, as written originally by Matthew, was not either Kephas or petros,
but petra, which means a large massive rock.

a few other passages where this same Greek word petra is used. In Matthew 7:24,
Jesus spoke of the man who built his house on a rock. The Greek word is petra

In Matthew 27:60, it is stated that the tomb in which Jesus was buried, after the crucifixion,
was hewn out in the rock — in the petra! This is a mass of rock, not a single stone.

The Greek petra cannot mean the human Peter, but the glorified Christ! Speaking of the
Israelites under Moses, in the wilderness, Paul writes: “… for they drank of that spiritual
Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ” (1 Corinthians 10:4).

In plain language, then, that petra was Christ—but the
smaller stone, petros, or Kephas, was Simon Peter.


Behold, I lay in Sion [the Church] a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that
believeth on him shall not be confounded. Unto you therefore which believe he is
precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed,
the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of
offense, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also
they were appointed” (1 Peter 2:6-8).

In the above passage Peter is speaking to the Church.

He quoted from Isaiah 28:16: “Therefore thus saith the Lord God, Behold, I lay in Zion
for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation”!

This pictures Christ as that foundation of the Church, on which it is built.
God’s Church was built on the ROCK (its foundation),Christ—not on the stone, Peter

The Church is described in Ephesians 2:20 as being “built upon the foundation of the
apostles and prophets [including Old Testament prophets], Jesus Christ himself being
the chief corner stone.”

“For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid,
which is Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 3:11)

“I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee” (Hebrews 13:5)He is shown
in Revelation 1:13, 18 to be the living Head, spiritually in the midst of the Church.

“Christ is the head of the church”! (Ephesians 5:23). Read it
also in Ephesians 4:15; 1:22; Colossians 1:18; 2:19.

He has been the living Head and High
Priest of the true Church, which He built.


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.
Mat 16:18 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.
Mat 16:19 And 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.


In the Greek the word for Peter and Rock are different. We find this written about the Rock...

1Co 10:4 And did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock
that followed them: and that Rock was Christ.

1Pe 2:6 Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner
stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded.
1Pe 2:7 Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient,
the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner,
1Pe 2:8 And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the
word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.


In these cases the Rock is referring to Christ, not Peter.

Keys to the Kingdom, binding and loosing?

Suppose the one who bears the keys through the primacy of Peter decides to worship the Devil.
Will that be bound in heaven? Now I know that is an extreme case but it makes the point.

Let's look at this. First of all the key is a symbol of authority...

Isa 22:22 And the key of the house of David will I lay upon his shoulder; so he shall open,
and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.

Rev 3:7 And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write; These things saith he that is holy,
he that is true, he that hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth,
and no man openeth;

Do we then suppose that Peter would allow or deny access into the Kingdom of God?
Pretty sure that is not the case...

Joh 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

Here it plainly says that Christ does ALL judging. So how are we then to understand...

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing
that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

Context...

Mat 18:15 Moreover if thy brother shall trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault between
thee and him alone: if he shall hear thee, thou hast gained thy brother.
Mat 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of
two or three witnesses every word may be established.
Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear
the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican.

Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven:
and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.
Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing
that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven.
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.

The context is how to deal with a brother that has wronged you. Step by step conflict resolution...

1) First and foremost, go directly to him and talk to him.
If you can come to resolution, great! If not...
2) Take two or three witnesses (impartial, I should add) and again talk to him.
If you come to resolution great. If not...
3) Take the matter to the church. If he still won't come to resolution,
then he is to be put out of the church.

When these steps are done correctly and in good faith, then the decision is bound
in heaven as well as on earth in the church.

This procedure is not to change doctrine established in the Bible, it is to deal with
case by case situations that arise and are not covered by Biblical precedents.
 

prove-all

Senior Member
May 16, 2014
5,526
189
63
57
#30
Wrong, I have already quoted from the first century that states the pope in Rome
is head of the entire church.

But to believe this myth you have to deny scripture that states Jesus left a steward
to watch over His church (Luke 12).

Another obvious problem is that this pope was as you admit pope Boniface III. Hang on?
doesn't that mean there were 2 pope Bonifaces before him? Really?
The Two Peters – One An Apostle And One The First Pope
http://romancatholicbeliefs.org/was-the-apostle-peter-the-first-pope/
 
Jul 9, 2017
93
0
6
#31
Jul 9, 2017
93
0
6
#32
Miri wrote,

"Unbiblical people arguing about unbiblical theology aren't worth bothering about."

How is it unbiblical?
 

vic1980

Senior Member
Apr 25, 2013
1,522
141
63
38
#33
It is quite obvious that the rock, that Our Lord was referring to, was Peter.
Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that thee apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church , this means Peter did not have a title over thee others apostles for he was equal with them as so were the prophets of God. Christ our Lord and Savior is the chief corner stone .

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

Shalom
 
Jul 9, 2017
93
0
6
#34
Paul wrote by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that thee apostles and prophets were the foundation of the church , this means Peter did not have a title over thee others apostles for he was equal with them as so were the prophets of God. Christ our Lord and Savior is the chief corner stone .

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

Shalom
It is true that St. Paul spoke of the apostles and the prophets as a foundation but it is also true that Our Lord singled out St. Peter as being the rock on which He would build His Church and He also gave him the keys. All of this means that Our Lord gave St. Peter an authority that He did not give to the other Apostles.
Blessings in Christ Our Lord
 

Adstar

Senior Member
Jul 24, 2016
2,966
242
63
#35
Several dozen conservative Catholic theologians, priests, and academics have formally accused the current Pope of France of spreading heresy. He was supposed to do so in 2016 by publishing the Amoris laetitia (The Joy of Love), in which he expressed openness to the divorced and re-married believers.


The accusations in the form of a 25-page letter were signed by 62 signatories and handed over to Vatican in August. Theologians accuse the Pope of holding and spreading seven heretical attitudes related to marriage, moral life, and sacraments.

The letter is in the form of the Correctio filialis de haeresibus propagatis or "The Correction of Spreading Heresies". Lastly, this form of warning to the head of the Catholic Church was used against Pope John XXII. in 1333. The Pope renounced his "delusions", but only on the deathbed.

In connection with the Joy of Love, pope Francis was sent four cardinal letters last year, calling for clarification of some doubts.The pope has not yet responded to any of the initiatives.

-----

Taken and translated from (only in Czech) https://www.novinky.cz/zahranicni/e...irstvi-naposledy-tak-ucinili-v-roce-1333.html
Well according to the catholic religion those conservative theologians are automatically heretics for stating that the pope is spreading heresy.. A core dogma of the catholic religion is that the pope is one in a long line of infallible leaders starting from peter who's pronouncements on doctrine are always correct..

In the good old days these 62 signatories would have been promptly arrested and burnt at the stake..

Time and time again the catholic religion shows itself to be a corrupt and false religion..
 
Jul 9, 2017
93
0
6
#36
May the peace of Christ be with you.

Adstar wrote,

Well according to the catholic religion those conservative theologians are automatically heretics for stating that the pope is spreading heresy..
But where does it say that they are automatically heretics? St. Catherine of Sienna criticized the Pope for not being in Rome and she is a saint and a Doctor of the Church. What those Cardinals did and, subsequent signatories, was to issue a filial correction. Here are details of what that entails,
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/questions-and-answers-on-the-filial-correction-38558

A core dogma of the catholic religion is that the pope is one in a long line of infallible leaders starting from peter who's pronouncements on doctrine are always correct..
I would not say that it is a core dogma but it is a dogma. Also, not everything that the Pope says is infallible. In fact, there have only been two ex cathreda statements since Vatican I.

In the good old days these 62 signatories would have been promptly arrested and burnt at the stake..
Not true. Take, for example, St. Catherine of Sienna.

Time and time again the catholic religion shows itself to be a corrupt and false religion.
How?