quickfire said:
Some popes claiming They have the keys to heaven. They are the New st peter.
The Bishop of Rome (Pope) is the successor to St. Peter. The Apostles (St. Peter) designated successors. Hence the apostolic succession from Peter(32-67) to Linus (67-76) to Anacletus (76-88) to Clement I (88-97), and so on. Here is a list of them all, from Peter to Benedict XVI today ->
LIST OF POPES - LINK
And our Lord gave the office of Vicar of Christ's true Church first to Peter (the keys to heaven), which is naturally passed on to each successor all the way to today with Pope Benedict XVI.
Simon Peter replied, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered him, “Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven.
And I tell you, you are Peter (rock), and on this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you 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.”
Mat 16:16-19
(And for those who will predictably give the "Petros vs Petra argument, the language that Christ spoke was not Greek, but rather Aramaic. The word Christ used was Cephas, not petros or petra. Greek uses gender specific nouns, which English does not. So this makes it difficult for most English speaking Christians to understand. When the Greek NT was written, the author used Petros because it was a male version of "rock". Later in Acts we see Peter take his place among the Apostles as their leader, and he leads them as if he were their leader (which he was).
One more thing here, this idea that petros means a stone or a little rock is simply not true. Matthew was well aware of what 'stone' was in the Greek. It was the word
lithos which, as you will notice by the ending is masculine. But Matthew does not use
lithos even though he uses it ten other places in his gospel. He uses
petra/ petros. As for 'little rock', if you want to find little rock then forget the Bible; you have to go to Arkansas.)
Geo the Main reason you say is the titles They gave to them selfs
Peter was the first "Pope", followed by his designated successors. Mind you that the earliest recorded use of the title "pope" as we know it today in English dates to the mid-10th century, when it was used in reference to Pope Vitalin in an Old English translation of Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People. So no, it is not a title they (as you say) "gave to them selfs".
The title was from the early 3rd century a general term used to refer to all bishops. From the 6th century the title began to be used particularly of the Bishop of Rome, and in the late 11th century Pope Gregory VII issued a declaration that has been widely interpreted as stating this by then established Western convention.
And popes proclaiming to be the vicar of jesus.
By definition a
vicar is a representative, or deputy; anyone acting "in the person of" or agent for a superior. So yes, Peter and his successors are indeed vicar's of Christ, by Christ's own institution of the office. (See Matthew 16:16-19 posted a few lines above.)
I'm looking and you also have a few others like communion ...
There are some other too like what day easter fall's on and christmas.
Communion is plainly taught by our Lord, and we are firmly instructed by Him to follow his instructions on this matter. Although Protestants conveniently skip over these absolutely essential teachings of our Lord unfortunately, or erroneously say that Christ was simply speaking in parable in John 6, or erroneously say that Christ is not truly present in what appears as bread and wine at the Last Supper when Christ took bread and said, “Take, eat; this IS my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you; for this IS my blood." And tells us "DO THIS in remembrance of me."
In John 6 where our Lord tells us, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed."
Paul also instructs us about receiving communion properly when he see's that there are abuses by those doing it improperly in the early Church.
"For I received from the Lord what I also delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus on the night when he was betrayed took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, “This IS my body which is for you. DO THIS in remembrance of me.” In the same way also the cup, after supper, saying, “This cup IS the new covenant in my blood. DO THIS, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of me.” For as often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord’s death until he comes."
And then Paul speaks about the abuse of consuming the body and blood of Christ while in a state of mortal sin (thereby profaning the body and blood of the Lord)...
Abuses at the Lord's Supper-
"Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of profaning the body and blood of the Lord.
For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ (i.e. understanding that it is truly the body and blood of Christ) eat and drink judgment on themselves."
1 Cor 11:23-29
Geo Do you not feal that something is not right here.
Yes, when I see so many Christians today ignoring Christ in what he clearly instructed us to do.
And each pope claiming that this was the right traditional way.?
You are being very vague. What do you mean, specifically?
quickfire said:
Would it not be better just to go of scripture than tradition.
Is Scripture truly the sole rule of faith for Christians? Not according to the Bible. While we must guard against merely human tradition, the Bible contains numerous references to the necessity of clinging to apostolic tradition. Thus Paul tells the Corinthians, "I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2), and he commands the Thessalonians, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess. 2:15). He even goes so far as to order, "Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
To make sure that the apostolic tradition would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.
The early Church Fathers, who were links in that chain of succession, recognized the necessity of the traditions that had been handed down from the apostles and guarded them scrupulously.
As far as your other misconception about the days in which Roman Catholics celebrate Christmas and Easter, well, Catholics celebrate Christmas and Easter the same days as everyone else, so I am not sure what you are trying to get at there.
