What does Scripture say about the pope?

[Messenger]

First, let's see what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about Him:

www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm


First we have this:

Besides the bishopric of the Roman Diocese, certain other dignities are held by the pope as well as the supreme and universal pastorate: he is Archbishop of the Roman Province, Primate of Italy and the adjacent islands, and sole Patriarch of the Western Church. The Church's doctrine as to the pope was authoritatively declared in the Vatican Council in the Constitution "Pastor Aeternus". The four chapters of that Constitution deal respectively with the office of Supreme Head conferred on St. Peter, the perpetuity of this office in the person of the Roman pontiff, the pope's jurisdiction over the faithful, and his supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals. This last point has been sufficiently discussed in the article INFALLIBILITY, and will be only incidentally touched on here.

Now, this doesn't sit right with me., especially when I read this:

supreme authority to define in all questions of faith and morals.

SUPREME AUTHORITY? Just ONE man? And just HOW does he define what is right from what is wrong? By His OWN judgement, or by the leading of the Holy Spirit? This is a situation where ANY man could easily be corrupted, having this much power! (Just something to think about!)

And we have this:

the perpetuity of this office

Where in the NEW TESTEMENT, does it say ANYTHING about the leadership of the church being transferable OR lasting in perptuity?

I can't find it ANYWHERE IN THE NEW TESTEMENT!!!!!!

Then we have this:

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.

MATTHEW 16:17-19
In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:


Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

and this:

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see THE CHURCH, I). "And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house.

Now, I have a BIG problem with this:

Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

The church will be bult on Peter? What does Scripture say here:

1 Corinthians 3:11 (New International Version)

11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE, the foundation of everything that Jesus taught, is JESUS HIMSELF!

So who is the TRUE foundation of BIBLICAL CHRISTIANITY? Jesus or Peter?

Now I want to take a look at the OLD TESTEMENT verses listed above.

The concept of "church" ISN'T an Old Testement concept! Where in the Old Testement, does it say ANYTHING about a church? Yet, the catholics claim this:

Numbers 12:7 (New International Version)

7 But this is not true of my servant Moses;
he is faithful in all my house.

or this:

Jeremiah 12:7 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)

7 "I will forsake my house,
abandon my inheritance;
I will give the one I love
into the hands of her enemies.

or this:

Hosea 8:1 (New International Version)

1 "Put the trumpet to your lips!
An eagle is over the house of the LORD
because the people have broken my covenant
and rebelled against my law.

or this:

Hosea 9:15 (New International Version)

15 "Because of all their wickedness in Gilgal,
I hated them there.
Because of their sinful deeds,
I will drive them out of my house.
I will no longer love them;
all their leaders are rebellious.

NONE of these are even CLOSE to talking about an EARTHLY congregation!

They are ALL metaphors talking about about being in the presence of the Lord!

How can the Catholic Church even BEGIN to claim that these verses refer to ANY KIND of an "earthly" congregation?

Now we have this:

The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:


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

In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place. "And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.

Here we have AGAIN, the term Supreme authority is used.

(Continued below!)

[Messenger]

Then we have:

SUPREME POWER? FOR ONE MAN?

Does anyone else feel uncomforatable with this kind of power being delegated to ONE MAN?

The other thing that I see here, is: What kind of a witness for Christ was Peter anyway? Was he a tryant, that he went around leading the other Apostles & Believers, with an "iron fist, saying-I have supreme authority, & supreme power! You had better not question me!

Based on everything that Peter HAS been recorded as saying in the NEW TESTEMENT, I don't see ANY evidence, that Peter used his authority to act like this!

And then we have THIS term-viceregent.

Viceregent? How did catholics come up with THIS word? Did Jesus ever call Peter a "viceregent"? If He did, I would love for someone to show me where it is in the New Testement! 119

And we have this:

Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.

To rule in His place?

SINCE WHEN?

For those who are Born Again, this is tanamount to BLASPHEMY!

The Catholic Chuch is putting the pope on an equal level with Jesus!

Don't believe me?

Look at the size of the crowds that gather whereever the pope appears.

Do you thing that they are looking at Jesus?

Do you think that they DON'T se the pope, as kind of a god?

Who are the coming to worship when the pope says mass-the Pope, or Jesus?

What does scripture say about this?


Exodus 20:3 (New International Version)

3 "You shall have no other gods before me.

Then we see this:

Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure.

Legestative & judicial authority?

THis is legalism!

I don't see ANYWHERE in the New Testement where Peter was even CONCERNED about anything like this?

Now there are those that will use these verses to show legistative & judicial authority:

Acts 6:1-6 (King James Version)

1And in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplied, there arose a murmuring of the Grecians against the Hebrews, because their widows were neglected in the daily ministration.

2Then the twelve called the multitude of the disciples unto them, and said, It is not reason that we should leave the word of God, and serve tables.

3Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

4But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word.

5And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

6Whom they set before the apostles: and when they had prayed, they laid their hands on them.

I don't see ANY evidence of this. The Apostles were concerned about the most important thing in their lives-WITNESSING! They choose other Believers to take care of the daily operations of the "church", (NOT the CATHOLIC Church, because the word "catholic" is NOWHERE IN THE BIBLE!), but rather, the body of Believers.

Then we have this:

JOHN 21:15-17
The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter after a profession of faith which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue: "Simon, son of John, lovest thou Me more than these"? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God: here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

This part especially hits me:

Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".

(continued below)

[Messenger]

Rod of Iron?

Is THAT how a shepherd treats his sheep?

Is THAT how Jesus would want a leader to treat His people?

Does ANYONE see this wonderful picture of Jesus, as ruling with a rod of iron?

This is in DIRECT contradiction to what we read in

Psalm 23 (New International Version)

1 The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
{Is this an example of ruling with a rod of iron?)

2 He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,
{Is this an example of ruling with a rod of iron?)

3 he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.
{Is this an example of ruling with a rod of iron?)


4 Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
{Is this an example of ruling with a rod of iron?)

5 You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.
{Is this an example of ruling with a rod of iron?)

6 Surely goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.
{Is this an example of ruling with a rod of iron?)

Then we have Jesus HIMSELF refering to Himself as the Good Shepherd:

John 10:11-16 (King James Version)

11I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

12But he that is an hireling, and not the shepherd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming, and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth: and the wolf catcheth them, and scattereth the sheep.

13The hireling fleeth, because he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep.

14I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.

15As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

Peter DID lay down His life for his "flock"!

How many of the popes since then would have done this?

No-they are more concerned with ruling the church with a rod of iron!

Then we have this:

here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

WHAT??!!!!!!!!!!

First of all, where in Scripture, do catholics even get the IDEA that Jesus would give up His PERSONHOOD, to transfer it to Peter?

That is LUDICROUS!!!!

If Jesus DID do this, Peter would have become God!

Then we have this:

There Christ had promised to make Peter the foundation-stone of the house of God:

We looked at this before:

1 Corinthians 3:11 (New International Version)

11For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.

There is only ONE FOUNDATION STONE-JESUS CHRIST!

Then we have this:

CONCLUSION
The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band -- not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see THE CHURCH, III).

If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ established. But in an organized society it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society of a different kind. If then the Church should adopt a constitution other than Christ gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine kingdom established by Him. As a society it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human, not a Divine institution. None who believe that Christ came on earth to found a Church, an organized society destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder.

The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ's declaration, the supremacy of Peter was intended to effect. He was to give the Church strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil does not belong to the Apostolic age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter must be realized in the Church, in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle.

Thus an analysis of Christ's words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths revealed in Scripture. His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church. And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin and Greek Fathers alike.

There is this:

The position of St. Peter after the Ascension, as shown in the Acts of the Apostles, realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic band -- not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (see THE CHURCH, III).

Uh, excuse me?

WHO is the head of the Chuch?

Ephesians 5:23 (New International Version)

23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

And this:

If then Christ, as we have seen, established His Church as a society subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life.

Wait a minute!

Show me where Jesus said ANYTHING about any SUCCESSORS TO PETER!

(Continued below)

[Messenger]

And this:

His promise to Peter conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church.

SHOW ME THE SCRIPTURE WHERE JESUS SAID ANYTHING ABOUT APOSTLESHIP BEING PERMANANT!

Now:

Let's continue on:

We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor, and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church. It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See.

First we have this:

We have shown in the last section that Christ conferred upon St. Peter the office of chief pastor

Where did Jesus say pastor?

Then we have this:

and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church.

Where did Jesus say this?

It must now be established that it belongs of right to the Roman See.

The Roman WHAT???

Here, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, is what the Roman, (or Holy See) is:

Click Here!

We have this:

A term derived from the enthronement-ceremony of the bishops of Rome. The seat or chair in question must not be confounded with the ancient sedes gestatoria in the centre of the apse of St. Peter's, and immemorially venerated as the cathedra Petri, or Chair of Peter; the term means, in a general sense, the actual seat (i.e. residence) of the supreme pastor of the Church, together with the various ecclesiastical authorities who constitute the central administration.

A PLace?

What make one place anymore "holy" than another?

Now, a lot of catholics will say, that it is used for God's work

God's Work?

Considering everything that we have seen so far has NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS, I would hardly call ANYTHING that the catholic church "does" God's work!

Ok-back to the pope!

We have this:

and that the permanence of that office is essential to the very being of the Church

Again-WHERE in Scripture does it say that the commission that Jesus gave to Peter was transferable?

Then, there is this:

The proof will fall into two parts:


that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome, and
that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.

ST. PETER WAS BISHOP OF ROME
It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there (Harnack, "Chronol.", I, 244, n. 2). Some, however, of those who admit that he taught and suffered in Rome, deny that he was ever bishop of the city (e.g. Lightfoot, "Clement of Rome", II, 501; Harnack, op. cit., I, 703). It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain.

I find THIS interesting:

It is not, however, difficult to show that the fact of his bishopric is so well attested as to be historically certain

WordNet
adjective
established as genuine

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.

Uh-huh.

Well, there is this:

It is no longer denied by any writer of weight that St. Peter visited Rome and suffered martyrdom there

No, ths is accepted as truth by virtually everyone.

But:

Show me where in Scripture, Peter was ever a "bishop".

And:

that those who succeed him in that see succeed him also in the supreme headship.

We have seen this time And again:

WHERE IN SCRIPTURE DID JESUS SAY THAT PETER'S LEADERSHIP WAS TRANSFERABLE?

Ok.

Continuing in this article, we see how, according to the catholic church, papel leadership transfers. You can read this on your own, but you WON'T find ANY SCRIPTURAL BASIS TO SUPPORT WHAT ANY OF THESE PEOPLE SAY!

Now we skip ahead to this:

(1) The Pope's Universal Coercive Jurisdiction

You can read all of this at your own leisure.

I just want to highlite a few points.

The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties. This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin.

AGAIN & AGAIN, we see this:

The words as to the power of binding and loosing are, therefore, elucidatory of the promise of the keys which immediately precedes. They explain in what sense Peter is governor and head of Christ's kingdom, the Church, by promising him legislative and judicial authority in the fullest sense. In other words, Peter and his successors have power to impose laws both preceptive and prohibitive, power likewise to grant dispensation from these laws, and, when needful, to annul them. It is theirs to judge offences against the laws, to impose and to remit penalties.

WHO is head of Christ's church?


Ephesians 5:23 (New International Version)

23For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

It WASN'T PETER!

Then we have all this garbage about dispensation, legislative & judicial authority.

I think that the catholic Church, is forgetting this verse:

Luke 6:37 (New International Version)

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

It the catholic church going to go AGAINST what Jesus COMMANDED, or are they just going to do what THEY want?

And then, there is THIS:

This judicial authority will even include the power to pardon sin.

EXCUSE ME???

Forgive sins?

THIS IS WHAT JESUS WAS CRUCIFIED FOR!

Luke 5:21-24 (King James Version)

21And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?

22But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, he answering said unto them, What reason ye in your hearts?

23Whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Rise up and walk?

24But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power upon earth to forgive sins, (he said unto the sick of the palsy,) I say unto thee, Arise, and take up thy couch, and go into thine house.

WHO has the power to forgive sin?

Jesus.

PERIOD!

To say the the pope has the power to forgive sin, is to make the pope GOD, & THAT IS BLASPHEMY!!!!

How can the catholic chuch, who claims to be the "one & only true church", say what the Bible CONTRADICTS??

Then we have this:

Nor may it be held that the pope's laws must exclusively concern spiritual objects, and their penalties be exclusively of a spiritual character. The Church is a perfect society

Perfect?

Not in this world.

Scripture says right here:

Romans 3:9-11 (New International Version)

9What shall we conclude then? Are we any better? Not at all! We have already made the charge that Jews and Gentiles alike are all under sin. 10As it is written:
"There is no one righteous, not even one;
11there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.

Continuing on:

We have this:

The Council goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that to him appeal may be made in all ecclesiastical causes. The right of appeal follows as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of the primacy. If the pope really possesses a supreme jurisdiction over the Church, every other authority, whether episcopal or synodal, being subject to him, there must of necessity be an appeal to him from all inferior tribunals.

Obviously, the catholic church, doesn't know this verse:

Luke 6:37 (New International Version)

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

This is a COMMAND from Jesus HIMSELF!

The catholic church says that they get the "authority" from Jesus. Well than, why don't they follow His commands?

We have this:

The Council goes on to affirm that the pope is the supreme judge of the faithful, and that to him appeal may be made in all ecclesiastical causes. The right of appeal follows as a necessary corollary from the doctrine of the primacy. If the pope really possesses a supreme jurisdiction over the Church, every other authority, whether episcopal or synodal, being subject to him, there must of necessity be an appeal to him from all inferior tribunals.

Supreme Judge?

We have already seen this:

Luke 6:37 (New International Version)

37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven.

WHO is the Supreme Judge?

It ISN'T the pope! According to SCRIPTURE HE ISN'T EVEN supposed TO JUDGE!

Only JESUS HAS THE right to judge us, because only Jesus is perfect!

PERIOD!

Now, let's continue with this:

IV. JURISDICTIONAL RIGHTS AND PREROGATIVES OF THE POPE
In virtue of his office as supreme teacher and ruler of the faithful, the chief control of every department of the Church's life belongs to the pope. In this section the rights and duties which thus fall to his lot will be briefly enumerated. It will appear that, in regard to a considerable number of points, not merely the supreme control, but the whole exercise of power is reserved to the Holy See, and is only granted to others by express delegation. This system of reservation is possible, since the pope is the universal source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Hence it rests with him to determine in what measure he will confer jurisdiction on bishops and other prelates.

(1) As the supreme teacher of the Church, whose it is to prescribe what is to be believed by all the faithful, and to take measures for the preservation and the propagation of the faith, the following are the rights which pertain to the pope:

it is his to set forth creeds, and to determine when and by whom an explicit profession of faith shall be made (cf. Council of Trent, Sess. 24, cc. 1 and 12);
it is his to prescribe and to command books for the religious instruction of the faithful; thus, for example, Clement XIII has recommended the Roman Catechism to all the bishops.
The pope alone can establish a university, possessing the status and privileges of a canonically erected Catholic university;
to him also belongs the direction of Catholic missions throughout the world; this charge is fulfilled through the Congregation of the Propaganda.
It is his to prohibit the reading of such books as are injurious to faith or morals, and to determine the conditions on which certain classes of books may be issued by Catholics;
his is the condemnation of given propositions as being either heretical or deserving of some minor degree of censure, and lastly
he has the right to interpret authentically the natural law. Thus, it is his to say what is lawful or unlawful in regard to social and family life, in regard to the practice of usury, etc.
(2) With the pope's office of supreme teacher are closely connected his rights in regard to the worship of God: for it is the law of prayer that fixes the law of belief. In this sphere very much has been reserved to the sole regulation of the Holy See. Thus

the pope alone can prescribe the liturgical services employed in the Church. If a doubt should occur in regard to the ceremonial of the liturgy, a bishop may not settle the point on his own authority, but must have recourse to Rome. The Holy See likewise prescribes rules in regard to the devotions used by the faithful, and in this way checks the growth of what is novel and unauthorized.
At the present day the institution and abrogation of festivals which was till a comparatively recent time free to all bishops as regards their own dioceses, is reserved to Rome.
The solemn canonization of a saint is proper to the pope. Indeed it is commonly held that this is an exercise of the papal infallibility. Beatification and every permission for the public veneration of any of the servants of God is likewise reserved to his decision.
He alone gives to anyone the privilege of a private chapel where Mass may be said.
He dispenses the treasury of the Church, and the grant of plenary indulgences is reserved to him. While he has no authority in regard to the substantial rites of the sacraments, and is bound to preserve them as they were given to the Church by Christ and His Apostles, certain powers in their regard belong to him;
he can give to simple priests the power to confirm, and to bless the oil of the sick and the oil of catechumens, and
he can establish diriment and impedient impediments to matrimony.
(3) The legislative power of the pope carries with it the following rights:

he can legislate for the whole Church, with or without the assistance of a general council;
if he legislates with the aid of a council it is his to convoke it, to preside, to direct its deliberations, to confirm its acts.
He has full authority to interpret, alter, and abrogate both his own laws and those established by his predecessors. He has the same plenitude of power as they enjoyed, and stands in the same relation to their laws as to those which he himself has decreed;
he can dispense individuals from the obligation of all purely ecclesiastical laws, and can grant privileges and exemptions in their regard.
In this connection may be mentioned his power to dispense from vows where the greater glory of God renders it desirable. Considerable powers of dispensation are granted to bishops, and, in a restricted measure, also to priests; but there are some vows reserved altogether to the Holy See.
(4) In virtue of his supreme judicial authority

causae majores are reserved to him. By this term are signified cases dealing with matters of great moment, or those in which personages of eminent dignity are concerned.
His appellate jurisdiction has been discussed in the previous section. It should, however, be noted
that the pope has full right, should he see fit, to deal even with causae minores in the first instance, and not merely by reason of an appeal (Trent, Sess. XXIV; cap. 20). In what concerns punishment,
he can inflict censures either by judicial sentence or by general laws which operate without need of such sentence.
He further reserves certain cases to his own tribunal. All cases of heresy come before the Congregation of the Inquisition. A similar reservation covers the cases in which a bishop or a reigning prince is the accused party.
(5) As the supreme governor of the Church the pope has authority over all appointments to its public offices. Thus

it is his to nominate to bishoprics, or, where the nomination has been conceded to others, to give confirmation. Further, he alone can translate bishops from one see to another, can accept their resignation, and can, where grave cause exists, sentence to deprivation.
He can establish dioceses, and can annul a previously existing arrangement in favour of a new one. Similarly, he alone can erect cathedral and collegiate chapters.
He can approve new religious orders, and can, if he sees fit, exempt them from the authority of local ordinaries.
Since his office of supreme ruler imposes on him the duty of enforcing the canons, it is requisite that he should be kept informed as to the state of the various dioceses. He may obtain this information by legates or by summoning the bishops to Rome. At the present day this jus relationum is exercised through the triennial visit ad limina required of all bishops. This system was introduced by Sixtus V in 1585 (Constitution, "Rom. Pontifex"), and confirmed by Benedict XIV in 1740 (Constitution, "Quod Sancta") .
It is to be further observed that the pope's office of chief ruler of the Church carries with it jure divino the right to free intercourse with the pastors and the faithful. The placitum regium, by which this intercourse was limited and impeded, was therefore an infringement of a sacred right, and as such was solemnly condemned by the Vatican Council (Constitution, "Pastor Aeternus", cap. iii). To the pope likewise belongs the supreme administration of the goods of the Church.
He alone can, where there is just cause, alienate any considerable quantity of such property. Thus, e.g., Julius III, at the time of the restoration of religion in England under Queen Mary validated the title of those laymen who had acquired Church lands during the spoliations of the previous reigns.
The pope has further the right to impose taxes on the clergy and the faithful for ecclesiastical purposes (cf. Trent, Sess. XXI, cap. iv de Ref.).
Though the power of the pope, as we have described it, is very great, it does not follow that it is arbitrary and unrestricted. "The pope", as Cardinal Hergenröther well says,


is circumscribed by the consciousness of the necessity of making a righteous and beneficent use of the duties attached to his privileges....He is also circumscribed by the spirit and practice of the Church, by the respect due to General Councils and to ancient statutes and customs, by the rights of bishops, by his relation with civil powers, by the traditional mild tone of government indicated by the aim of the institution of the papacy -- to "feed" -- and finally by the respect indispensable in a spiritual power towards the spirit and mind of nations ("Cath. Church and Christian State", tr., I, 197).

I look at all this, & I just have to ask ONE SINGLE QUESTION:

Isn't the running of the BIBLICAL CHURCH, (NOT the catholic church, because the word "catholic" isn't even IN the Bible), supposed be the JOB of the Holy Spirit?

Especially when we read this in Scripture:

John 14:25-27 (New International Version)

25"All this I have spoken while still with you. 26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. 27Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.

Yet, do we see ANY mention of the Holy Spirit in the section of the Catholic encyclopedia, above?

NO!

"Nuff, said."

Finally:

We see this:

The kissing of the pope's foot -- the characteristic act of reverence by which all the faithful do honour to him as the vicar of Christ -- is found as early as the eighth century. We read that Emperor Justinian II paid this respect to Pope Constantine (708-16) (Anastasius Bibl. in P. L., CXXVIII 949). Even at an earlier date Emperor Justin had prostrated himself before Pope John I (523-6; op. cit., 515), and Justinian I before Agapetus (535-6; op. cit., 551). The pope, it may be added, ranks as the first of Christian princes, and in Catholic countries his ambassadors have precedence over other members of the diplomatic body.

What the heck is this???

Where in Scripture does it say to do this-let alone to another MAN?

There is no SCRIPTURAL EVIDENCE OF THE APOSTLES DOING THIS-EVEN TO JESUS HIMSELF!

Don't you see what the catholic chuch is doing here? They are WORSHIPPING THIS MAN! THEY ARE DOING THINGS THAT EVEN JESUS HIMSELF NEVER HAD DONE TO HIM!

Do I need to show the Blasphemy, NON-SCRIPTURAL, practices that the catholic church & the pope's practices any clearer than I have here?

THE CATHOLIC CHUCH IS THE BIGGEST CULT IN ALL OF HISTORY!

And how many millions, (& quite probably BILLIONS), of deceived people, have gone to hell, because they believed these NON-SCRIPTURAL, BLASPHEMOUS TEACHINGS?

Bill

[catholicdefender]

Matt. to Rev. - Peter is mentioned 155 times and the rest of apostles combined are only mentioned 130 times. Peter is also always listed first except in 1 Cor. 3:22 and Gal. 2:9 (which are obvious exceptions to the rule).

Matt. 10:2; Mark 1:36; 3:16; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:3; 2:37; 5:29 - these are some of many examples where Peter is mentioned first among the apostles.

Matt. 14:28-29 - only Peter has the faith to walk on water. No other man in Scripture is said to have the faith to walk on water. This faith ultimately did not fail.

Matt. 16:16, Mark 8:29; John 6:69 - Peter is first among the apostles to confess the divinity of Christ.

Matt. 16:17 - Peter alone is told he has received divine knowledge by a special revelation from God the Father.

Matt. 16:18 - Jesus builds the Church only on Peter, the rock, with the other apostles as the foundation and Jesus as the Head.

Matt. 16:19 - only Peter receives the keys, which represent authority over the Church and facilitate dynastic succession to his authority.

Matt. 17:24-25 - the tax collector approaches Peter for Jesus' tax. Peter is the spokesman for Jesus. He is the Vicar of Christ.

Matt. 17:26-27 - Jesus pays the half-shekel tax with one shekel, for both Jesus and Peter. Peter is Christ's representative on earth.

Matt. 18:21 - in the presence of the disciples, Peter asks Jesus about the rule of forgiveness. One of many examples where Peter takes a leadership role among the apostles in understanding Jesus' teachings.

Matt. 19:27 - Peter speaks on behalf of the apostles by telling Jesus that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 10:28 - here also, Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples by declaring that they have left everything to follow Him.

Mark 11:21 - Peter speaks on behalf of the disciples in remembering Jesus' curse on the fig tree.

Mark 14:37 - at Gethsemane, Jesus asks Peter, and no one else, why he was asleep. Peter is accountable to Jesus for his actions on behalf of the apostles because he has been appointed by Jesus as their leader.

Mark 16:7 - Peter is specified by an angel as the leader of the apostles as the angel confirms the resurrection of Christ.

Luke 5:3 – Jesus teaches from Peter’s boat which is metaphor for the Church. Jesus guides Peter and the Church into all truth.

Luke 5:4,10 - Jesus instructs Peter to let down the nets for a catch, and the miraculous catch follows. Peter, the Pope, is the "fisher of men."

Luke 7:40-50- Jesus addresses Peter regarding the rule of forgiveness and Peter answers on behalf of the disciples. Jesus also singles Peter out and judges his conduct vis-à-vis the conduct of the woman who anointed Him.

Luke 8:45 - when Jesus asked who touched His garment, it is Peter who answers on behalf of the disciples.

Luke 8:51; 9:28; 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3:1,3,11; 4:13,19; 8:14 - Peter is always mentioned before John, the disciple whom Jesus loved.

Luke 9:28;33 - Peter is mentioned first as going to mountain of transfiguration and the only one to speak at the transfiguration.

Luke 12:41 - Peter seeks clarification of a parable on behalf on the disciples. This is part of Peter's formation as the chief shepherd of the flock after Jesus ascended into heaven.

Luke 22:31-32 - Jesus prays for Peter alone, that his faith may not fail, and charges him to strengthen the rest of the apostles.

Luke 24:12, John 20:4-6 - John arrived at the tomb first but stopped and waited for Peter. Peter then arrived and entered the tomb first.

Luke 24:34 - the two disciples distinguish Peter even though they both had seen the risen Jesus the previous hour. See Luke 24:33.

John 6:68 - after the disciples leave, Peter is the first to speak and confess his belief in Christ after the Eucharistic discourse.

John 13:6-9 - Peter speaks out to the Lord in front of the apostles concerning the washing of feet.

John 13:36; 21:18 - Jesus predicts Peter's death. Peter was martyred at Rome in 67 A.D. Several hundred years of papal successors were also martyred.

John 21:2-3,11 - Peter leads the fishing and his net does not break. The boat (the "barque of Peter") is a metaphor for the Church.

John 21:7 - only Peter got out of the boat and ran to the shore to meet Jesus. Peter is the earthly shepherd leading us to God.

John 21:15 - in front of the apostles, Jesus asks Peter if he loves Jesus "more than these," which refers to the other apostles. Peter is the head of the apostolic see.

John 21:15-17 - Jesus charges Peter to "feed my lambs," "tend my sheep," "feed my sheep." Sheep means all people, even the apostles.

Acts 1:13 - Peter is first when entering upper room after our Lord's ascension. The first Eucharist and Pentecost were given in this room.

Acts 1:15 - Peter initiates the selection of a successor to Judas right after Jesus ascended into heaven, and no one questions him. Further, if the Church needed a successor to Judas, wouldn't it need one to Peter? Of course.

Acts 2:14 - Peter is first to speak for the apostles after the Holy Spirit descended upon them at Pentecost. Peter is the first to preach the Gospel.

Acts 2:38 - Peter gives first preaching in the early Church on repentance and baptism in the name of Jesus Christ.

Acts 3:1,3,4 - Peter is mentioned first as going to the Temple to pray.

Acts 3:6-7 - Peter works the first healing of the apostles.

Acts 3:12-26, 4:8-12 - Peter teaches the early Church the healing through Jesus and that there is no salvation other than Christ.

Acts 5:3 - Peter declares the first anathema of Ananias and Sapphira which is ratified by God, and brings about their death. Peter exercises his binding authority.

Acts 5:15 - Peter's shadow has healing power. No other apostle is said to have this power.

Acts 8:14 - Peter is mentioned first in conferring the sacrament of confirmation.

Acts 8:20-23 - Peter casts judgment on Simon's quest for gaining authority through the laying on of hands. Peter exercises his binding and loosing authority.

Acts 9:32-34 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and works the healing of Aeneas.

Acts 9:38-40 - Peter is mentioned first among the apostles and raises Tabitha from the dead.

Acts 10:5 - Cornelius is told by an angel to call upon Peter. Angels are messengers of God. Peter was granted this divine vision.

Acts 10:34-48, 11:1-18 - Peter is first to teach about salvation for all (Jews and Gentiles).

Acts 12:5 - this verse implies that the "whole Church" offered "earnest prayers" for Peter, their leader, during his imprisonment.

Acts 12:6-11 - Peter is freed from jail by an angel. He is the first object of divine intervention in the early Church.

Acts 15:7-12 - Peter resolves the first doctrinal issue on circumcision at the Church's first council at Jerusalem, and no one questions him. After Peter the Papa spoke, all were kept silent.

Acts 15:12 - only after Peter (the Pope) speaks do Paul and Barnabas (bishops) speak in support of Peter's definitive teaching.

Acts 15:13-14 - then James speaks to further acknowledge Peter's definitive teaching. "Simeon (Peter) has related how God first visited..."

Rom. 15:20 - Paul says he doesn't want to build on "another man's foundation" referring to Peter, who built the Church in Rome.

1 Cor. 9:5 – Peter is distinguished from the rest of the apostles and brethren of the Lord.

1 Cor. 15:4-8 - Paul distinguishes Jesus' post-resurrection appearances to Peter from those of the other apostles. Christ appeared “to Cephas, then to the twelve.”

Gal.1:18 - Paul spends fifteen days with Peter privately before beginning his ministry, even after Christ's Revelation to Paul.

1 Peter 5:1 - Peter acts as the chief bishop by "exhorting" all the other bishops and elders of the Church.

1 Peter 5:13 - Some Protestants argue against the Papacy by trying to prove Peter was never in Rome. First, this argument is irrelevant to whether Jesus instituted the Papacy. Secondly, this verse demonstrates that Peter was in fact in Rome. Peter writes from "Babylon" which was a code name for Rome during these days of persecution. See, for example, Rev. 14:8, 16:19, 17:5, 18:2,10,21, which show that "Babylon" meant Rome. Rome was the "great city" of the New Testament period. Because Rome during this age was considered the center of the world, the Lord wanted His Church to be established in Rome.

2 Peter 1:14 - Peter writes about Jesus' prediction of Peter's death, embracing the eventual martyrdom that he would suffer.

2 Peter 3:16 - Peter is making a judgment on the proper interpretation of Paul's letters. Peter is the chief shepherd of the flock.

Matt. 23:11; Mark 9:35; 10:44 - yet Peter, as the first, humbled himself to be the last and servant of all servants.

[Messenger]

It is such a joke that the catholic church claim that the "church" that Jesus founded on Peter, when there is absolutly NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS for the absurd assumption!

The catholic church claims that Christ declared Peter the leader of the "catholic" Church in matthew 16:18.

You want to show me where Christ says ".........Upon this rock will I build my "catholic" church?

If Jesus had MEANT the "catholic" church, why didn't he SAY "catholic?

Especially when even the 3 CATHOLIC Bibles don't say that?


www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?i…
(Jerusalem Bible)

www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__…
(New American Bible)

www.drbo.org/chapter/47016.htm
(Douay-Rheims Bible)

Where is the word CATHOLIC in any of these versions?

And these are CATHOLIC Bibles!

What grounds do catholics have for claiming that this was the founding of the "catholic" church?

Especially when the word Catholic isn't even used in conjunction with Matthew 16:18!
None of the english Bibles on Bible Gateway, ( www.biblegateway.com/), say "....upon this riok, I will build my "catholic" church either!

Then catholics will try to use the arguments that the word "catholic" means "universal".

In what version of Scripture does Jesus us the word "universal" in Matthew 16:18?

None of the catholic Bibles says UNIVERSAL church either!
None of the english language Bibles on Bible Gateway, ( www.biblegateway.com/), says "UNIVERSAL" church either in Matthew 16:18!
Nothing here has proven anything, least of all, that the "cathlolic" church is the one that Christ is talking about.

Nobody here has proven anything, except that there STILL is NO SCRIPTURAL BASIS that proves that Jesus is talking about the "catholic church"!

Every single version of scripture says MY CHURCH in Matthew 16:18-

NOT My "universal" Church!
NOT my "catholic" Church!

Just MY CHURCH!

Not my "catholic" church!

Period!
Then some catholics will use the verse::

Acts 11:26 (New International Version)
26and when he found him, he brought him to Antioch. So for a whole year Barnabas and Saul met with the church and taught great numbers of people. The disciples were called Christians first at Antioch.
Saying the "Christian" is the same as "catholic"

Well, if this was the case, then why weren't they called "catholics" instead of Christians?

Nowhere in any of the "catholic" bibles does it say in this verse, that they were called "catholics"!

www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=51 (Jerusalem Bible)

www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0839/__PY5.HTM (New American Bible)

www.drbo.org/chapter/51011.htm (Douay-Rheims Bible)

Nowhere in any of the english translations on Bible Gateway, (http://www.biblegateway.com/), say "catholic" in Acts 11:26 EITHER!

The folllowers of Christ were called CHRISTIANS in Acts 11:26-NOT "catholics"!

And look at what one of your fellow catholics says about the catholic church:

This is a quote from a staunch catholic: (Newell, to be exact!)

"The Catholic Church is a TRADITION based Church, not a Bible based Church."

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?…

The "catholic" church not Bible based?
You claim to be a "christian" church, when you say that you AREN'T even based on the Bible?
And you call yourselves "christians"?
I think not!
CAN we say DOUBLE STANDARD?