I will be delighted to share my faith with any of you so lets get the first item straight. Was Peter the first Pope? What were the 12 disciples to do? Ok I mean no offense to anyone but there appears to be a need for enlightenment so first Step: Bishop of Rome
The Roman Catholic Church from Apostolic times has literally followed the Bible in the establishment of good order in the Church. According to Paul's letters to Timothy and Titus there are three orders to the organization and leadership of the Church (sometimes known as ecclesiastical order or hierarchy): episcopos or bishops, presbyteros or elders, commonly translated priests, and diaconos or deacons.
The first in order and the greatest in authority is the episcopos, the bishop.
1 Tim 3:1-2
This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop (episcopes) desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop (episcopon) must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach ...
Tit 1:7,9
For a bishop (episcopon) as God's steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.
Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, distinguishes the shepherding role of the episcopos/bishop.
Acts 20:28
Keep watch over yourselves and over the whole flock of which the holy Spirit has appointed you overseers (episcopous), in which you tend the church of God that he acquired with his own blood.
The shepherding role of the apostle Peter as episcopos was related by John .
Jn 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." He then said to him a second time, "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 distressed that he had said to him a 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."
The Roman Catholic Church believes that the twelve apostles were the first episcopes, receiving at the Last Supper their leadership order to serve when Jesus told them "Do this in remembrance of Me." ( This is where the Sacrement of Communion started)
Peter, as demonstrated in the biblical portrait of him, exercised a leadership role first among the other apostles and early Christians, and then later in Rome before his martyrdom there in 67/68 AD.
Peter's presence in Rome in indicated in his first letter. The name "Babylon" is used here as a cryptic name for the city of Rome, a characteristic of writings done during times of persecution. During Peter's time (witnessed by his own martyrdom) and most New Testament times (witness the Book of Revelation--classic persecution literature), Rome took on the characteristics of the most outstanding example of a world power hostile to God--ancient Babylon.
1 Peter 5:12-13
I write you this briefly through Silvanus ... The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
Clement of Rome (I Clement) and Irenaeus (To the Romans) both attest to Peter's presence and death in Rome.
Paul makes mention of Linus, a Christian at Rome. Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses, 3, 3, 3) tells us that the same Linus was Peter's first successor as bishop of Rome.
2 Timothy 4:21
Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and all the brothers send greetings.
Two great historians of the Church, Eusebius of Caesarea, a bishop and historian of the Council of Nicaea, and Augustine, bishop and theologian, preserve for us the list of successors of the bishop of Rome to their own time. They attest to the sense and realization the Church had to the need for historic succession to the Bishop of Rome.
Eusebius (260-339), The History of the Church, Book 3, 324 AD
After the martyrdom of Paul and Peter, the first man to be appointed Bishop of Rome was Linus. ... Linus, who is mentioned in the Second Epistle to Timothy as being with Paul in Rome, as stated above was the first after Peter to be appointed Bishop of Rome. Clement again, who became the third Bishop of Rome ... to Miltiades.
Augustine (354-430), Letters, No. 53, 400 AD
For, to Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus, Clement, to Clement Anacletus, to Anacletus Evaristus, ... to Siricius Anastasius.
On the following pages is a list the bishops of Rome from Peter to John Paul II. Historians both secular and ecclesiastical concur with a final list published by the Vatican Library.
The only biblical "claim to fame" of these men is that they are episcopoi, bishops. There is no greater "order" according to the Bible. The Catholic Church teaches this. Other titles are only honorary and organizational.
The Catholic Church has also taken Paul at his word.
1 Cor 4:14-16
I am writing you this not to shame you, but to admonish you as my beloved children. Even if you should have countless guides to Christ, yet you do not have many fathers, for I became your father in Christ Jesus through the gospel. Therefore, I urge you, be imitators of me.
1 Thess 2:11-12
As you know, we treated each one of you as a father treats his children, exhorting and encouraging you and insisting that you conduct yourselves as worthy of the God who calls you into his kingdom and glory.
The faithful of the Church has always called their ordered leadership "father." In Greek, the language of the early Church, the word for father was pappas; in Latin, the language of the later Church, the word for father was papa.
By the 300's, bishops were sometimes called "pope" a corruption of the word for father. By the 700's the title for affection and respect for the Bishop of Rome exclusively was Pope.
It is not uncommon for enemies and non-believers of Roman Catholicism to create an argument against the succession and therefore validity of the Bishops of Rome as true successors to Peter by proffering the history of the "bad Popes." That argument arises from a basic misunderstanding of Sacred Scripture.
The first response to be made to the so-called argument from the "bad Popes" is admission that many men who held the position of Bishop of Rome were not holy men. Perhaps Peter was the best model for human failure in such a leadership role. He denied Jesus three times after being told he would do so. Some (e.g., Peter, Judas) who are called stumble and fall.
Some (Peter) repent and are saved. Others (Judas) reject that grace. It behooves us to remember that Jesus does not call saints, but sinners.
Lk 5:31-32
Jesus said to them in reply, "Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do. I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners."
Mt 9:12
He heard this and said, "Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do."
We are remThe moral miracle of the "bad Popes" is that they were worldly men, public sinners, and never functioned as spiritual leaders nor touched or changed the deposit of faith of Christianity. inded by the Lord even to the present day that the lifestyle of the messenger does not alter the validity of the message. Recall the American TeleEvangelists' scandals in 1987 and 1988.
For Chrisitans, the goal is the Kingdom of God. Religion is just a means to this end. Jesus preached the Kingdom with a call to repentance. After all, this kingdom is a holy one. If only men listen, reconcile with the Lord spiritually and stop sinning, then they shall be united spiritually as one in the same way that the Father and the Son are one.
Jesus prayed for those that God gave him, those destined not to be lost, so that they would conquer the world and not fall for Satan (the evil one). He did not pray for those who belong to the evil one but for the few who would remain faithful till the end.
Efforts of all religious should not center on changing traditions, or in changing one another. These efforts must instead focus on the idea behind all these traditions, which is to preserve and spread the Truth.
In my opinion, the "few" who would be saved and the "harvest" that lacks workers are contraditions due to the shift from the "passing" age to the "new" age. Therefore, the coming age would have a great number of "saved" men rather than few martyrs who bore the burden for change (as Jesus' death had). The end is not the end of the world but the end of an age where Satan rules because Truth is not common knowledge.
Today, there is a mixture of the "the old and the passing" ages. One group is trying to preserve itself from changes and the other group of reformists imposing changes. Change must not mean changing the idea or principle of Christ but of transforming change of individuals and whole societies to live in harmony with God.
What religions must never miss doing is to reconcile men back to God. It means doing God's Will; In other words, obedience. It is not about allowing many selfish interests space but projecting all these variety of individual interests into a common desire to do what is correct, right and good.
Delta is right about Peter and the Pope since they are tasked to upkeep the Truth in traditions. They represent the rock, a foundation which is to last till the end of time (age), and no evil would be able to overcome it.
Since the state and religion used to be fused together, politicians became religious leaders to attain their worldly and materialistic goals. However, the traditions are still at work and despite the momentary problems, the real faith was preserved. So until the age of Christ rules us, then Truth must be preserved in traditions.
Much have changed in the way traditions are practiced in the past 100 years but hopefully, the Truth would still be appreciated and realized by those who faithfully practice their religious obligations. The many traditions are the many avenues which allow men to discover and appreciate the Truth of Christ.
For those who wish an end to these traditions, then they must work for the crossover into the Kingdom of God, which is the age of Christ among men. With all these talks of war and calamities, maybe the glorious fulfillment of human destiny or Son of Man as God's Son is in place.
But making plough shears from swords would not happen unless there is peace and unity in the world first.
The conversation was an open one to begin with, when Jesus asked ALL of his disciples who they thought he was. Peter answered correctly, and Jesus said Peter was blessed because God revealed that truth to him. But I ask, what does Jesus mean when he calls Peter's name, and then says, "...upon THIS rock will I build my church..."? Upon the rock of the name Peter? Upon Peter himself? No, not from what I gather. It's upon the rock of the TRUTH, as it relates to Jesus' divine authority, and that's why the gates of hell won't be able to overcome it. Also, that's the same authority that will allow his disciples to make decisions regarding binding and loosening. There wasn't one person singled out as having more authority than the others. And by the way, Peter wasn't temperate and self-controlled. He was PASSIONATE, but not controlled. And with the connection now afforded us through the intercession and mediation in heaven on our behalf by Jesus himself, there's no need for a pope. The truth doesn't need to be protected by a human institution. God always preserves truth, whether we want to adhere to it or not.
Peter belongs to this age. But he was also foretold of his demise... he still has a role ot play until the turnover of ages. When the Kingdom of God comes to rule, then Peter would have to step aside. Let us just pray things don't get nasty when the time comes to decide. Peter's Love for Christ should prevail as he has (painfully) promised Jesus.
Religion is what men make so their idea of God could be seen and appreciated. However, God is Spirit and we should worship God in Spirit and in Truth.
God gave us life. There is really nothing we could offer God except fidelity to what he wishes us to become - better creatures. However, God's name is used in vain, and businesses are set up to sell the idea of God in the world for personal gain or for selfish ends. The business of God is called religion - and that is what makes religion man made.
I am not saying that religion is unimportant. Religion is an institution, just like schools are. But they can be misused and instead of making faithful followers of God, doing the divine Will, religious leaders act like angels - distorting the idea of God or His Will, so that they can politicize men to work against one other's interests instead.
There is only one God. All monotheistic religions should serve only God. How come they plot to eliminate one another? There is something wrong or amiss when this happens. The Devil is in control of even religion, don't you think so?
Religion is to explore yourself. Who am I? The person who is exploring himself is on the path of religion. In my views, every person has his own religion. It is not the name of Hinduism, Islam, Christianity etc.
10-28-2004 05:25 PM
