The Papacy is Based on Fiction and Church History Proves It

If there was really a papacy that had power over the whole church right from the beginning, then why was the first ever ecumenical council of Nicea called and led by the Emperor Constantine and not the pope? The purpose of the council was the Arian controversy, they needed to make a decision about Arius belief that Jesus was created. If there was a pope all they had to do was ask the pope to make a ruling but they did not. WHY? -- Instead the Roman emperor called a meeting and made a ruling. Guess what? The bishop of Rome did not even show up... yet all RCC still recite the Nicene Creed. If there was such thing as a pope all the church had to was ask the pope to rule on Arius - they would have not even needed a Nicene council -- so why did they appeal to Constantine? The answer is simple, there was no universal bishop to appeal to, the bishop of Rome was simply a regional authority until much later. The papacy is based on pure fiction and Nicea proves it.

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Exactly so.
I've got a longer thread on the drawing board making the same point, but that's for a much later time.
The Council actually specifies Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch as having a certain authority over adjacent areas. None of them over the entire church.

PS. I've got an existing thread- The springboard of papal power- which points to the sixth-century Lombard invasion of Italy as the time when the papacy began working loose from imperial authority.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


I would agree, the big lie starts in Nicea.

I kind of always thought that the roman part of their name gave it away. A few torn and worn gnostic texts canonized by council, and a lot of controversy and hoopla since.


Nice topic.

Cheers

reply to post by Bigwhammy


ABSOLUTELY INDEED.

The DVD that goes with

www.logosapologia.org...

Tom Horn and Chris Putnam’s

PETROS ROMANUS

Has tons of documentation on such issues.

Some say that the globalist power mongers go all the way back to that era.

Regardless . . . certainly the prissy old boy's club in Rome at the time managed to corner a huge percentage of the market . . . and then controlled the propaganda and authorities enough to twist the purported CHRISTIAN CHURCH every which way but God-ward.

Thankfully, those who earnestly SOUGHT GOD, still found Him directly because He and His Word ARE FAITHFUL.

But the faithless power mongers foisting yet more Pharisaical RELIGION [vs viable RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE FATHER THROUGH THE BLOOD OF THE SON BY HIS SPIRIT] on the backs of the sheeple have a lot to answer for.

Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

Often Matthew 16:18 is pointed to as the scripture that proves Peter was the first Pope. When read in context and when proper translation is applied to the text, the words for "Peter" and "Rock" are actually two different and distinct words.

Peter (translated "Petros") means "a detached stone or boulder, that could be easily moved" while the word that was used for "Rock" (Translated "Petra") in this text refers to "mass of rock" indicating immovability.

The actual rock Christ points to as the foundation of his church was certainly not the Apostle peter, it was the truth that Peter had spoken in the previous verse Matthew 16:16, in which, when asked who he thought Jesus was, he replied "You are the Christ; the son of the living God."

The Catholic church also gives too much literal leaning to the verse in which Christ gives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, as though he literally holds a set of keys that control the opening of Heaven's gates. Peter is not the gatekeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven any more than anyone else who shares the gospel to those that do not know Christ.

There is certainly a lot more information regarding this topic, but I'm preparing my son's 1st birthday party at the moment. Hopefully others may be able to shine additional light on this thread.

ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

There was no "Succession of Peter," simply because Peter was not the first Pope or even Bishop of Rome. The title "Pope" was not even used until centuries after Peter became dust, and as for being the first Bishop of Rome, actually the fellow was a Briton, whose name I cannot dig up just now, as most of my books are packed for an upcoming move. In fact, several of the persons mentioned in Paul's letter to the Romans (Paul was certainly in Rome - Peter, maybe not) were natives of Britain.

Lazarus Short

ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

There was no "Succession of Peter," simply because Peter was not the first Pope or even Bishop of Rome. The title "Pope" was not even used until centuries after Peter became dust, and as for being the first Bishop of Rome, actually the fellow was a Briton, whose name I cannot dig up just now, as most of my books are packed for an upcoming move. In fact, several of the persons mentioned in Paul's letter to the Romans (Paul was certainly in Rome - Peter, maybe not) were natives of Britain.

I'm pretty sure you're essentially making the same point that I am.

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


'Pert near...

reply to post by ProfessorChaos


Yes they misapply that passage... it is the main claim but demonstrably false. Even the majority of the early fathers agreed Peter's confession was the foundation of the church was built on. Roman Catholicism evolved and did not really exist as it does today until centuries later.

The Roman empire collapsed.. supposedly anyways.

And Coincidentally, also is the HQ of the Catholic Church?

Come on, who buys that?

Just the ROman RUlers going underground behind a religion. Once you own the nicest, and most valuable palaces there are on Earth, and you have people working for you.. Then what wealth do you need day to day.

Have it Co-mingled with the Vatican and live off the interest of those centuries of plunder.

The Bishop of Rome had two representatives go for him because he had more on his plate than any other Bishop. The council of Nicea would be irrelevant to history if it was not approved by and considered infallible by the Catholic Church, which has made the official decree on the infallibility of every council that shaped Catholic Church doctrine. Historians note that Constantine called the Council together on advice from the clergy, who asked for his aid in calling the council because he had the most authority on Earth at the time. Constantine also had no authority regarding the doctrine that was accepted at the council.

www.rtforum.org...
Matthew 16:18-19 "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. 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"

ghostfacekilah00
The council of Nicea would be irrelevant to history if it was not approved by and considered infallible by the Catholic Church, which has made the official decree on the infallibility of every council that shaped Catholic Church doctrine.

The word "Catholic" has got at least two meanings.
a) It describes the universal church of God (the original meaning)
b) It is a brief nickname for the body whose full name is "Roman Catholic church".

You are making the standard Roman Catholic mistake of treating the two meanings as the same thing.

The truth is that the Nicene Council represented and was endorsed by the "Catholic church" in the first sense.
The Nicene Council COULD NOT be endorsed by the Roman Catholic church, because the "Roman Catholic church" did not exist at the time. The idea of a single body with the Pope at the top was a much later development.

Constantine called the Council because he thought he was the man in charge and did not need anyone else's consent.

Lazarus Short

ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

There was no "Succession of Peter," simply because Peter was not the first Pope or even Bishop of Rome. The title "Pope" was not even used until centuries after Peter became dust, and as for being the first Bishop of Rome, actually the fellow was a Briton, whose name I cannot dig up just now, as most of my books are packed for an upcoming move. In fact, several of the persons mentioned in Paul's letter to the Romans (Paul was certainly in Rome - Peter, maybe not) were natives of Britain.

The succession of Pope's is actually traced without a gap all the way back to Peter. You are speaking from the perspective of a Protestant who is taught that Scripture is the final and only authority regarding Church doctrine despite the fact that Jesus works through the Body of Christ on Earth and that the Bible was not assembled until the 4th century, where men, guided by the Holy Spirit, chose which books to include and which books not to include. To acknowledge the authority of the Bible is to acknowledge the authority of the Church, even if you take out 5 books like King James did 1200 years later.

DISRAELI

ghostfacekilah00
The council of Nicea would be irrelevant to history if it was not approved by and considered infallible by the Catholic Church, which has made the official decree on the infallibility of every council that shaped Catholic Church doctrine.

The word "Catholic" has got at least two meanings.
a) It describes the universal church of God (the original meaning)
b) It is a brief nickname for the body whose full name is "Roman Catholic church".

You are making the standard Roman Catholic mistake of treating the two meanings as the same thing.

The truth is that the Nicene Council represented and was endorsed by the "Catholic church" in the first sense.
The Nicene Council COULD NOT be endorsed by the Roman Catholic church, because the "Roman Catholic church" did not exist at the time. The idea of a single body with the Pope at the top was a much later development.

Constantine called the Council because he thought he was the man in charge and did not need anyone else's consent.

Yes, it was a later development. And if the Catholic Church, the only existing Church in western society for a thousand years, had denied the infallibility of the council, the decrees made there would be forgotten in history, which would never happen because the Bible was assembled there.

ghostfacekilah00
To acknowledge the authority of the Bible is to acknowledge the authority of the Church, even if you take out 5 books like King James did 1200 years later.

Acknowledging the authority of the WHOLE church does not involve ackowledging the authority of that fragment of the church which calls itself the Roman Catholic church, or the man who leads it.

DISRAELI

ghostfacekilah00
The council of Nicea would be irrelevant to history if it was not approved by and considered infallible by the Catholic Church, which has made the official decree on the infallibility of every council that shaped Catholic Church doctrine.

The word "Catholic" has got at least two meanings.
a) It describes the universal church of God (the original meaning)
b) It is a brief nickname for the body whose full name is "Roman Catholic church".

You are making the standard Roman Catholic mistake of treating the two meanings as the same thing.

The truth is that the Nicene Council represented and was endorsed by the "Catholic church" in the first sense.
The Nicene Council COULD NOT be endorsed by the Roman Catholic church, because the "Roman Catholic church" did not exist at the time. The idea of a single body with the Pope at the top was a much later development.

Constantine called the Council because he thought he was the man in charge and did not need anyone else's consent.

How are the two names not the same thing? That's like saying Baptist isn't Protestant. As you said, Catholic means "universal." Just because there is a "Roman" in front of it, signifying that it was based out of Rome, the Catholic no longer means universal?

DISRAELI

ghostfacekilah00
To acknowledge the authority of the Bible is to acknowledge the authority of the Church, even if you take out 5 books like King James did 1200 years later.

Acknowledging the authority of the WHOLE church does not involve ackowledging the authority of that fragment of the church which calls itself the Roman Catholic church, or the man who leads it.

Since when do the people who say Catholics are going to Hell acknowledge the authority of the WHOLE Church? The Catholic Church prays for the unification of all Christians into one Church, just as Jesus prayed for with tears. I have not seen that from any other denomination.

ghostfacekilah00
Yes, it was a later development. And if the Catholic Church, the only existing Church in western society for a thousand years, had denied the infallibility of the council, the decrees made there would be forgotten in history, which would never happen because the Bible was assembled there.

If by "Catholic church" you mean the portion of the church which ackowledges the authority of the Pope, then I have to point out that it was never the WHOLE church and it was never the ONLY existing portion of the church.
In those days, the western church, under the authority of the Pope, was never more than a tiny fragment of the church of Christ. All the population and power was in the east.
If the western church had forgotten the Nicene Council, it would have been remembered in the east.

ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.

Often Matthew 16:18 is pointed to as the scripture that proves Peter was the first Pope. When read in context and when proper translation is applied to the text, the words for "Peter" and "Rock" are actually two different and distinct words.

Peter (translated "Petros") means "a detached stone or boulder, that could be easily moved" while the word that was used for "Rock" (Translated "Petra") in this text refers to "mass of rock" indicating immovability.

The actual rock Christ points to as the foundation of his church was certainly not the Apostle peter, it was the truth that Peter had spoken in the previous verse Matthew 16:16, in which, when asked who he thought Jesus was, he replied "You are the Christ; the son of the living God."

The Catholic church also gives too much literal leaning to the verse in which Christ gives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, as though he literally holds a set of keys that control the opening of Heaven's gates. Peter is not the gatekeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven any more than anyone else who shares the gospel to those that do not know Christ.

There is certainly a lot more information regarding this topic, but I'm preparing my son's 1st birthday party at the moment. Hopefully others may be able to shine additional light on this thread.

So what did Christ mean when he says I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Why did he address Peter specifically when he said this although the other apostles were present? The Catholic Church doesn't believe that Peter is literally sitting outside the Gates of Heaven with a set of keys like a hotel front desk person if that's what you're implying. He is certainly in Heaven enjoying the same reward everyone else there is.

www.catholic.com...

ghostfacekilah00
How are the two names not the same thing? That's like saying Baptist isn't Protestant. As you said, Catholic means "universal." Just because there is a "Roman" in front of it, signifying that it was based out of Rome, the Catholic no longer means universal?

The two names are not the same thing because they are being used in different ways.
In the early days, the word "Catholic" was used to designate the universal church.
But when that universal church broke up into fragments, one of those fragments- your own- seized upon the word "Catholic" and tried to claim monopoly rights on it.
Historically, you are not entitled to those monopoly rights.
Historically, Baptists, Presbyteriams, Methodists and Anglicans are all part of the universal church (in the true sense of the word "church") and so just as "Catholic" as any member of the Roman catholic community.

in other words, I am challenging your community's right to treat the word "Catholic" as your private property.