Questions about the pope and the Catholic faith

[thereselittleflower]

So in Matthew 16 the disciples clearly understood that Peter would be second in command in the kingdom of heaven only second to the King which is Jesus but seemingly forgot all about that by Matthew 18 when they all began asking who is greatest?  That is illogical at best.  I am quite sure you have a logical way to explain your inconsistant beliefs away.  Just because something is logical doesn't make it true.  

Two completely different issues.

One is the Church on earth between the comings of Jesus.

The other is at the 2nd coming.

 

One is an earthly office which would of necessity be occupied by many who followed Peter in that office.

The other is in regards to heavenly thrones that do not change occupants.

Edited September 29, 2015 by thereselittleflower

[gdemoss]

So in Matthew 16 the disciples clearly understood that Peter would be second in command in the kingdom of heaven only second to the King which is Jesus but seemingly forgot all about that by Matthew 18 when they all began asking who is greatest?  That is illogical at best.  I am quite sure you have a logical way to explain your inconsistant beliefs away.  Just because something is logical doesn't make it true.  

Two completely different issues.

One is the Church on earth between the comings of Jesus.

The other is at the 2nd coming.

 

One is an earthly office which would of necessity be occupied by many who followed Peter in that office.

The other is in regards to heavenly thrones that do not change occupants.

and again you prove tis how?

[thereselittleflower]

So in Matthew 16 the disciples clearly understood that Peter would be second in command in the kingdom of heaven only second to the King which is Jesus but seemingly forgot all about that by Matthew 18 when they all began asking who is greatest?  That is illogical at best.  I am quite sure you have a logical way to explain your inconsistant beliefs away.  Just because something is logical doesn't make it true.  

Two completely different issues.

One is the Church on earth between the comings of Jesus.

The other is at the 2nd coming.

 

One is an earthly office which would of necessity be occupied by many who followed Peter in that office.

The other is in regards to heavenly thrones that do not change occupants.

and again you prove tis how?

The context of the respective passages.

 

[gdemoss]

So in Matthew 16 the disciples clearly understood that Peter would be second in command in the kingdom of heaven only second to the King which is Jesus but seemingly forgot all about that by Matthew 18 when they all began asking who is greatest?  That is illogical at best.  I am quite sure you have a logical way to explain your inconsistant beliefs away.  Just because something is logical doesn't make it true.  

Two completely different issues.

One is the Church on earth between the comings of Jesus.

The other is at the 2nd coming.

 

One is an earthly office which would of necessity be occupied by many who followed Peter in that office.

The other is in regards to heavenly thrones that do not change occupants.

and again you prove tis how?

The context of the respective passages.

 

please do show

[thereselittleflower]

So in Matthew 16 the disciples clearly understood that Peter would be second in command in the kingdom of heaven only second to the King which is Jesus but seemingly forgot all about that by Matthew 18 when they all began asking who is greatest?  That is illogical at best.  I am quite sure you have a logical way to explain your inconsistant beliefs away.  Just because something is logical doesn't make it true.  

Two completely different issues.

One is the Church on earth between the comings of Jesus.

The other is at the 2nd coming.

 

One is an earthly office which would of necessity be occupied by many who followed Peter in that office.

The other is in regards to heavenly thrones that do not change occupants.

and again you prove tis how?

The context of the respective passages.

 

please do show

I've already shown the context of the Office of Chief Steward, Majordomo, Prime Minister, Vicar -  this is an office where it's occupant operates in the full authority of the King in the King's absence.

Jesus is not present on earth right now, and so this office functions in its full authority.

Once Jesus returns, then the occupant steps back for the King Himself is here.  So this is an office for the Church on earth, in the absence of Christ Her King.

 

The other is where 2 disciples ask Jesus if they can sit on thrones on either side of Him IN HIS GLORY -  In heaven.

Mark 10

35James and John, the two sons of Zebedee, came up to Jesus, saying, “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You.” 36And He said to them, “What do you want Me to do for you?” 37They said to Him, “Grant that we may sit, one on Your right and one on Your left, in Your glory.” 38But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39They said to Him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you shall drink; and you shall be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized.40“But to sit on My right or on My left, this is not Mine to give; but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

 

this is cross referenced to this:

Matthew 25:31 

When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels 

Matthew 19:28
Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

And some commentaries:

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

They said unto him,.... By their mother, or seconding her motion: 

grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory; or glorious kingdom, which they expected would be quickly set up; and which they might conclude from his having lately promised to all the twelve, that when he should sit on his throne, they should sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel; and from his having just now mentioned his rising from the dead, which they might understand of some revival, or breaking forth of this glorious state; See Gill onMatthew 20:21. 

Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

37. Grant unto us that we may sit, one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left hand, in thy glory—that is, Assign to us the two places of highest honor in the coming kingdom. The semblance of a plea for so presumptuous a request might possibly have been drawn from the fact that one of the two usually leaned on the breast of Jesus, or sat next Him at meals, while the other was one of the favored three.

 

So one is an office of governance in the period of time between when Christ ascended into heaven and when He returns, and the other is when they are given 12 thrones after He does return.

Two different situations.  Two different time periods.  

 

 

 

 

[gdemoss]

I asked about matthew 18 and you quote Mark 10.  Please Go back and demonstrate why Matthew 16 and 18 are different.  Thanks!

[thereselittleflower]

I asked about matthew 18 and you quote Mark 10.  Please Go back and demonstrate why Matthew 16 and 18 are different.  Thanks!

I thought you were asking in relationship to the asking to sit on either side of Jesus.

I guess my question to you would be why do you think that who occupies the office given to Peter has anything to do with who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

I find the idea that they have anything to do with each other completely puzziing.

 

One has to do with governance of the Church on earth while Jesus is in heaven.   So this is set on earth.

 

The other is set in heaven:

Matthew 18

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

 

I see no correlation between the two.  

 

[Ezra]

I just got a couple questions I was hoping someone could answer for me. I am not trying to bash anything and I pray this stays rooted in the word of God. I developed these questions watching all the coverage of the pope's visit to the US.

Firestormx,

Very astute observations. Here's the short answers.

1. Is it just me or does it bother anyone else when the pope is called the Holy father? How is it not blaspheme to call the pope the Holy father?

Matthew 23:9 is an express command to CALL NO MAN FATHER (or Holy Father). So this is a direct violation of the command of Christ.

2. What is with the robes and the hat's that the Catholic priests seem to wear? Also, likewise,

The robes belonged to those of the Levitical Priesthood.  That priesthood was abolished in 70 AD. So this is another direct violation of the New Covenant, where ALL BELIEVERS ARE A ROYAL PRIESTHOOD (1 Peter 2:9).

3. Where do they get rituals from the do, like swinging that smoking censer or what ever it was. Maybe it is me, but everything in there services seemed to be a rip off of God's commands to the Jews in the Old testament but done badly. 

All the rituals belong to the Temple and could not be performed by anyone other than Levitical priests.  More importantly, everything pertaining to the Temple was finished when Christ cried out “IT IS FINISHED” and the veil in the Temple was torn in two.  So the revival of Temple ceremonies is another violation of the New Covenant.

In essence, the finished work of Christ on the Cross for our redemption has been brushed aside, and a man-made system of rituals and worship has been established.

 

[Ezra]

So there is nothing blasphemous to recognize the role of the leader of the Catholic Church as a spiritual "father" just as Paul referred to himself as, as John referred to himself as, etc.

Terese,

There is absolutely no comparison between Paul and his role as a spiritual father to his converts (who DID NOT call him "Holy Father"), and the blasphemous role played by the Pope in the Catholic Church.  Read, study, and meditate on Matthew 23:9 IN CONTEXT. That whole chapter to verse 36 addresses the pretensions of hypocritical spiritual leaders and is clearly applicable.

[gdemoss]

I asked about matthew 18 and you quote Mark 10.  Please Go back and demonstrate why Matthew 16 and 18 are different.  Thanks!

I thought you were asking in relationship to the asking to sit on either side of Jesus.

I guess my question to you would be why do you think that who occupies the office given to Peter has anything to do with who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven?

I find the idea that they have anything to do with each other completely puzziing.

 

One has to do with governance of the Church on earth while Jesus is in heaven.   So this is set on earth.

 

The other is set in heaven:

Matthew 18

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, “Who, then, is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?”

 

I see no correlation between the two.  

 

Thank you for clarifying your beliefs on tying Isaiah 22 and Mathew 16 together which explains why you would believe that there is reason to believe that there is a succession of Popes that begins with Peter.  We really are doing nothing different from one another as we are both seeking to come to a reasonable conclusion on matters of faith.  It is not very difficult to see the line of reasoning that led you to your understanding but that does not affirm it to be so.  You have pointed out a great many times how what you believe follows logic and that God has called us to reason together  with him but experience has taught me that successful deductions from logic require that nothing be missing in the train of understanding.  I remain skeptical because I know that their are rulers of darkness who leave out various information so that we end up with faulty conclusions.  I believe this to be the case here.  I don't buy the imaginary connection between Isa 22 and Matthew 16.  That is a fabrication of truth to forge an understanding of certain religious beliefs as far as I am concerned.  Thank you for sharing.