The Pope
THE POPE IN ORTHODOXY:
The Orthodox have a kind of nominal Pope figure called by the oxymoronic title "The First among equals" but he is more like the first among fools.
Big problems with Apostolic Succession.
The Roman Catholics have massive problems with Apostolic Succession, ironically that spring from their own success at deceiving people. Catholics have a so called Apostolic line of Succession for the Pope in Rome. But the Catholics are often more numerous in countries across the globe where the Eastern Orthodox have various other Apostolic Lines. So where is the Catholic Apostolic line of bishops in those countries? See the problem? The Orthodox might try to lay a claim this proves Catholicism false and them true, as the Catholics have bishops but no apostolic line of descent, or it causes froction with Eastern Orthodoxy.
In a similar way where is the Eastern Orthodox line of descent in the Latin area? It's not there, yet they claim to have churches and bishops in those countries.
Then there is the Oriental Orthodox anomaly of having an entire separated church with bishops, but where is the list of their Apostolic line of descent that supposedly "proves them right" and with authority but Orthodoxy wrong.
See the problems? Looked at as a whole Apostolic Succession falls apart.
The INFALLIBLE POPE
The INDEFECTIBLE CHURCH:
Qualifications for Saint Peter
being the Head of the Church:
1) Jesus called himself the Rock (Petra) and Peter a stone (Petros).
2) Jesus said immediately to him “Get thee behind me Satan!” (Matt 16:23)
3) The keys to the kingdom of heaven are the gospel message.
4) Jesus gave the same powers to all the disciples (Matthew 18:18 “ye” is plural)
5) Peter denied Jesus 3 times.
6) Saint Paul rebuked Saint Peter for religious hypocrisy. (Gal 2:11-14)
7) Jesus said it was John who was the disciple he loved.
8) There is no evidence that Peter was ever even in Rome.
9) Peter was the Apostle to the circumcision (Gal 2:8).
10) Only God is the Rock. (Psalm 18:31 / 2 Sam 2:32).
OED
indefectible |ˌɪndɪˈfɛktɪb(ə)l|
adjective formal
1 not liable to fail, end, or decay.
2 having no defects; perfect.
infallible |ɪnˈfalɪb(ə)l|
adjective
incapable of making mistakes or being wrong: doctors are not infallible.
• never failing; always effective: infallible cures.
• (in the Roman Catholic Church) credited with papal infallibility. for an encyclical to be infallible the Pope must speak ex cathedra.
WHO IS YOUR "FAVE" POPE?
so many to choose from. Your Inquisition Popes. The witch burners. The Crusaders. The Armada Pope (sunk by God). The Conquistador Popes. The Hitler Youth Pope. Spoiled for choice,
Who is your fave? The Massacre of St Bartholomew Pope?
LET'S LOOK AT MATTHEW 16!
What happening in Matthew 16 between Jesus and Peter? A sequence of events the Greeks can clearly see did not mean the church was built upon St Peter, and so they are unlikely ever to be deceived that the Pope is the so called "Head of the Church".
1) Peter calls Jesus "The Christ" (so Jesus is the subject)
2) Jesus then replies "You are a stone," gk Petros
3) Jesus then continues "and on this Rock gk Petra (Jesus, the subject) I will build my church, and the gates of Hell will not prevail against it (either the Rock, or the church).
4) Jesus turns and says to Peter "Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men." Matthew 16:23. this hardly sounds as if Peter is the Rock, but rather that Jesus is making it clear Peter is not the Rock, Jesus is, as it is written "For who is God save the LORD? or who is a rock save our God?" Psalm 18:31.
Actually it is not even clear if Jesus means "the Gates of Hades" will not prevail against The Rock (Him) or the church (the born again believers). Let us assume Jesus means the Gates of Hell will not prevail against the church, the exaggerated way this is interpreted by Orthodoxy is similar to heretical cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Judaizing Cults. JW's insist God is never called "mighty" in the bible, as he is Almighty, but God does call himself Mighty many times, because he is Almighty does not mean he is not Mighty as well. This might be why Orthodoxy uses the expression "all holy" so often in its Liturgies, as if to say they are more holy than holy, but its not an expression found in the bible. The Hebrew Roots Movement insists "that all thing must be fulfilled" must mean the old law must stay here until every single prophecy of the bible is fulfilled right up until New Jerusalem lands on the Earth, but in fact Matthew 5:17-19 was fulfilled in Luke 24:44-48 when "all thing must be fulfilled" took place in the death and resurrection of Christ, and the completion of "the gospel by which we are saved" happened (1 Cor 15:1-4). In a similar way Catholicism and Orthodoxy insist that "The Gates of Hell will not prevail" against the church means it will at all times in history be 1) Big, 2) Visible and 3) Warlike, but the bible makes it plain that throughout history "only a remnant" of those who profess belief in God are sincere. It is from such tragic logic that Orthodoxy thinks that the Crusades and all the bloodshed that went with them were spiritual. Rather, so called "Christendom" was the predicted Second Babylonian Captivity of Churchianity melded with state power in the scarlet and purple heresy (Rev 17).
Galatians 4 is in fact one of the biggest pacifist scriptures in the bible, as it explains what Jesus meant in John 18:36, that the Jerusalem above replaces the Jerusalem below, and we are no longer involved in the violence of defending Earthly territory or citadels, but are pilgrims on a spiritual journey toward the kingdom of God.
No Capital Letters
As I understand it the New Testament Greek did not have capital letters. There are capital letters in Greek, however, biblical texts were written in UNCIAL (capital) letters and essential there was no capitialization (as it was all capitalized), no punctuation, and no spacing. If it did we would say to JW's "Then why does the word God in John 1:1 have a capital letter?"
Matthew 16
In this chapter in Greek Jesus says to Peter "You are a stone, and on this rock (himself, the subject, the Christ) I will build my church." By inserting a capital letter on "petros" it becomes a name not saying he is a stone, thus there is no grounds to try to heretically infer a Pope could be the Rock the church is built on, especially as Jesus calls Peter Satan shortly after (some rock). Watch out for this in so called interlinear bibles.
DOES THE POPE SIT ON THE THRONE OF DAVID?
Apparently some Catholics believe that as Jesus was given the throne of David, after he ascended into heaven he passed on the Throne of David rule to Saint Peter, who became Head of the Church at his ascension into heaven, and that this is seen in new photos of the Pope (see link). That absurd teaching requires that we believe the Orthodox saw him as the Pope up until 1054 when they decided not to, an absurdity. On the other hand is such a "reign" supposed to have been unknown for the first 1,000 years of AD history? It is clear the doctrine that the Pope is Head of the Church is in fact a late development in history, and one of the most caustic heresies ever invented, leading to much bloodshed, war, torture and heretic burning.
http://www.biblelight.net/pope-throne.htm
THE CAPITAL MOVES FROM ROME TO CONSTANTINOPLE:
What is the significance concerning "Our most Holy Faith" to Evangelical Christians, that the Emperor Constantine moved the capital city from Rome to Byzantium, later the city was renamed Constantinople (present day Istanbul) ? Precisely nothing. To the Orthodox especially it is very significant, especially in the authority war between the Pope and the so called "First among equals". Constantine called the city "The new Rome". I have yet to hear a debate among them insisting the name be changed back to Constantinople. A lot of this will be rooted in the 2nd Crusade. The issues surrounding the supposed big significance spiritually of Constantine making his change should ring alarm bells in any spiritually minded person.
OED gives:
Constantinople |ˌkɒnstantɪˈnəʊp(ə)l|
the former name for Istanbul from ad 330 (when it was given its name by Constantine the Great) to the capture of the city by the Turks in 1453.
So OED seems to categorically states the name was given to the city by Constantine himself, not that it later grew to have the name applied to it out of respect for Constantine. That might be an issue of contention, or certainly of grammar by OED.
I find it very significant that the city was called Augusta Antonina for a brief period in the 3rd century AD. The Roman Emperor Septimius Severus (193–211) conferred the name in honor of his son Antoninus, the later Emperor Caracalla. Clearly Constantine the Great was following a heathen pattern of behaviour, it was not some "spiritual act" to rename the city after himself and call it "The New Rome" and the new capital city, it was entirely an act of vanity. New Rome is also still part of the official title of the Patriarch of Constantinople.
The Orthodox deny the concept of "The Pope" or that the Pope is infallible:
The pseudo logic surrounding the idea of "the foremost of the apostles" is ridded with contradictions. The Orthodox say Andrew was first to be called, but I read contradictory accounts about Peter being considered "foremost". If the Jerusalem "constituency" of the church is foremost, and Peter is supposed to be bishop of Rome (there is zero evidence he even went there) I can only assume at this stage in my research that Orthodoxy and Romanism agree Peter was the foremost apostle, but Orthodoxy like Evangelicals deny he was bishop in Rome. That seems a logical deduction for Orthodoxy to agree Peter was "foremost" as it then gives them the opportunity to say he was the original "first among equals" but associated instead with the East, not with Rome in the west? (this is just deductive reasoning by me right now)
PETER - A STONE OR THE ROCK?
QUOTE:
One thing that easily shows Romanism to be wrong and destroys the foundation is the fact that Peter did not even go to the gentiles but Paul was the apostle to the gentiles. If one does not understand this, he will not understand much of the NT. Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
"The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it."
The interpretation of the Roman Catholic religions of this scripture is, that the church must always be upfront and visible throughout the whole of history, until Christ returns, and as they day Evangelicalism "was not", and they "were" that proves they are the church.
To fulfil their own interpretation of "shall not prevail" would mean the first church should be like Orthodoxy, when it was clearly far more like the Evangelical house group movement of today. So they get a big fail on that. Enter Orthodox and Roman Catholic forgeries to "save the day" and prove the first church was like them. The Liturgy of St Mark for instance.
If Israel was taken Captive in The First Babylonian Captivity, and corrupted in Babylon, did all the prophets and God "fail in their mission" in the old testament? Then why is the historical period of "Christendom", which was an amalgamation of violent pseudo Christians, and amounts to The Second Babylonian Captivity, God and the Apostles "sailing their mission" and amounts to the Gates of Hell prevailing against the church?
THE WHORE OF BABYLON:
Is a CITY built on 7 Hills. It is obviously Rome. Ancient Rome? Then why is it judged at the end of the age? So God can take revenge on the Romans by destroying the Catholics? Dumb theology. And it certainly is not Jerusalem. You live in denial.
ANTICHRIST:
Most people are surprised to learn that the first individual to identify the papal office as antichrist was a pope!
Yes, Pope Gregory the Great (540-604), who was the last of the four original Doctors of the Church and who became known as Saint Gregory, at the end of the ancient church period, said that such a church teaching came from the spirit of antichrist. He wrote,
“I confidently affirm that whoever calls himself universal bishop or desires to be so called is in his pride a fore runner of antichrist.” Pope Gregory the Great (540-604)
ROMAN CATHOLICS CROATS MURDER HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF SERBIAN ORTHODOX IN WW2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs
It just shows how totally different the two churches see themselves as. The Pope then beatified Aloysius Stepinac.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aloysius_Stepinac
The same kind of situation later occured between the Catholics and the Muslims in Bosnia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing_in_the_Bosnian_War