Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Areruu - teonikabebe.org on January 21, 2012 at 5:43am

Mauri riki ngkoe are ko a tia ni wareka te iteraniba aei, riki articles ke attachments ake I taku b'a a na buoka teutana ootam ni kaineti ma te tabeka are e a tia ni wene i nanon m'aneabara ae e rine aei. Akea te kanganga ngkana e tuai n reke am tai n download them ma ni wareki, ai bon ni m'aawam.

I don't know ngkana a work talks aika I upload aikai iroum ma ngkana a aki just drop your comment on them ao n na manga kataia ni kakaea angaia. Both are zipped and you may open only one of them (7mb) for the full talk. I kabongana te free software ae 7zip ao ngaia ae I kona iai n unzip. Hope you can unzip it ngkana iai  te aeka n software anne ke other unzipping programs n any compture are ko use it.

In Christ

Attachments:

• Apostolic Succession2.7z.001, 7 MB
• Apostolic Succession2.7z.002, 5.5 MB

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by MigueleNF on January 23, 2012 at 8:17pm

mauri
you are right

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2Tim316 on January 22, 2012 at 10:12pm

Greetings Areruu

Among the early congregations that accepted direction from the apostles and elders in Jerusalem was the one in Rome, where Christian truth probably arrived sometime after Pentecost 33 C.E. (Acts 2:10) Like any other Christian congregation of the time, it had elders, who served as a body of overseers without any one of them having the primacy. Certainly none of the earliest overseers in the Rome congregation were viewed by their contemporaries as bishops or as a pope, since the monarchical episcopate at Rome had not yet developed. The starting point of the monarchical, or one-man, episcopate is hard to pin down. Evidence indicates that it began to develop in the second century.—Romans 16:3-16; Philippians 1:1.
The title “pope” (from the Greek pa′pas, father) was not used during the first two centuries. Former Jesuit Michael Walsh explains: “The first time a Bishop of Rome was called ‘Pope’ seems to have been in the third century, and the title was given to Pope Callistus . . . By the end of the fifth century ‘Pope’ usually meant the Bishop of Rome and no one else. It was not until the eleventh century, however, that a Pope could insist that the title applied to him alone.”—An Illustrated History of the Popes.
One of the first bishops of Rome to impose his authority was Pope Leo I (pope, 440-461 C.E.). Michael Walsh further explains: “Leo appropriated the once pagan title of Pontifex Maximus, still used by the popes today, and borne, until towards the end of the fourth century, by Roman Emperors.” Leo I based his actions on the Catholic interpretation of Jesus’ words found at Matthew 16:18, 19. He “declared that because St. Peter was the first among the Apostles, St. Peter’s church should be accorded primacy among the churches.” (Man’s Religions) By this move, Leo I made it clear that while the emperor held temporal power in Constantinople in the East, he exercised spiritual power from Rome in the West. This power was further illustrated when Pope Leo III crowned Charlemagne emperor of the Holy Roman Empire in 800 C.E.
Since 1929 the pope of Rome has been viewed by secular governments as the ruler of a separate sovereign state, Vatican City. Thus, the Roman Catholic Church, like no other religious organization, can send diplomatic representatives, nuncios, to the governments of the world. (John 18:36) The pope is honored with many titles, some of which are Vicar of Jesus Christ, Successor to the Prince of the Apostles, Supreme Pontiff of the Universal Church, Patriarch of the West, Primate of Italy, Sovereign of the Vatican City. He is carried with pomp and ceremony. He is given the honors assigned to a head of State. In contrast, note how Peter, supposedly the first pope and bishop of Rome, reacted when the Roman centurion Cornelius fell down at his feet to do obeisance to him: “Peter lifted him up, saying: ‘Rise; I myself am also a man.’”—Acts 10:25, 26; Matthew 23:8-12.
The question now is, How did so much power and prestige ever accrue to the apostate church of those early centuries? How was the simplicity and humility of Christ and the early Christians converted into the pride and pomp of Christendom?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Areruu - teonikabebe.org on January 23, 2012 at 8:43am

Mauri 2 Tim316,

Ko rab'a i bukim am kaeka. N aron ae I taekinna b'a I rangi tabe moa i nanon taai aikai i bukin au exam ma n na kakaea buokan am tabeka aei riki ni wareware n te site [ngkana e eti ae I kunea iai am maroro] are ko copied and pasted this from. Are i eta te kaeka ao au kantaninga e bon reke naba am tai ni wareware n akana i attached. E raoiroi are ko balance am ukeuke n taai nako. Man am itera ao ana itera naba te Ekaretia, b'a ko aki kona ni kunea raun nanom ngkana ko a tia wareware n te iterana.

In Christ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2Tim316 on January 23, 2012 at 4:52pm

Mauri Areruu

I can read Kiribati good but my language is limited so I will be replying you in English. I understand you have an upcoming exam right? so let leave it there but when you do have time I would like to hear your response to the above article. I did read some or part of the documents you attached but I will need to go through it all this will also give me a chance to think more about exactly how I can address your claims.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fr Teatao Tekitanga on January 23, 2012 at 6:56pm

Mauri 2Tim.

Allow me to say a few words to the discussion and especially your searching for the truth about the Papacy. First of all, I am not an historian or a theologian, but I hope we can share to one another in searching for the whole truth of that long history of the Papacy.

I read the article you posted as your reply. It is quite interesting. Reading and understanding history is a work of reading and reading and reading a lot of articles and books which are related to the issue from renown historians on the subject matter. I wish I have the time to do all that. But for  a simple start, let us share our understanding on that text from Mathew 16:18-19. How do you understand that text historically and theologically? What does your Church say if you are not a Catholic.

Peace.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2Tim316 on January 23, 2012 at 7:48pm

Mauri Teatao,

We are taught from scriptures that Jesus was saying that he was the rock mass. There are several scriptures that specifically refer to Christ as the rock mass. There is no basis for the Catholic notion that Christ conferred that position upon Peter or anyone else.

Interestingly, on the occasion when Jesus spoke to Peter he also rebuked him for thinking the thoughts of men. On the other hand, the pope claims to be infallible, or he did. I guess he was wrong. If there were such a thing as apostolic succession, though, think about this: Peter was a humble fisherman turned Christian. He didn't strut around in a gilded robe with a crown on his head holding out his hand for the little believers to kiss. A true successor would follow the pattern of the original, right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2Tim316 on January 23, 2012 at 7:52pm

Obviously the Catholic Church has gone to great lengths to make Peter out to be the first pope, but the Bible does not really support that. Jesus did not build his congregation upon Peter. Peter is merely one of 12 foundation stones. That's right, according to Revelation 21:14 the spiritual temple has 12 foundation stones with the names of the apostles written upon them. All anointed Christians are stones placed upon the original foundation, with Christ as the cornerstone. 

Yes, Peter was given the symbolic keys of the kingdom, but that doesn't mean he was the chief apostle. More importantly, there is not one shred of evidence that the apostles passed on their authority to anyone else. They had no successors. As a matter of fact, Paul told the Ephesian elders that he know that after he passed away wicked men would assume control of the flock. In other words, their successors would be frauds. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ruuka Nakau Mote Karotu on January 23, 2012 at 8:20pm

The REAL FIRST POPE

Follow this link: http://www.remnantofgod.org/pope1.htm

It will be a hell of wasting time copying and pasting it here so I encourage you readers to follow the above link.

Vinaka

RNMK

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fr Teatao Tekitanga on January 23, 2012 at 8:48pm

Mauri 2Tim.

I think you need a lot of reading on the history of the Papacy and also a lot of reading on the Bible on how the authors constructed their way of writing and thinking theologically from renown theologians. Good luck in your search for the truth.

Peace.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 2Tim316 on January 24, 2012 at 11:22pm

It is pointless Teatao, it is like telling someone to look up the history of  the tooth fairy, Easter bunny or Santa Claus for that matter, you must also believe these right?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Fr Teatao Tekitanga on January 25, 2012 at 2:50am

Mr 2Tim

It would be a wasting of time discussing with you because you are telling me you don't know how to read the bible and you don't understand the text. Read the text within the context and give your interpretation of Mathew 16:18-19. 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page