Is the Pope in the Vatican worthy to be Holy?

[Tirong-say]

---

He should be, because he is ordained to be one, since Jesus Christ to Saint Peter (The first Pope) and until now..............

[karwren]

amaze au ko sa mga taw diri.. bright au when it comes sa bible.. hehehehehe... ako i know a little lng..

but let me share it..

"Let the children come to me. Do not hinder them. The kingdom of God is people like this. I say to you clearly. Unless you are people who accept the kingdom of God as a child, you will never be able to enter in it," - Luke 18:15-17

Yes bitaw, naa gyud acceptance. =)

[carbrill]

yes he is worthy to be holy since he is doing a great work for the greater glory of God but in terms of human being naa sad tingay ni cya'y fault...

[kebotDiNaMute]

He should be, because he is ordained to be one, since Jesus Christ to Saint Peter (The first Pope) and until now..............

hmmm, interesting, i want to see the basis of this unta brad if naa...

but peter was crucified upside down, he said he is not worthy to die like christ... it was never written that christ will have proxy, for he said, if 2 or more people are gathered in my name, i will be in the midst of them...

I think its just an added doctrine... i have no prob if you believe on that but the basis cannot be established. IMO

[Tirong-say]

Dia ra Bro Kebs....................

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes, were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

Source:

Was Saint Peter the first Pope?

[kebotDiNaMute]

yes he is worthy to be holy since he is doing a great work for the greater glory of God but in terms of human being naa sad tingay ni cya'y fault...

not by works, so that no one can boast.

[kebotDiNaMute]

Dia ra Bro Kebs....................

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18). It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles. The Roman Catholic Church maintains that sometime after the recorded events of the Book of Acts, the Apostle Peter became the first bishop of Rome, and that the Roman bishop was accepted by the early church as the central authority among all of the churches. It teaches that God passed Peter’s apostolic authority to those who later filled his seat as bishop of Rome. This teaching that God passed on Peter’s apostolic authority to the subsequent bishops is referred to as “apostolic succession.”

The Roman Catholic Church also holds that Peter and the subsequent popes, were and are infallible when addressing issues “ex cathedra,” from their position and authority as pope. It teaches that this infallibility gives the pope the ability to guide the church without error. The Roman Catholic Church claims that it can trace an unbroken line of popes back to St. Peter, citing this as evidence that it is the true church, since according to their interpretation of Matthew 16:18, Christ built His church upon Peter.

Source:

Was Saint Peter the first Pope?

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18)

It doesn't mean authority... it does mean to building the church. But proxy for christ... sorry its different story.

It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles
--- NOT at the same level with God... right? but authority.... hmmm, it never speaks about authority... entrusting might be a similar term.. idk...

[Tirong-say]

The Roman Catholic Church sees Peter as the first pope upon whom God had chosen to build His church (Matthew 16:18)

It doesn't mean authority... it does mean to building the church. But proxy for christ... sorry its different story.

It holds that he had authority (primacy) over the other apostles
--- NOT at the same level with God... right? but authority.... hmmm, it never speaks about authority... entrusting might be a similar term.. idk...

Yup, perhaps..........................

[karwren]

Addtl Info:Quoted on What the Bible says about the Papacy:

"While Peter was central in the early spread of the gospel (part of the meaning behind Matthew 16:18-19), the teaching of Scripture, taken in context, nowhere declares that he was in authority over the other apostles or over the Church (see Acts 15:1-23; Galatians 2:1-14; 1 Peter 5:1-5). Nor is it ever taught that the Bishop of Rome was to have primacy over the Church. Rather, there is only one reference in Scripture of Peter writing from “Babylon,” a name sometimes applied to Rome, found in 1 Peter 5:13. Primarily upon this, and the historical rise of the influence of the Bishop of Rome (due to the support of Constantine and the Roman emperors who followed him), comes the Roman Catholic Church teaching of the primacy of the Bishop of Rome. However, Scripture shows that Peter’s authority was shared by the other apostles (Ephesians 2:19-20), and that the “loosing and binding” authority attributed to him was likewise shared by the local churches, not just their church leaders (see Matthew 18:15-19; 1 Corinthians 5:1-13; 2 Corinthians 13:10; Titus 2:15; 3:10-11).

Nowhere does Scripture state that in order to keep the church from error, the authority of the apostles was passed on to those they ordained (apostolic succession). Apostolic succession is “read into” those verses that the Roman Catholic Church uses to support this doctrine (2 Timothy 2:2; 4:2-5; Titus 1:5; 2:1; 2:15; 1 Timothy 5:19-22). What Scripture DOES teach is that false teachings would arise even from among church leaders and that Christians were to compare the teachings of these later church leaders with Scripture, which alone is cited in the Bible as infallible. The Bible does not teach that the apostles were infallible, apart from what was written by them and incorporated into Scripture. Paul, in talking to the church leaders in the large city of Ephesus, makes note of coming false teachers, and to fight against such error does NOT commend them to “the apostles and those who would carry on their authority,” but rather he commends them to “God and to the word of His grace...” (Acts 20:28-32).

Again, the Bible teaches that it is Scripture that is to be used as measuring stick to determine truth from error. In Galatians 1:8-9, Paul states that it is not WHO teaches but WHAT is being taught that is to be used to determine truth from error. While the Roman Catholic Church continues to pronounce a curse to hell “anathema” upon those who would reject the authority of the Pope, Scripture reserves that curse for those who would teach a different gospel (Galatians 1:8-9)."

[Vien]

binuang maning catholicism oi dili ni angay tawgon ang pope ug holy Father ang angay kay Wholy Scrap