why do the catholic popes believe they are the direct messengers of st. peter?
477623
The Popes are the successors of Peter. Peter was the first Christian leader of all the christians after the resurrection. He went to Rome and was the leader there for many years until he was crucified by the emperor Nero around 64 AD. All the bishops of Rome (the pope) take their authority from Jesus who  gave Peter the Authorithy to rule. Matthew 16:18-20 and John 21: 15-18
1042684
Pope Benedict the XVI makes the 266th Pope. Here are the names:  http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm\n\nThe answer to how the first Pope came to be can be complex, if only because it is disagreed upon by those outside the Catholic Church.\n\nAs you will notice the first Pope on the list in the link above is St. Peter. This is Peter the Apostle from the Gospel and an author of epistles. I will provide a fuller link below, but here is the short of it.  Peter was considered in Scripture to be the head Apostle since he appears more often, is on every listing of the Apostles first, and had many unique experiences with Christ. Namely, one is Matt 16 especially verse 18. This verse was not contested for over a thousand years until the Eastern Catholic Church broke away and no longer accepted the Papacy. The Catholic Church from the beginning interpreted the verse to mean Christ's Church would be built on Peter, whose name means Rock. Furthermore, it was only Peter who received the unique gifts of the keys which are spoken about in that chapter. There are a couple other instances unique to the position that Christ called Peter to, which are listed in this next link along with the unanimous agreement among the early Church Fathers which prove the authenticity of the history of the Pope as the Catholic Church describes it.\nhttp://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp\n\nGood question. Very heavily debated since those outside the Church are taught to be reactive to the very word 'Pope.' I encourage you to read some of the other articles detailing the Pope on that 2nd website. The first one is tougher to understand.\n\nIf you have any more questions please add some details to this post and I will try to return to it later if necessary.\n\nThanks and God Bless.\n\nps. I just saw your additional inquiries. Perhaps this will help you. It is comprehensive in a lot of ways. But is a great read. What I encourage is for you to understand just what the Catholic Church says about the Pope. You are always welcome to view the opposition's argument, but often enough there are people that do not learn about the Catholic Church from the Catholic Church. And they learn things that aren't true or are distortions to bolster an agenda. Good luck in your search.\n\nhttp://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm
1087684
st . peter. jesus appointed him
662596
Splinterjah (sp?) has no idea what he is talking about. Not to be mean of course, but he doesn't. Catholicism does differ from the mainstream Christian denominations, but it doesn't teach anything false. Catholics do NOT at ALL worship Mary, or any of the other saints. That is just a popular belief that is spread by ingnorant people who really have no idea what Catholicism is. That kinda thing has been going on since the 1500's. Catholics ask Mary and the saints to pray FOR US, just like it says to in the bible. We belive that the during the Eucharistic celebration (communion) the bread and wine really do turn into Jesus, which it also says in the bible. \n\nI don't think anyone in the world has ever prayed to the pope. We might have prayed FOR the pope, but never to him. Thats just ridiculous. The bible (in Matthew) talks about how Jesus gave Peter (the first pope) the "keys to the kingdom" and how what ever Peters says on earth (in reference to religious/moral doctrines) will make a binding compact with heaven. In other words, that means he is infallible, because if it binds with the law of heaven (God), then it has to be infallible, because if God wasn't infallible, the world would cease to be. \n\nAfter Jesus rose back from the dead, The Catholic Church started. JESUS himself started the Catholic Church. Someone said something about the bible saying something about "Christians in Antioch". Well DUH. Who do you think they were? Batists? Methodists? I doubt it, since they (or any other Protestant denomination) didn't come into existance until 1547 (I think thats the right year). Therefore, they must have been Catholics. \n\nIf the Pope is infallible, then that means everything he says and preaches is true (religious-wise) because he is filled with the Holy Spirit, and was given authority by Jesus himself. That means that Catholic doctrine is always in accordance with God in Heaven. \n\nThe bible also says to confess your sins to one another (preists). It never ever says "hey! Don't confess your sins to anybody, and make sure you never go into a thing called a confessional. And also make sure you never follow any kind of tradition, or listen to anything that a holy man says even if he is given authority by Jesus. And definately make sure you don't ask ANYBODY to pray for you, otherwise its a sin, and yes, that does include Mary and the saints."\n\nIt never says anything of the sort. And if anybody tries to prove that different by quoting from the bibe, then they are wrong. You can't just take random verses from the bible with out first looking at the context of which it is taken from. Thats a mistake that everybody makes when trying to refute the Catholic doctrine. \n\nAnd the main that I would say the Protestant churches do that is false is try to prove Catholicism wrong. \n\nBut anyways, I diverge. There is nothing wrong with going to a Catholic Highschool. You already know what you belive in, so it doesn't matter. Of course, you should be open minded. And remember, everyone is going to answer differently in Yahoo!Answers. So my advice to you is to not take ANYBODY'S word for ANYTHING on here. Reasearch all of it for yourself, and make sure that you don't get all of your information from a single biased perspective, which is what I, and everyone else is giving you. \n\nHighschool is highschool. Its all about getting your education, and you shouldn't be worried about anything else. \n\nAnd for the record, there is NO difference between Catholicism and Christianity. There are only differences between the different denominations of Christianity.
1045041
Time will tell... If there's any truth to the rumor of the 3rd letter of Fatima, then maybe the countdown is around the corner. More on this later.\n\nBut in answer to your follow up questions: Yes; yes; maybe; yes; and finally, a BIG YES!\n\nThere are huge vaults in several levels of undergound basement containing actual and original manuscripts, hermetically sealed to preserve their antiquities, that have been gathered eons ago --well, since they gained power as the Official State Religion of Rome, circa 325 AD or thereabouts. These vaults are called the 'Archives' of the Vatican.\n\nThe Knights Templar followed the victorious First Crusade and were sanctioned by the reigning King of France, under the auspices of the then pope, in early 12th century AD. Their military mission was to  protect and provide safe passage to Christian pilgrims en route to Jerusalem and back home. They started out with humble beginnings and the original nine knights took vows of Chastity, Poverty and Obedience. Their rule of conduct was based on the Cistercian monks' manuals.\n\nTheir Order grew rapidly and gained favor with the pope who ordered all monarchies to support them and their cause. In the process they became very wealthy and started to build their temples [mostly round floor plans] along the route and in their travels. They are credited to have started retail banking as we know it today: deposit your gold/cash in one temple at home and withdraw it anywhere along the way to Jerusalem or back by presenting your receipt.\n\nTwo centuries later, the Order had gained so much substantial power that King Phillip and Pope Clement decided to have them all eliminated by execution on trumped up charges of heresy, spitting on the cross, homosexuality, sodomy, idolatry, etc. and were burned at stake. Their Grand Master at that time was Jacque de Molay, who cursed the King and the Pope to die with him while he sizzled at the stake. Within months, both the Pope and King died too.\n\nJacque de Molay is CREDITED to have founded the Freemasons... Fascinating stuff, isn't it??\n\nSeek and you shall find.\n\nPeace be with you!
1085941
it doesn't matter whether peter went to rome or not.  Jesus told peter that he would be the rock that the church would be built upon.  peter then became the leader of the church (which was started before his death;some say the moment that Christ told peter this, others say at pentecost).  according to the roman catholic church and the easter orthodox church, peter is the first pope.\n\nthis argument has been going on for a long time and has to do more with "apostolic succession" which holds that the church is the direct spiritual successor of the beliefs of the apostles.  even more, the Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Old Catholic, and some Independent Catholic Churches would say that apostolic succession is maintained through the consecration of their bishops in unbroken personal succession back to the apostles.  The problem arises when the great schism occured (when the Church split into the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church each saying that they are the true "One Holy and Apostolic Church).  Each church claimed/claims that their leaders were the true direct spiritual descendant of Peter(wish i could go into detail but time doesn't permit).
862169
Yes I do. The majority of these people do not understand the office of the Pope and I sadly think they do not want to understand. They think nothing about God appointing Moses and Joshua and so on down the line but anything Catholic they automatically reject to their peril.
115054
The Pope is nothing more than a Bishop (as are the Cardinals).  Just a highly elevated Bishop (much like the Archbishop is an elevated Bishop).\n\nHe is the Bishop of Rome, because that is his diocese.  There are other Bishops in Rome, to be sure.  I think the title comes from St. Peter, who was the first Bishop of Rome (before there was the Holy See and before there was a Vatican City-State), and the Pope is the 265th(?) successor to Peter, and they keep the title of Bishop of Rome.\n\nAm I 100% sure of that?  No, but it makes sense to me.\n\n** Edit **\n\nHe is the Holy Father because he is a Priest (and we call our priests Father).  Holy because he is the head of the Church.\n\nWe call our Priests "Father" because they are the representatives of Christ on Earth, and at the Mass and at Confession he is acting "In Persona Christi" (In the Body of Christ).  If you are Catholic and go to Mass you will hear it in the Eucharist.  He says eat my body and drink my blood (as Jesus said in the last supper), not "Jesus said. . ."\n\nAs to whether or not he is "holy", I believe him to be.  He was elected by his peers with guidance from the Holy Spirit.  Not from political campaigning or the like (at least I don't remember signs saying "Vote for Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger for Pope" when I was at the Vatican - just a little humor).\n\nHis title is a little hard for some to accept.  It is true that Jesus said "call no man father on Earth" but he was refering to those that would claim to be from Christs teaching, but really weren't.  I think there is a clear, and unbroken, chain from Jesus, to St. Peter to Benedict XVI.\n\nI hope I helped clear it up.
645634
According to Wikipedia (which is not the most authoratative of sources): The Prophecy of the Popes, attributed to Saint Malachy (1094-1148), is a list of 112 short phrases in Latin. They purport to describe each of the Roman Catholic popes (along with a few anti-popes), beginning with Pope Celestine II (elected in 1143) and concluding with a later added pope described in the prophecy as "Peter the Roman", whose pontificate will end in the destruction of the city of Rome and the Last Judgement.\n\nThe prophecy was first published in 1595 by Arnold de Wyon, a Benedictine historian, as part of his book Lignum Vitæ. Wyon attributed the list to Saint Malachy, the 12th century bishop of Armagh in Ireland. According to the traditional account, in 1139, Malachy was summoned to Rome by Pope Innocent II. While in Rome, Malachy purportedly experienced a vision of future popes, which he recorded as a sequence of cryptic phrases. This manuscript was then deposited in the Roman Archive, and thereafter forgotten about until its rediscovery in 1590.\n\nOn the other hand, Bernard of Clairvaux's biography of Malachy makes no mention of the prophecy, nor is it mentioned in any record prior to its 1595 publication. This has led to many, including the most recent editions of the Catholic Encyclopedia, suggesting that the prophecy is a late 16th century forgery. Some have suggested they were created by Nostradamus.\n\nI don’t think this so-called “prophecy” maybe from about 1100 or maybe from 1595 has any relevance then or today.
434691
does the pope believe in God?
627653
Talk to one of his agents. Since the pope is gods respresentive on earth, and under his guidance the agents are shown. Provided that god is infalliable than the agents appointed by the pope are direct link to god.\n\nIf your protestant prayer works aswell
1182876
He is said to have a direct line, so to speak, with God.\n(I am not Catholic, but was raised as one.)
665103
When Jesus chose the Apostles they were just ordinary people, no different than you are I. \n\nThey were not superstars. Peter was always putting his foot in his mouth and he denied Christ three times.\n\nBut they were willing to follow Jesus, listen to what He said, and live their lives accordingly. All but one were eventually martyred.\n\nWe are called to do the same, follow Jesus, listen to what He teaches, and live our lives accordingly. Most of us will not have to make the ultimate sacrifice of martyrdom.\n\nWith love in Christ.
45746
The catholic church, in order to acquire as much power and authority for itself, convinced the masses that no one could know God except through its doctrines.  Through fear, persecution, and the influence of a far-reaching empire, this concept became a reality for anyone in the sphere of influence of the political boundaries of the church-state.  You don't seek God through us, you're going to hell, and we'll see to it that you'll get there in a hurry.
676144
Catholics are christians.
551494
Is the Pope Catholic?
426249
Grace unto you, and peace,\nfrom God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.\n\nOf two biblical parts notably played:\n- "their part": God is evil(law) spoken of ... law\n- "your part": God is (grace) glory-fied ... grace\n\nEvery Pope obviously plays "their part".\nAnd "their end" shall be according to "their works".\nEg: the last pope (John-Paul II) said this, in 1999\n"long tradition of sacrifice must continue in 3rd millennium"\nCompare this to the stated will of God:\n"I will have mercy, and not sacrifice"\n(Ps 40:6; 51:16; Hos 6:6; Mt 9:13; Heb 10)\nNot to mention the third day isn't a millennium.\nRather third day also seventh day when counting.\n\nEg: Cardinal Law, in Boston?\nHe did cover up thing, got exposed.\nHe's now hidden away with some nuns.\n\nAnd talk about partiality & hypocrisy.\nOld homosexual priests can still minister.\n(because they're desperately short of priests)\nBut no new homosexual priests can minister.\n\nOver 50% of existing priests have come out,\nand openly declared they are homosexual.\n\nWhat they are is ensnared by evil concupiscence.\nhttp://www.godshew.org/Concupiscence.htm\nhttp://www.godshew.org/ShewBread5.htm#evilc\n\nBut such isn't only among RCC, also Protest-ants.\nTranslators of the Bible spoke to both sides;\ncalling the RCCs "popish persons"\ncalling Protestants "self-conceited" brethren\nhttp://www.godshew.org/EpistleDedicatory.htm\nwho maligned and traduced translators on both sides\n\nNo matter, for the end of the shew is already written:\n\nThe "grace" of our Lord Jesus Christ with you all. Amen.