The Papal State & Vatican City

[The Biblicist]

The Papal State(s), State(s) of the Church, or Pontifical States (Italian: Stato Pontificio, also Stato della Chiesa, Stati della Chiesa, Stati Pontifici, and Stato Ecclesiastico; Latin: Status Pontificius, also Dicio Pontificia) were among the major historical states of Italy from roughly the 6th century until the Italian peninsula was unified in 1861 by the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia (after which the Papal States, in less territorially extensive form, continued to exist until 1870).

The Papal States comprised territories under direct sovereign rule of the papacy, and at its height it covered most of the modern Italian regions of Romagna, Marche, Umbria and Lazio. This governing power is commonly called the temporal power of the Pope, as opposed to his ecclesiastical primacy.

The plural Papal States is usually preferred; the singular Papal State (equally correct since it was not a mere personal union) is rather used (normally with lower-case letters) for the modern State of Vatican City, an enclave within Italy's national capital, Rome. Vatican City was founded in 1929, again allowing the Holy See the political benefits of territorial sovereignty.

This church state relationship began with Constantine in the fouth Century.


Where in the New Testament can there be found any church built by Christ that ruled over territories as a church state with ambassadors in other countries of the world?????????

Can we find such a church in the gospel accounts? - No

Can we find such a church in the book of Acts? - No

Can we find such a church in the epistles? - No

Can we find such a church in the book of Revelation - No? Yes?

1 ¶ And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:
2 With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.
3 So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.
4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication: {decked: Gr. gilded}
5 And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.
18 And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

This woman is not the beast but is supported by the beast (kings and secular governments)

This woman commits fornication with the kings of the earth

This woman reigneth over the kings of the earth

This woman has Saints within her that are called to come out of her.

This metaphorical harlot is placed in direct contrast to another metaphorical woman - the Bride

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Im a little tired this morning brother....what are you driving at....please be both direct & concise. Thanks.

 

[The Biblicist]

Im a little tired this morning brother....what are you driving at....please be both direct & concise. Thanks.

I don't know how much more direct and concise I can put it and still give it a little bit of substance?

IF the State Church of Rome is included under the metaphor of the Great Harlot in Revelation, then there can be no doubt that whom she has persecuted, slandered and killed and condemned as "heretics" as recorded in her own preserved history (ECF) is in part at least the Bride of Christ (Rev. 17:6).

Hence, those in Revelation 17:6 should be and would be regarded as "heretics" by a state church in order to legally condemn and execute them.

Revelation 17:6 is the true history of the Bride of Christ written in blood and regarded as heretical by the Church controlled State and recorded as "heretics."

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

I don't know how much more direct and concise I can put it and still give it a little bit of substance?

IF the State Church of Rome is included under the metaphor of the Great Harlot in Revelation, then there can be no doubt that whom she has persecuted, slandered and killed and condemned as "heretics" as recorded in her own preserved history (ECF) is in part at least the Bride of Christ (Rev. 17:6).

Hence, those in Revelation 17:6 should be and would be regarded as "heretics" by a state church in order to legally condemn and execute them.

Revelation 17:6 is the true history of the Bride of Christ written in blood and regarded as heretical by the Church controlled State and recorded as "heretics."

Yes but we all know this....honestly, are you not preaching to the choir?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes but we all know this....honestly, are you not preaching to the choir?

There is a good number on this forum who are not part of the choir you speak about.

 

[lakeside]

The Biblicist, Jesus said: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matt. 10:25). "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18–20).

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There is a good number on this forum who are not part of the choir you speak about.

Actually the un-saved like....er, actually prefer harlots. I know this from 1st hand experience (referencing past/pre regenerate days).

 

[The Biblicist]

Actually the un-saved like....er, actually prefer harlots. I know this from 1st hand experience (referencing past/pre regenerate days).

Did you notice that one of those who is not a member of your choir just sung a solo on the thread?

 

[The Biblicist]

The Biblicist, Jesus said: "If they have called the master of the house Beelzebul, how much more will they malign those of his household" (Matt. 10:25). "If the world hates you, know that it has hated me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world . . . the world hates you. Remember the word that I said to you, ‘A servant is not greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will persecute you" (John 15:18–20).

That is an accurate description of the Great Harlot alright. Rome under the Justinian laws showed Rome's hatred for Christ and his congregations putting to death thousands who were wrongly slandered, then condemned and then executed by Rome.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

That is an accurate description of the Great Harlot alright. Rome under the Justinian laws showed Rome's hatred for Christ and his congregations putting to death thousands who were wrongly slandered, then condemned and then executed by Rome.

Yes & a Maine Man too! Anyway Biblicist....will you be telling to any Catholics any time soon....in other words, shouldn't they know the truth as well?

 

[The Biblicist]

Yes & a Maine Man too! Anyway Biblicist....will you be telling to any Catholics any time soon....in other words, shouldn't they know the truth as well?

There are those on this forum who have gone from non-Catholic to Catholic. I would like to see some go from Catholic to non-Catholic wouldn't you?

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

There are those on this forum who have gone from non-Catholic to Catholic. I would like to see some go from Catholic to non-Catholic wouldn't you?

Absolutely.....And now I will Rant that this BB forum has driven these folks away from actively posting so I hope & pray you can get a dialog going to achieve your objective.:thumbsup:

 

[The Biblicist]

Absolutely.....And now I will Rant that this BB forum has driven these folks away from actively posting so I hope & pray you can get a dialog going to achieve your objective.:thumbsup:

Well, we can try.

I think in order to do that they must be confronted with some stark contrasts between what Roman Catholicism IS in contrast to the church Jesus built in the New Testament.

One such stark contrast is that the church Jesus built has no administrative or legal connection with SECULAR GOVERNMENT. Vatical City is a government with ambassadors. The Papal state was ruled over by the Pope.

Another such stark contrast is that the only known church council recorded in the New Testament was not ruled over by Peter but by James (Acts 15).

Another such stark contrast is the biblical use of divine ordinances as signs versus Rome's use of divine ordinances as signs (sacraments). Both Paul and Jesus flatly deny that a "sign" or divine ordinance are instrumental in conveying what they signify (Rom. 4:11; Luke 5:12-15).

 

[lakeside]

Biblicist, i'm not a Catholic apologist[ just a neophyte convert from one of your baptist man-made churches ]so i've taken the following section from an article written by Carl E Olson.
1) Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church.

2) Peter was a local leader at Jerusalem (even though he was known more widely because he had been a close follower of Jesus during the ministry). James took Peter’s place as the local Jerusalem leader (when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier). Neither of them had a role as leader in the Universal Church, for, in fact, there was no single leader in the Universal Church.

3) Peter was a universal leader, operating from Jerusalem as the center of Christianity, and was succeeded by James. In other words, the position of universal influence that Peter had at Jerusalem (except his apostleship) was transferred to James when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier.

The first theory aligns essentially with the Catholic belief; the second covers a wide range of mainline Protestant perspectives; and the third—the most extreme view—is embraced by more radical, liberal scholars.

Acts 15 can be broken into four basic sections.

1. The first (vs. 1-5) sets the scene and explains the conflict between Gentile and Jewish Christians over the observance of various Mosaic customs and laws.

2. The second (vs. 6-18)—the section that concerns us here—contains the discussion, including debate (v. 7a), Peter’s speech (vs. 7b-11), the witness of Paul and Barnabas (v. 12), and James’ speech (vs. 13-21).

3. The third section (vs. 19-29) explains the decision reached at the council, including the letter to be sent to the churches.

4. The final section (vs. 30-35) presents some of the reaction to the letter.

The council consisted of “the apostles and the elders” who had gathered together to “look into the matter” and come to some sort of solution. The Catholic understanding is that this gathering was a blueprint and prototype for future Church councils. As such, it included the gathering of leaders from the entire Church, not just a particular region; it made decrees binding on all Christians; it addressed matters of faith and morals; and it issued documents recording essential statements, decrees, canons, and so forth. Finally, but certainly not least, it was presided over by the pope (either in person or by representative).

The Jerusalem Council began with a spirited debate (v. 7a). Then Peter spoke, appealing to the “early days” and his experience in bringing the gospel to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10). We are saved by grace, Peter stated, not by works of the Law (v. 11). A marked silence followed his speech (v. 12a). Then Barnabas and Paul testified to God’s work “among the Gentiles” (v. 12b). After they had finished, James gave his speech, pointing to both the words of Peter (“Simeon,” v. 14) and the Prophets (vs. 15-18). He then offered his “judgment”: the Gentiles would not have to observe the ceremonial Law. An authoritative letter was then written, stating “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to lay upon you no greater burden” than abstaining from “things sacrificed to idols,” from blood and things strangled, and “from fornication” (vs. 28-29).

 

[The Biblicist]

I think we all quote others to support our positions and probably none on this forum are technically "apologists". So no big deal.

However, the one you quote is simply wrong in his assumptions.

1) Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church.

Peter was entrusted with pastoral leadership over the congregation in Jerusalem as you rightly pointed out when Jesus said to him "feed my sheep." There was no provincial church ever mentioned but plural "churches" (Acts 9:31) and the plural is the right reading as it is confirmed by Paul in Galatians 1:22.

His logic is flawed. If Peter had the greater authority over greater area, then James should not have been making the judgement in Acts 15 as delegates from outside the congregation at Jerusalem were present and the consequences of this judgement were intended to be sent to all churches everywhere as it was put in a letter form to be delivered to not only the congregation at Antioch but to all the congregations Paul and Silas organized (Acts 16:1-4). Hence, his whole assumption is flawed from the start.

 

[Walter]

First of all. I want to introduce myself. I am a Baptist but have an aunt that became a Catholic after following along on this board for some years. I registered because she encouraged it. I also am registering on a Catholic board as well. I don't know how much I will post but I'm glad you do have at least a couple of Catholics to discuss topics with. According to my aunt, Catholics are rarely allowed to participate or register on this board.

 

[Amy.G]

According to my aunt, Catholics are rarely allowed to participate or register on this board.

That's because they have been very pushy in trying to convert others to Catholicism. It became such a problem that eventually they had to be banned.

 

[lakeside]

That's because they have been very pushy in trying to convert others to Catholicism. It became such a problem that eventually they had to be banned.

It was probably a situation where the Catholics were only trying to defend the Catholic Church from all the false misunderstandings that the anti-Catholics on these sites try to convey to others.

 

[Melanie]

Ah do you subscribe to the concept of Christ the King?

The Papal state was ruled over by the Pope. This should be IS. The Pope is a monarch and the state is certainly not a democracy in the sense that the people rule through the government.

 

[DHK]

Biblicist, i'm not a Catholic apologist[ just a neophyte convert from one of your baptist man-made churches ]so i've taken the following section from an article written by Carl E Olson.
1) Peter and the other members of the twelve were concerned with a Christian mission far more extensive than just Jerusalem. They were never really local church leaders, once Jerusalem became big enough to require such caretakers. James was the first leader of the local church at Jerusalem (at least for the Hebrew Christians) and remained there after Peter and the other members of the twelve left the scene, whether through death or on travels. James had authority only in Jerusalem (and its “province”), but his name was known more widely because he was a blood relative of Jesus. Paul’s loyalty was to the “mother church” or community of saints in Jerusalem. His respect for James was a respect for the local leader of that church.

Most of this he has correct. Note he states that James remained there as pastor of the church. I don't know why you have been fighting against this fight when your own quoted sources agree with us on this point. The only thing wrong here is that Paul was not a member here. He was a member of the church at Antioch. (See Acts 13:1-3)

2) Peter was a local leader at Jerusalem (even though he was known more widely because he had been a close follower of Jesus during the ministry). James took Peter’s place as the local Jerusalem leader (when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier). Neither of them had a role as leader in the Universal Church, for, in fact, there was no single leader in the Universal Church.

Peter was a leader for a very short time from the Day of Pentecost up until the church of Jerusalem was scattered (see Acts 8:1-4). Then the church (at Jerusalem) went everywhere preaching the gospel. There was no universal church. That can't be shown from Scripture.

3) Peter was a universal leader, operating from Jerusalem as the center of Christianity, and was succeeded by James. In other words, the position of universal influence that Peter had at Jerusalem (except his apostleship) was transferred to James when Peter left Jerusalem or even earlier.

The only One who is universal is God. Otherwise all the Apostles were well known universally. John was just as well known as Peter, and later Paul became better known than them both. For a while the church which was in Jerusalem was the only church that there was. But then Philip went down to Samaria in Acts 8 and started a work among the Samaritans. After that the gospel went to the Gentiles in the house of Cornelius in chapter ten. And then in chapter 13 Paul began his missionary journeys and started to plant scores of churches all over Asia, Asia-minor, parts of Europe, and the mid-east. None of these were connected with either Rome or with Jerusalem. Not one of them were connected with Peter. There was no universal church.

Acts 15 can be broken into four basic sections.

1. The first (vs. 1-5) sets the scene and explains the conflict between Gentile and Jewish Christians over the observance of various Mosaic customs and laws.

No, it states the case--legalism. Should the observance of the Law and circumcision be necessary for salvation? This is very similar to the RCC today. Should the observance of good works and the sacraments be necessary for salvation? In both cases the answer was no.

2. The second (vs. 6-18)—the section that concerns us here—contains the discussion, including debate (v. 7a), Peter’s speech (vs. 7b-11), the witness of Paul and Barnabas (v. 12), and James’ speech (vs. 13-21).

James "speech" was an authoritative declaration; a judgment--the decision of the church that he was the pastor of.

3. The third section (vs. 19-29) explains the decision reached at the council, including the letter to be sent to the churches.

It was the explanation of the decision of James, who gave it.

4. The final section (vs. 30-35) presents some of the reaction to the letter.

The reaction for the most part was good.

The council consisted of “the apostles and the elders” who had gathered together to “look into the matter” and come to some sort of solution. The Catholic understanding is that this gathering was a blueprint and prototype for future Church councils.

We don't have apostles today. This was a point of doctrine that the apostles themselves needed to authoritatively declare for all who dissented. Everywhere that Paul went the Judaizers (legalists) followed him trying to destroy the work that he started. Read Galatians for an account of this. This had to be stopped, and had to be put to an end with authority. Salvation was and is not of works. That was the statement being made.

As such, it included the gathering of leaders from the entire Church, not just a particular region; it made decrees binding on all Christians;

There is no "entire church." There was the church at Jerusalem. In chapter 13 there was the church at Antioch. The text doesn't say there were representatives from any other churches. It says the apostles and elders. They were probably the very elders of the church at Jerusalem. There is no evidence that any other church was involved. There is no such thing as a universal church, and certainly no denomination is represented.
It made a statement concerning salvation for the Gentile believers.
That statement was more for the Judaizers that were trying to persuade Gentile believers to stray from the truth. It was to rebuke error.

it addressed matters of faith and morals; and it issued documents recording essential statements, decrees, canons, and so forth.[/quote[
No it did not. That is someone's imagination working overboard.

Finally, but certainly not least, it was presided over by the pope (either in person or by representative).

Pure myth! It was presided over by the pastor of the local church at Jerusalem

The Jerusalem Council began with a spirited debate (v. 7a). Then Peter spoke, appealing to the “early days” and his experience in bringing the gospel to the household of Cornelius, a Gentile (Acts 10). We are saved by grace, Peter stated, not by works of the Law (v. 11). A marked silence followed his speech (v. 12a). Then Barnabas and Paul testified to God’s work “among the Gentiles” (v. 12b). After they had finished, James gave his speech, pointing to both the words of Peter (“Simeon,” v. 14) and the Prophets (vs. 15-18). He then offered his “judgment”: the Gentiles would not have to observe the ceremonial Law. An authoritative letter was then written, stating “it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and us to lay upon you no greater burden” than abstaining from “things sacrificed to idols,” from blood and things strangled, and “from fornication” (vs. 28-29).

James gave his judgment. The authority came from James, being the pastor of the church. It was Paul and Barnabas that were sent out, not Peter. It is as if Peter had nothing to do with it. The work was done by James, first; then by Paul and Barnabas. Peter is simply watching from the bleachers.