Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (Solomon, Isaiah)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As for the business of Victor and Quartodecimanism, this is most definitely not a good example. Victor was being a hothead and the opposing side essentially rebukes him and puts him in his place.
"On receiving the negative response of Polycrates, Victor attempted to cut off Polycrates and the others who took this stance from the common unity, but reversed his decision after bishops that included Saint Irenaeus, Bishop of Lugdunum in Gaul, interceded, recommending that Victor follow the more peaceful attitude of his predecessors. "Thereupon Victor, who presided over the church at Rome, immediately attempted to cut off from the common unity the parishes of all Asia, with the churches that agreed with them, as heterodox; and he wrote letters and declared all the brethren there wholly excommunicate. But this did not please all the bishops. And they besought him to consider the things of peace, and of neighborly unity and love. Words of theirs are extant, sharply rebuking Victor. Among them was Irenaeus, who, sending letters in the name of the brethren in Gaul over whom he presided, maintained that the mystery of the resurrection of the Lord should be observed only on the Lord's day. He fittingly admonishes Victor that he should not cut off whole churches of God which observed the tradition of an ancient custom." "
Whether the Asian churches would have recognized Victor's right to excommunicate them enmasse is not at all certain. If they believed it was valid, it really proves nothing but their own gullibility. What is clear is that everyone thought that Victor was acting like an idiot. They had no intention of submitting to Victor's demands. Victor was sharply rebuked for his behavior. They gradually talked him down from his little tirade.
Still, Victor's little temper tantrum was solid foreshadowing of the future East-West schism, when yet another Pope has a temper tantrum and attempts to do the same mass excommunication thing. The Pope's power of excommunication enmasse was certainly not recognized as valid, but was contemptuously returned in kind by the Patriarch of Constantinople. The truly laughable thing is that the RCC wants us to accept these and many other such men as "Vicar of Christ" and the one and only voice of God on earth.
It is a fairly well established fact of Christian history that the earliest bishops ordained a lot of bishops in cities where there were none. This effectively made the new bishop beholden to the city whose bishop ordained them to a certain degree. The Armenian Christians considered the Bishop of Antioch to be their ultimate head with final say in cases where there was dispute. The Syrian Orthodox Church still recognizes the primacy of Antioch. All of Egypt and Ethiopia recognized the Pope of Alexandria as their own supreme leader in exactly the same fashion. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church was still under the overall leadership of Alexandria for until 1959, and only by an official act of the Pope of Alexandria.
In the West, there was only one very old bishopric and that was Rome. So it should surprise nobody that bishops in the West began to submit to Rome over time. So yes, the process of the 5 great cities becoming the unofficial (and later official) head of all Christendom did start before Constantine. Each of the five cities clearly had their own sphere of influence.
These are examples that can't be taken seriously because they come well after Constantine and other emperors elevated bishops to powerful political rulers and granted primacy to Rome and Constantinople. The truly interesting fact is that immediate contemporaries of Constantine like "Pope" Sylvester were surprisingly quiet and unassuming despite the authority upgrade they had just received. If any bishop was acting as sole leader of Christendom leading up to and during the Council of Nicaea, it was Athanasius and most certainly not Sylvester.
Yet all of your best examples come at least 150 yeas after the earliest "Popes." If you can provide examples where Linus and Anacletus actually led the whole church, then you'd really have something. Otherwise, all I'm seeing is a gradual and growing tradition, mostly in the western half of the empire, of submitting to Rome.
The first Pope to really act the part of Pope 100% was Gregory I - 590AD to 604AD. So why were all popes prior to Gregory so timid?
Medieval Rome is centuries later than what I'm claiming. My claim is that the Bishop of Rome (along with Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch and Constantinople) gradually moves into the vacuum of power left by the apostles. That process was very gradual and begins with the death the last apostle John. The process led to the Pope not only claiming successorship to Peter, but eventually claiming to be the rightful successor to the Roman Emperor as well. This is precisely the pattern we see throughout history when a monarch is constantly trying to grab more and more power for themselves and their successors.
Ultimately, it is the entire concept of Apostolic Succession that is the best evidence against Apostolic Succession. The claim is that God simply stops talking to humanity. "I am the LORD, and I do not change." And yet, the entire doctrine of Apostolic Succession: including the closure of scriptural canon and the notion that "God will never again have anything to say to humanity that is worth writing down" contracts that scripture. What Apostolic Succession and these other doctrines claim is that God did indeed change. After all, God's entire program of periodic divine communication with humanity got tossed in the garbage for some reason. Pretty big change there.
Another evidence to add to that is the fact that over the ages the Popes have most certainly acted the part of the ravening wolves that Christ warned his disciples of, and that "by their fruits ye shall know them." So when does a ravening wolf become "Vicar of Christ" exactly?
You are doing an excellent job of setting the record straight, GOT. The RCC has for too long monopolized the record with misrepresentations that they use to prop up their power and control. They have barely made any progress in understanding God or Jesus despite their long reign. They have only grudgingly accommodated SOME science because of their dogma. This is largely due to the massive and unending corruption within the hierarchy.
You are doing an excellent job of setting the record straight, GOT. The RCC has for too long monopolized the record with misrepresentations that they use to prop up their power and control. They have barely made any progress in understanding God or Jesus despite their long reign. They have only grudgingly accommodated SOME science because of their dogma. This is largely due to the massive and unending corruption within the hierarchy.
You sound like a Sola Scriptura person!
This is religion and in religion anything goes. As a Catholic I don't have issues with Jews, Mormons or even Atheists (also a religion). If we are going to put down religion for not making any sense then we cannot have any religion.
You are doing an excellent job of setting the record straight, GOT. The RCC has for too long monopolized the record with misrepresentations that they use to prop up their power and control. They have barely made any progress in understanding God or Jesus despite their long reign. They have only grudgingly accommodated SOME science because of their dogma. This is largely due to the massive and unending corruption within the hierarchy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
You sound like a Sola Scriptura person!
Nah! I am a follower of Christ and His revelations about the TRUE NATURE of God. I guess I am a "no-religion" Christian.
What suggests that Linus wasn't leading? Because none of his contemporaries had anything to say about him leading anything but the Church at Rome that he was assigned to. John was taking a leading role over the entire Church. There is abundant Biblical and non-Bilbical evidence of John leading the whole Church. So if Linus was leading, why didn't anyone ever mention it or even hint at the fact?
The burden of proof is on the RCC. The historical record shows 300 years of Bishops of Rome keeping to themselves and never sticking their nose in any other bishop's business unasked for. It is only after the Roman Empire has firmly established Christianity as the new state religion and promoted the Bishop of Rome to "first among equals" by imperial decree that we even begin to see the Bishop of Rome start acting like they're anything more than any other bishop. And naturally, the Emperor chose the pecking order. It was the Emperor that made Rome top dog by imperial decree. Shortly thereafter, it was imperial decree that promoted the Bishop of Jerusalem to greater standing. It was the Emperor's decree that promotes the Bishop of Constantinople to higher standing than Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch, making them virtually equal in standing with the Bishop of Rome. Notice how absolutely nobody dared to object to the Empire choosing the pecking order. By rights, Antioch would be "first among equals" if any bishop merits the title. If not first, then at least second. Yet Antioch sat back and let themselves be demoted. Why? Apparently, because the emperor said so and because the emperor gave Antioch more power than they had ever had before. Just like Rome, Antioch was was just another bishop ranking no higher or lower than any other. When somebody gives you new and great power, most people tend not to argue against it.
This is a case of "where there is smoke there is fire." Records and writings can be forged and changed, but it's a lot harder to fake actions that never happened without historians seeing it for what it is. For 300 years, nobody is looking to Rome to lead. For 300 years Rome is not trying to lead. Lack of evidence of Popes actually behaving like Popes is the best evidence that the title and position was a complete fabrication. The Bishop of Rome becomes emboldened starting with Constantine. Rome continues to claim more and more power and Christendom accepts it because of where it came from: The Emperor of Rome.
The inadequacy of this example is absolutely astounding. A bishop with troubles seeks the advice of one of the most gifted bishops and administrators alive at the time. Clement gives his advice and help. You're trying to tell me that 1 + 1 = 1000.
The evidence you present is weak at best. The Bible forgets to mention Rome's primacy. The earliest Church Fathers don't mention it. You have a lot of round about insinuations but no concrete evidence. It really says something when Peter "departing to another place" must automagically mean Rome. Rome would be one of the least logical destinations for Peter to run to. He would likely head to somewhere closer that didn't involve the cost of passage by ship and to go such a great distance. I have to cut this short for now.
I'm glad that the RCC has evolved into a vastly less tyranical and more Christlike religious organization. I think it's a great religion and that it has learned the hard lessons of it's many mistakes. But Rome's exclusive claim to Peter holds about as much water as the pagan-era Roman Emperors' claim to be living gods. Julius Caesar was an opportunist who snatched power for himself when presented with the opportunity. Later emperors felt they needed divine sanction to excuse the power grab. The Bishop of Rome is no different.
More later.
Yep
Constantine did not recognize it, as where was the "Nicene" Creed formulated and where did they meet in obedience to his direction?
Oh, and later in 381AD where did they meet and what part did the Bishop of Rome play????
None.
Where was this Papal authority in 325 and 381 AD?????
Non existent.
Who accepts the decision of these councils? The Churches including Rome and ... the Bishop of Rome did NOT attend.
Nah! I am a follower of Christ and His revelations about the TRUE NATURE of God. I guess I am a "no-religion" Christian.
I hear you, but without religion you have no vehicle to complete your humanity. I give you credit for successfully passing through all the phases of atheism, but you are not quite there yet.
Remember, there is little difference between Sola Scriptura people and Atheists. They both despise religion and are both very passionate. One camps worships logic and the other camp worships mythology. Nevertheless, they are similar. That is why you are anti-religion, you don't quite understand what is on the other side.
Nah! I am a follower of Christ and His revelations about the TRUE NATURE of God. I guess I am a "no-religion" Christian.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
I hear you, but without religion you have no vehicle to complete your humanity. I give you credit for successfully passing through all the phases of atheism, but you are not quite there yet.
Wrong I have Christ.
Quote:
Remember, there is little difference between Sola Scriptura people and Atheists. They both despise religion and are both very passionate. One camps worships logic and the other camp worships mythology. Nevertheless, they are similar. That is why you are anti-religion, you don't quite understand what is on the other side.
I fully understand what is on the other side and I am quite certain that the dogma of the RCC and the corrupt men who produced it have nothing to do with it.
Wrong I have Christ.I fully understand what is on the other side and I am quite certain that the dogma of the RCC and the corrupt men who produced it have nothing to do with it.
You have Christ.
Could be.
I'm just having a hard time squaring that with the obvious bitterness with which you speak about scripture and the Catholic Church.
Why exactly did you leave the Catholic Church, Mystic?
Remember, there is little difference between Sola Scriptura people and Atheists. They both despise [another] religion and are both very passionate. One camps worships logic and the other camp worships mythology. Nevertheless, they are similar.
I think this is a very fair statement. There has never been a religion invented that was flawless and recognizable as absolutely true beyond all doubt. The RCC must make many unfounded assumptions to lay claim to "God's only true Church." The Orthodox Catholic Church (the official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church) also no doubt has to pull a few rabbits out of thin air to establish their own claim to being "God's only true Church."
Calling anyone anti-religion though is kinda rude I think.
Quote:
Remember, there is little difference between Sola Scriptura people and Atheists.
Add Catholicism to that list and you're making a very true statement. Your Sola Scriptura Protestant believes in an infallible Bible, a notion that is completely ridiculous to anyone that doesn't already believe in it. Catholics believe in Papal infallibility, a notion that is completely ridiculous to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. Atheists are just as passionate in their believe no the nonexistence of a supreme being and all things supernatural, a notion that is ridiculous to anyone who is religious, and therefore doesn't already believe it. Any religion tends to come across as nonsensical and ridiculous to the outsider looking in.
As it relates to this thread: Ultimately, there is no account of any event where the passing of authority from Peter to the Bishop of Rome was absolutely obvious. One must take the RCC's word for it that the passing of authority actually happened. It is likewise not entirely clear when the Bishop of Rome became convinced that he was in charge. But clearly Rome comes to that conclusion at some point. The ardent believer in Papal authority sees unshakable evidence where the disbeliever sees wanton usurpation of power. Petrine succession cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. The answer to my question is two-fold:
1.) Catholic oral tradition.
2.) It's simply a matter of faith. You either believe the Pope is who he claims to be or you do not. There is no absolute proof anywhere that can settle the matter once and for all.
You are doing an excellent job of setting the record straight, GOT. The RCC has for too long monopolized the record with misrepresentations that they use to prop up their power and control. They have barely made any progress in understanding God or Jesus despite their long reign. They have only grudgingly accommodated SOME science because of their dogma. This is largely due to the massive and unending corruption within the hierarchy.
Nonsense. Many priests were scientists. Also, Catholics will tell you we have had some doosies for Popes but what of it? That just proves the Holy Spirit is protecting the church like Scriptures say, the church will be with us until the end of time. What other institution has lasted for over 2,000 years?
I think this is a very fair statement. There has never been a religion invented that was flawless and recognizable as absolutely true beyond all doubt. The RCC must make many unfounded assumptions to lay claim to "God's only true Church." The Orthodox Catholic Church (the official name of the Eastern Orthodox Church) also no doubt has to pull a few rabbits out of thin air to establish their own claim to being "God's only true Church."
Calling anyone anti-religion though is kinda rude I think.
Add Catholicism to that list and you're making a very true statement. Your Sola Scriptura Protestant believes in an infallible Bible, a notion that is completely ridiculous to anyone that doesn't already believe in it. Catholics believe in Papal infallibility, a notion that is completely ridiculous to anyone who doesn't already believe in it. Atheists are just as passionate in their believe no the nonexistence of a supreme being and all things supernatural, a notion that is ridiculous to anyone who is religious, and therefore doesn't already believe it. Any religion tends to come across as nonsensical and ridiculous to the outsider looking in.
As it relates to this thread: Ultimately, there is no account of any event where the passing of authority from Peter to the Bishop of Rome was absolutely obvious. One must take the RCC's word for it that the passing of authority actually happened. It is likewise not entirely clear when the Bishop of Rome became convinced that he was in charge. But clearly Rome comes to that conclusion at some point. The ardent believer in Papal authority sees unshakable evidence where the disbeliever sees wanton usurpation of power. Petrine succession cannot be proven nor can it be disproven. The answer to my question is two-fold:
1.) Catholic oral tradition.
2.) It's simply a matter of faith. You either believe the Pope is who he claims to be or you do not. There is no absolute proof anywhere that can settle the matter once and for all.
Except that we do better than all that. Here's how:
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
