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.
godofthunder9010;34401834]Per Gabriel's request, I'm starting this new thread to alleviate confusion. Hopefully we can move the entire discussion on this one point to this thread.
Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to the apostle Peter? With respect, I just don't see it. All I see is a line of bishops with no more and no less authority than any other line of bishops.
This is a point which is rarely discussed. The debate rages on between Catholics and Protestants over whether Peter had all of the authority that the RCC claims he did. Lovely as all of that is, that entire debate is completely irrelevant if the Bishop of Rome was never the exclusive and rightful successor of St Peter in the first place.
Two brief points my friend:
1. Christ in choosing Peter to Lead HIS people [new church and faith] was just following His OWN OT traditions of with utter consistancy; choosing ONE MALE [man] to lead HIS chosen People:
From Noah. Abraham, the Judges, Kings like David and Solomon, to the Prophets like Isaiah, to John the Baptist [the final OT prophet] who leads to Christ, who choose Peter. Which is both historically and biblically provable.
Mt. 10: 1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
John 21: 15-16 "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
Luke 22:31-32 "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [32] But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."
2. I have a list I can share of FIFTY [50] Peter "bible first" if you'd care to see 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 do not get Catholicism, this is quite obvious. In this regard you are like the Sola Scriptura and Atheist folks. Same mindset on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Jesuit priest and physicist understood Catholicsim you don't. You need to figure why Lemaitre could logically hold both positions in his brilliant mind.
St. Thomas Aquinas, one of the greatest philosophers that ever lived proved the existence of God:
Aquinas never, not even once mentioned the bible or religious dogma to prove God. You need to figure out how this Saint of the Catholic Church did this. How do these folks understand science and philosophy and Catholicism at the same time.
How can I find a body of people following "true religion"?
Are there any characteristics that I should be looking for in that "religion"?
"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world."
You try to find one that is far less concerned with ideas about God than it is with how to live in love in community and with God.
1. Christ in choosing Peter to Lead HIS people [new church and faith] was just following His OWN OT traditions of with utter consistancy; choosing ONE MALE [man] to lead HIS chosen People:
From Noah. Abraham, the Judges, Kings like David and Solomon, to the Prophets like Isaiah, to John the Baptist [the final OT prophet] who leads to Christ, who choose Peter. Which is both historically and biblically provable.
Mt. 10: 1-8
Mt. 16:15-19
John 21: 15-16 "When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep.
Luke 22:31-32 "And the Lord said: Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat: [32] But I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not: and thou, being once converted, confirm thy brethren."
2. I have a list I can share of FIFTY [50] Peter "bible first" if you'd care to see it?
God Bless you and THANKS for asking,
IamACatholic
Patrick
Lovely as this is, you are doing exactly what I'm trying to avoid here. You're trying to prove Peter. Again. Just like every other member of the RCC, you instinctively seek to prove that Peter was important. Peter's importance is irrelevant until it can definitively and absolutely proven that Pope really is his successor.
What I'm trying to understand here: Why the RCC is so utterly convinced that the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) is the rightful and exclusive successor to Peter. Got any scriptural passages proving the importance of the Bishop of Rome or the See of Rome? Any passage with God or Christ or apostles telling us in plain language that Rome will lead and rule Christendom? I know of no such passage. Since God could see the future, God surely knew that Rome would be the "royal capital" of Christianity for close to 2000 years and counting, if the RCC's claim is true that is. It's a pretty serious omission on God's part, wouldn't you say? In fact, there is not even one single passage of scripture that actually comes right out and says "Peter is in Rome" or "I Peter am currently in Rome." What do we have beyond the very agenda-driven Catholic sacred oral tradition that ever truly connects Peter to Rome -- in Peter's own lifetime -- in any way whatsoever? If any connection can reliably be demonstrated, then how is Peter connected to Rome more so than any other city?
We do know that Peter was in Jerusalem, Caesarea, Antioch and many other places because the Biblical record says he was, so asking for any clear reference placing Peter in Rome isn't asking too much. The RCC tradition claims he was there for decades after all. It seriously stretches credibility that no Biblical writer ever bothers to mention that Peter is in Rome even once. It is even more discrediting that no Biblical writer even uses Peter and Rome in the same sentence. So why are we to believe that there is a connection? Because the RCC says so? I'm willing to accept that Peter may have visited Rome. We also don't actually know that, but it's possible. I'm even willing to accept that Rome murdered Peter and kept his dead corpse - a fact that hurts Rome cause far more than it helps it. That too is not Biblical, and once again relying on collected tradition of the very religion that stands to benefit from connecting Peter to Rome.
Ultimately, I think Rome's claim to successorship from Peter is 100% made up. That is precisely why proving Peter is irrelevant to this discussion.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
You do not get Catholicism, this is quite obvious. In this regard you are like the Sola Scriptura and Atheist folks. Same mindset on opposite ends of the spectrum.
Georges Lemaitre, a Catholic Jesuit priest and physicist understood Catholicsim you don't. You need to figure why Lemaitre could logically hold both positions in his brilliant mind.
Not true. I understand why he would believe in God . . . but not the frequently anachronistic (anti-Christ and evil) dogma of the RCC.
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.
