Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (Jacob, translate)
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.
But that is the truth...and you cannot seem to accept it?
How many Churches did you think Jesus estabish?
NONE . . . of the kind that YOU think is a Church. Christ created NO institution and NO hierarchy. He certainly had nothing to do with the RCC and its corrupt hierarchy.
But that is the truth...and you cannot seem to accept it?
How many Churches did you think Jesus estabish? several thousands with their own beliefs or only one?
Jesus established only one church but not the Roman church. The Roman church was at one time just one of many local assemblies of the people who in total make up that one church but is not that one church itself.
We can have no communion with a local church that does not understand that. Hence we must shun the Roman church until it returns to the faith. Rome left us, not the other way around.
So...in effect, you are creating your own view of what the Church is that Jesus estabished...and you are putting yourself as the head of your own creation
How do you think Jesus set it up? Did not Jesus say that He will build it upen the Rock of Peter?
No is the answer to your claims and questions above. Jesus built His church who He is. Not on a man. That's why Jesus said to Peter that upon this rock (not upon you) I will build my church.
Your revisionist histories fly in the face of documented history about the struggles the Bishop of Rome had in grasping for power over the centuries. Get at least one history that is not written by Catholic apologists.
Tertullian and Ireneus are not revisionist historians. Nor is Eusebuis. Even non catholic writers will attest to the valibity of the writings of the early church.
I think it is you who should revisit the history you have been reading.
NONE . . . of the kind that YOU think is a Church. Christ created NO institution and NO hierarchy. He certainly had nothing to do with the RCC and its corrupt hierarchy.
And Jesus has something to do you yours? Can you show me a church or an institution that has not had any scandal, or any corruption at one time?
No is the answer to your claims and questions above. Jesus built His church who He is. Not on a man. That's why Jesus said to Peter that upon this rock (not upon you) I will build my church.
PS. CRCarson weren't you just put off CD?
So...how did Jesus built His Church? After the resurrection, He ascended to Heaven after 40 days.
So who went on to build the Church here on earth after Jesus ascended?
Jesus established only one church but not the Roman church. The Roman church was at one time just one of many local assemblies of the people who in total make up that one church but is not that one church itself.
We can have no communion with a local church that does not understand that. Hence we must shun the Roman church until it returns to the faith. Rome left us, not the other way around.
How did Rome leave you?
Can you cite the history of your church or assembly? Can you trace its history all the way to the Pentecost or AD33?
Can you provide a historical like the one by Eusebuius below:
Eusebius of Caesarea
"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).
Because it is what the early Church believed. On the contrary, it is actually accounted for in historical records:
Here are some quotes, you can actually check the actual writings and verify them if you wish:
Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
You are aware of what brackets mean, right? It's an insertion of text that wasn't in the original writing that a later reader believes is implied. Regardless of that, Irenaeus wrote about a century and a half after the fact. He was not an eye witness to Peter doing anything, so how would he know?
Quote:
Tertullian
“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).
inhinyero, you're covering ground that's been covered before over and over and over again. Tertullian for all his gifts wrote a century and a half after the fact. How would he know? He wasn't there.
By the time he writes, the tradition of Apostolic Succession was widely accepted as a given. They had connected to dots to make the known historical record line up with the doctrine of Apostolic Succession. That does not rule out the possibility that the bishops immediately after the apostles made the whole thing up.
The Bible never mentions Peter and Rome as having anything whatsoever to do with one another. Paul's arrival in Rome is well documented by both Christian and non-Christian first-hand sources. Peter's arrival in Rome isn't ever mentioned by anyone who claims to have witnessed it first-hand. His presumed multiple decades ruling as Bishop of Rome is never corroborated by any first-hand accounts. No first-hand Christian source. No first-hand non-Christian source. After the Book of Acts goes silent about Peter, we really have absolutely no idea where he was. There are first-hand accounts to substantiate that he was in Antioch within that time frame, but not Rome. It does at least seem credible that he was taken prisoner, sent to Rome and murdered/executed there, but that's about it.
That one Church eventually resulted from the fragmented mess of Christianity doesn't tell us much. And technically, there never was one united Church. The efforts of eliminating Gnosticism, Arianism and countless other pre-Constantine "heresies" wasn't even close to complete by the time the Assyrian Church of the East broke away in 431 AD. Then the several religions categorized as Oriental Orthodox then broke away in 451 AD. Both of these early schisms were the direct result of Ecumenical Councils making controversial decisions and Imperial Rome trying to enforce those decisions with too heavy a hand.
If "we've been around the longest" made a compelling and decisive argument then we'd all convert to Judaism.
You believe that Peter was Bishop of Rome, but you don't actually know that he was. You believe that the Pope is the sole heir of St Peter, but you don't actually know either. You do not have enough historical evidence to prove Petrine Succession as a historical fact. You are welcome to believe what you wish. My disagreeing with you does not mean I'm refusing to see something obvious right in front of my face. The facts don't add up and from my point of view, everything points to Apostolic Succession just being a a power grab. Perhaps a power grab with the best of intentions in many cases, but a power grab nonetheless. You see history through the lens of "Catholicism is true" and I do not, so we're bound to see things differently.
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.
