Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Christianity
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 04-16-2014, 11:17 PM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,711,133 times
Reputation: 6593

Advertisements

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.

 
Old 04-17-2014, 01:47 AM
 
23,655 posts, read 17,467,969 times
Reputation: 7471
Default This explains it quite well---


Apostolic Succession Defended - YouTube
 
Old 04-17-2014, 02:20 AM
 
Location: Chicago Area
12,687 posts, read 6,711,133 times
Reputation: 6593
I'm not really a Sola Scriptura kind of guy, so much of the video doesn't really speak to me. Frankly, I find Sola Scriptura to be all so much nonsense. I don't believe in limiting God's ability to speak to humankind. I do not view "adding to the Bible" as a bad thing. On the other hand, I do view the abrupt cessation of the scriptural record to be extremely alarming. Why did it end? He references a Mormon Church's belief in "The Great Apostasy." Well, that's actually a very good point in my opinion. It does not require acceptance of Mormonism to see the obvious: The sudden cessation of the scriptural record is powerful evidence that something very bad happened. If God stopped speaking, it behooves us to figure out why He stopped speaking ASAP. Apparently, nobody ever did. Christianity apparently greeted the end of scripture with the same casual nonchalance as the Jews did 500 years earlier.

He does mention something quite noteworthy: The Roman Catholic Church is not the only religion claiming Apostolic Succession. Naturally, this begs the question, why is the RCC's succession any better than that of Constantinople, Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc? What is it that uniquely qualifies Rome's bishop better than any of these other bishops? And before you say Peter, please be aware that Antioch claims him too. Antioch had him first, Antioch had him for much longer. Antioch can claim that Peter actually lived in their city, whereas Rome cannot. So Rome's claim to Peter is certainly not unique and Antioch has a stronger claim to him anyways.

I don't actually believe the Rome or Antioch inherited Peter's authority, but since you do then that's probably an important thing for you to consider.

I appreciate the video but I think it's very targeted at traditional Protestants and not at Restorationist-minded folk like myself. It creates more questions than answers for somebody like me.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 05:48 AM
 
12,030 posts, read 9,307,218 times
Reputation: 2845
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
The sudden cessation of the scriptural record is powerful evidence that something very bad happened. If God stopped speaking, it behooves us to figure out why He stopped speaking ASAP. Apparently, nobody ever did. Christianity apparently greeted the end of scripture with the same casual nonchalance as the Jews did 500 years earlier.

Actually, the Church is open and God spoke again regarding the importance of the Virgin Mary, the Trinity, etc . The magisterium is alive and kicking. The Church is not limited to the few written words in the Bible.



Quote:
He does mention something quite noteworthy: The Roman Catholic Church is not the only religion claiming Apostolic Succession. Naturally, this begs the question, why is the RCC's succession any better than that of Constantinople, Ephesus, Corinth, Antioch, Jerusalem, Alexandria, etc? What is it that uniquely qualifies Rome's bishop better than any of these other bishops? And before you say Peter, please be aware that Antioch claims him too. Antioch had him first, Antioch had him for much longer. Antioch can claim that Peter actually lived in their city, whereas Rome cannot. So Rome's claim to Peter is certainly not unique and Antioch has a stronger claim to him anyways.

I don't actually believe the Rome or Antioch inherited Peter's authority, but since you do then that's probably an important thing for you to consider.
Popes do not name their successors. I think this is why so many people are confused. The papacy is not a hereditary monarchy.

A line of Popes over time make a succession. Pope Francis is the successor of Peter. I suggest you look up the definition of the word succession.

The authority was passed down by ALL apostles to those they consecrated as priests by laying the hands over them. And that started the apostolic succession. The Bishop of Rome is the leader of the church, but there is nothing special about Rome. It could have been any other city. Rome is Rome because of historic reasons. Other non-Catholic churches maintain their apostolic succession and that is a good thing.

Look up the meaning of the word succession.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 08:00 AM
 
1,534 posts, read 1,986,110 times
Reputation: 271
If one reads the intro's to Paul's letters to the 'churches' you will note he begins by sending greetings to 'certain' ppl. My point?

IF Peter was indeed the bishop in Rome why didn't Paul greet him in his letter to the church in Rome?

Why does Acts 12:17,Ac 15:13,21:18 name James [first] and no mention of Peter? And why in Gal.2:9, if Peter was the 'head' of all of the others, is James' name mentioned before Peters? And what about Gal. 2:12?

Too many places show Peter was not above the others for me to accept the CC's word for this doctrine.

Not to mention there are many respected RCC scholars that admit Rome simply doesn't have provable apostolic succession and very probably didn't have the 1st bishop till the middle of the 2nd century.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 08:06 AM
 
16,433 posts, read 22,154,382 times
Reputation: 9622
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010 View Post
The sudden cessation of the scriptural record is powerful evidence that something very bad happened. - It creates more questions than answers for somebody like me.

Actually there is a 400 year silence from God between Malachi and Matthew. The Bible says there will be prophets (and false ones...) from time to time until the time of the end.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 09:55 AM
 
4,449 posts, read 4,601,898 times
Reputation: 3146
Re: Peter...
You know I'd say there's much in the fact that Peter was once Simon son of John, then Cephas then ultimately Petrus.
In looking at the Old Testament the changing of names implies a giving of a mission. And he looks to be a 'special' Apostle where he is usually involved in something where he's a 'first'...the Resurrection, raising of Jairius' daughter, the Transifiguration and in Gethsemane and who's feet gets washed at the Last Supper? From the looks of it Peter himself had to know he was a 'no.1' personage. Good for the humble fellow since he was a true leader. Christ himself sure looks like gave the 'hints' for apostolic succession especially when it comes to Peter.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 10:34 AM
 
12,030 posts, read 9,307,218 times
Reputation: 2845
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshipmate View Post
If one reads the intro's to Paul's letters to the 'churches' you will note he begins by sending greetings to 'certain' ppl. My point?

IF Peter was indeed the bishop in Rome why didn't Paul greet him in his letter to the church in Rome?

Why does Acts 12:17,Ac 15:13,21:18 name James [first] and no mention of Peter? And why in Gal.2:9, if Peter was the 'head' of all of the others, is James' name mentioned before Peters? And what about Gal. 2:12?

Too many places show Peter was not above the others for me to accept the CC's word for this doctrine.

Not to mention there are many respected RCC scholars that admit Rome simply doesn't have provable apostolic succession and very probably didn't have the 1st bishop till the middle of the 2nd century.
Ha, ha. This is the classic worn out maneuver of trying to prove something by "absence of proof". Listen to yourself: You are saying that Peter is not in Rome because this is not mentioned in the NT. The fact that it is not mentioned does not prove anything, that is wishy washy logic.

Furthermore, the papacy is not dependent on being a resident of Rome 24/7. When Pope Francis is in another country he is still running the church.

Peter is the first leader of the church as per the orders of Jesus.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 12:01 PM
 
296 posts, read 238,004 times
Reputation: 46
King James Bible
The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.

Peter was in Rome and it's Biblical.

Peter was a wanted man, thus using the code word, "Babylon" for Rome.

At the time of Peter, the real Babylon had already been a deserted ghost town for 3 centuries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_(New_Testament)

My "Why the Move to Rome" thread was removed. I will revive it in a better way, in time.
 
Old 04-17-2014, 12:39 PM
 
Location: Diocese of Raleigh
555 posts, read 455,748 times
Reputation: 33
Quote:
Originally Posted by mshipmate View Post
If one reads the intro's to Paul's letters to the 'churches' you will note he begins by sending greetings to 'certain' ppl. My point?

IF Peter was indeed the bishop in Rome why didn't Paul greet him in his letter to the church in Rome?
Because that might get Peter killed. It is also possible that Peter simply wasn't in Rome at the time...these guys tended to travel around a fair bit.

Quote:
Why does Acts 12:17,Ac 15:13,21:18 name James [first] and no mention of Peter? And why in Gal.2:9, if Peter was the 'head' of all of the others, is James' name mentioned before Peters? And what about Gal. 2:12?
I'll deal with the last one here.

On Peter, Paul and Hypocrisy

In their effort to deny the primacy of Peter and the doctrine of papal infallibility, many non-Catholics point to Paul’s rebuke of Peter over the issue of eating with Gentiles as recorded in the Paul’s Letter to the Galatians.

Galatians 2:11-14
11When Peter came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he was clearly in the wrong. 12Before certain men came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles. But when they arrived, he began to draw back and separate himself from the Gentiles because he was afraid of those who belonged to the circumcision group. 13The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray. 14When I saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Peter in front of them all, "You are a Jew, yet you live like a Gentile and not like a Jew. How is it, then, that you force Gentiles to follow Jewish customs?

In this passage, we see that Paul opposed Peter for not practicing what he preached. Although Peter may have been wrong to draw back from eating with the Gentile believers, we must note that is apparently James, and not Peter, who was the leader of the “circumcision group” in Jerusalem. Thus, those who assert that it was James, and not Peter, who was the real leader of the Church must answer for this error. However, Peter’s actions do not constitute formal teaching, and the doctrine of infallibility does not apply to Peter’s private opinions or behavior. Therefore, this passage does nothing to disprove either Peter’s primacy or the doctrine of papal infallibility. Peter, like his successors, was not above reproach nor impeccable.

However, it must also be noted that Paul was not above taking prudent measures out of fear of those who held to the tradition of circumcision, either. One such measure is found in the following passage:

Acts 16:1-3
1He came to Derbe and then to Lystra, where a disciple named Timothy lived, whose mother was a Jewess and a believer, but whose father was a Greek. 2The brothers at Lystra and Iconium spoke well of him. 3Paul wanted to take him along on the journey, so he circumcised him because of the Jews who lived in that area, for they all knew that his father was a Greek.

Paul wrote that “circumcision means nothing” (1 Corinthians 7:19, Galatians 6:15). Moreover, in the same letter in which Paul accused Peter of hypocrisy and boasted of having opposed Peter to his face, he writes the following:

Galatians 5:2-3
2Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you that if you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be of no value to you at all. 3Again I declare to every man who lets himself be circumcised that he is obligated to obey the whole law.

Imagine how Timothy must have felt when he first heard these words. He had let himself be circumcised by the very man who condemned the practice. Was Christ of no value to Timothy at all as a result of being circumcised?

This was not the only time that Paul had acted out of fear of the Jews. Later in the book of Acts, we find the following:

Acts 21:17-26
17When we arrived at Jerusalem, the brothers received us warmly. 18The next day Paul and the rest of us went to see James, and all the elders were present. 19Paul greeted them and reported in detail what God had done among the Gentiles through his ministry. 20When they heard this, they praised God. Then they said to Paul: "You see, brother, how many thousands of Jews have believed, and all of them are zealous for the law. 21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. 25As for the Gentile believers, we have written to them our decision that they should abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality." 26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.

Clearly, the brothers in Jerusalem were concerned that some harm might come to Paul from those who knew that Paul taught against circumcision. Paul agreed to purify himself according to Jewish customs and to pay the expenses of those who were purified along with him rather than openly admit that circumcision was of no value. Was this a wise course of action? Assuredly as subsequent events indicate.

However, it cannot be denied that Paul was preaching one thing (at least in private to Gentile Christians) while practicing another—the very thing he accused Peter of doing.

In his subsequent letters (1Cor 8: 9-13, Romans 14:13), Paul backtracks and admits that one might avoid controversial behavior for the sake of the "weaker brethren." Thus, he vindicates Peter's actions in retrospect.

In short, Peter and Paul both had valid points. Paul was right in principle whereas Peter was right pastorally.

Quote:
Too many places show Peter was not above the others for me to accept the CC's word for this doctrine.

Not to mention there are many respected RCC scholars that admit Rome simply doesn't have provable apostolic succession and very probably didn't have the 1st bishop till the middle of the 2nd century.
Care to name a few of these "respected" scholars? Apostolic succession is one of the most easily defended doctrines of the Church...especially since we can begin with scripture and add history and logic to the defense.
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.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top