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.
Oh goody! Another cut and paste papist who thinks they are in charge by using red in their post here to set us all straight. Seems to be a lot of them joining here all at once. Anyone else notice this?
Well if you think all Catholics are just papists and call us that, I bet you don't even read what they post or care so why are you in this thread to begin with?
Okay, I'm kind of confused here, so between you and Julian, perhaps you can help me out here.
The way I understand the organizational structure of the early (and by that I mean Apostolic, not post-Apostolic) Church is that bishops were to preside over individual congregations, not over the entire Church. If Peter had passed his authority exclusively to the Linus, Bishop of Rome, why was the Bishop of Rome not named an Apostle. Other Apostles were named in the Bible in addition to the original twelve, and there is no indication anywhere that a bishop and an apostle were ever the equivalent. Had Peter passed his authority (i.e. the authority of an apostle) to the Bishop of Rome, then the Bishop of Rome would have not merely been the Bishop of Rome any more. He'd have held the same authority Peter did -- which authority all bishops submitted to. No bishop ever submitted to the authority of another bishop.
And that raises another question. John outlived Peter, although in exile, and was the last surviving Apostle. While in exile, John received the Book of Revelation. If it is the Bishop of Rome who has the right to speak on behalf of God, why didn't Linus receive Revelation? Why would God have spoken to some other Apostle if the true head of the Church was the Bishop of Rome.
It seems the overwhelming majority of non-Catholics think the Pope names his successor and then passes his authority.
Popes do not name their successors or pass their authority to other Popes. Peter was an apostle, but his successors were not apostles. The Catholic priests of this era are not apostles even though they can trace their ordination to the apostles. Apostolic succession does not mean the successors are apostles.
For example Peter ordained Clement as a priest. Later on Clement became Pope, however, Peter did not name Clement Pope.
Our current Pope Francis is the successor of Peter because he is the leader of Christendom. Just as Peter was the leader of the apostles. The definition of succession may help.
Quote:
suc·ces·sion [suhk-sesh-uhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
the coming of one person or thing after another in order, sequence, or in the course of events: many troubles in succession.
2.
a number of persons or things following one another in order or sequence.
3.
the right, act, or process, by which one person succeeds to the office, rank, estate, or the like, of another.
4.
the order or line of those entitled to succeed one another.
The Popes are elected by other Church members. The current Pope has no clue about who will be the next Pope.
And you seem to elevate the Pope way too much. By tradition the Bishop of Rome is the leader of the Church and called Pope. But, Popes do not write books for the New Testament. Popes write Encyclicals which you can read here: Papal Encyclicals Online
The Pope can only speak infallibly about issues of morality and the faith. This has only occurred twice in 2000 years. Otherwise, the Pope speaks just like any other human being. And they are as fallible as anyone.
It seems the overwhelming majority of non-Catholics think the Pope names his successor and then passes his authority.
Popes do not name their successors or pass their authority to other Popes. Peter was an apostle, but his successors were not apostles. The Catholic priests of this era are not apostles even though they can trace their ordination to the apostles. Apostolic succession does not mean the successors are apostles.
For example Peter ordained Clement as a priest. Later on Clement became Pope, however, Peter did not name Clement Pope.
Our current Pope Francis is the successor of Peter because he is the leader of Christendom. Just as Peter was the leader of the apostles.
At least in the first instance of succession, this is extremely problematic because according to Matthew 16 and RCC belief in general, Peter has the keys of the kingdom. So Peter either passed them on to somebody else or he did not. At no point are we told that the Cardinals (though they were not called that back then) had had the keys turned over to them. Only Peter himself could pass them to another. If the Bishop of Rome did not get the keys from Peter himself, then exactly where did he get them??
Quote:
The definition of succession may help.
I don't think anyone needed to be told what the word means. We all get it. The question at hand is not whether everyone understands the word succession. The real question is whether the Bishop of Rome is a legit successor or a usurper pretending to authority that he never had. If the Pope is a usurper, that is no condemnation on the RCC today as they would be entirely oblivious to the fact. Still, the legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome's successorship to Peter means the difference between the RCC being founded on true authority vs completely imaginary authority -- so it's a pretty important matter to address obviously.
Quote:
The Popes are elected by other Church members. The current Pope has no clue about who will be the next Pope.
To be more precise, the Pope is elected by the clergy members of the Holy See of Rome, also known as Cardinals. The election of new Popes, at least on paper, is a very local thing, but since the Pope is the recognized leader of a world-wide religion Cardinals started taking up residence outside of Rome and relocating all over the world. Still, each is still officially a member of the local clergy of the Holy See of Rome, and their position as one of the highest authorities in the RCC comes from their association with the See of Rome.
At least in the first instance of succession, this is extremely problematic because according to Matthew 16 and RCC belief in general, Peter has the keys of the kingdom. So Peter either passed them on to somebody else or he did not. At no point are we told that the Cardinals (though they were not called that back then) had had the keys turned over to them. Only Peter himself could pass them to another. If the Bishop of Rome did not get the keys from Peter himself, then exactly where did he get them??
All the apostles received the same power. Peter was simply singled out.
The apostolic succession is passed down from all apostles. It is quite possible Pope Francis may trace his ordination to an apostle that is not Peter.
Quote:
Still, the legitimacy of the Bishop of Rome's successorship to Peter means the difference between the RCC being founded on true authority vs completely imaginary authority -- so it's a pretty important matter to address obviously.
We are talking religion here. I think you want to apply a legalistic secular logic to this. The concept is simple. Jesus picked Peter as Vicar. The Church does not believe it all ended with the departure of Jesus and the death of Peter. Jesus established a Church and gave the church authority to bind and loose. And Peter was the first leader among the Apostles that walked with Jesus. That James and Paul were promient after Jesus left is moot because Jesus did pick them as the Vicar of Christ.
Okay, I'm kind of confused here, so between you and Julian, perhaps you can help me out here.
The way I understand the organizational structure of the early (and by that I mean Apostolic, not post-Apostolic) Church is that bishops were to preside over individual congregations, not over the entire Church. If Peter had passed his authority exclusively to the Linus, Bishop of Rome, why was the Bishop of Rome not named an Apostle. Other Apostles were named in the Bible in addition to the original twelve, and there is no indication anywhere that a bishop and an apostle were ever the equivalent. Had Peter passed his authority (i.e. the authority of an apostle) to the Bishop of Rome, then the Bishop of Rome would have not merely been the Bishop of Rome any more. He'd have held the same authority Peter did -- which authority all bishops submitted to. No bishop ever submitted to the authority of another bishop.
And that raises another question. John outlived Peter, although in exile, and was the last surviving Apostle. While in exile, John received the Book of Revelation. If it is the Bishop of Rome who has the right to speak on behalf of God, why didn't Linus receive Revelation? Why would God have spoken to some other Apostle if the true head of the Church was the Bishop of Rome.
The bolded part would make things a lot less confusing certainly.
The notion of what Catholics call Apostolic Succession is simple enough to explain, and they are welcome to correct me if I'm wrong on any point. Apostolic Succession is a transitional thing. They believe the apostles authority passes to all bishops, but that authority is lesser that what the apostles held. The apostles had the right to direct divine revelation and the collective body of the Church's bishops did not. The official doctrine of the Catholic Church is that divine revelation ceased with the apostles. The bishops were thereafter led by the Holy Spirit.
Simple enough to explain, but whether or not you buy into it is another matter entirely. In my opinion, anytime that somebody tells you that revelation from God is being replaced by some other system, look out! The Jews did it. Most of Christianity believes in the concept. Islam believes in the idea as well. It is a recurring theme that I think Satan tries to foist upon humanity: "God doesn't speak anymore." And for whatever reason, humanity falls for it every time.
All the apostles received the same power. Peter was simply singled out.
The apostolic succession is passed down from all apostles. It is quite possible Pope Francis may trace his ordination to an apostle that is not Peter.
From the sound of things, Apostolic Succession seems a lot like a magician pulling a rabbit out of his hat. It seems to appear out of nowhere. One second, a bishop is a strictly local leader with no authority outside if his region/city. The next instant, he just magically has the keys of St Peter along with all of the bishops in Christendom. Then just as magically, the Bishop of Rome is the heir of St Peter. Fine and good if you already believe it, but surely you must realize that's a really tough sell to anyone who doesn't already believe it it, right? The RCC just seems to be saying:
This is where it gets frustrating. The Catholic faithful will tell you that they are 100% certain of Apostolic Succession and that it is obvious and that there is no conceivable reason to doubt it. You'll have to excuse me but it doesn't seem obvious at all to me. Quite the opposite.
Quote:
We are talking religion here. I think you want to apply a legalistic secular logic to this.
Stating that the RCC is "God's Only True Church" is a bold statement. Do you believe in it? Or do you believe that "it's just religion, so we can hardly expect it to make any logical sense"? I'm really not trying to offend, but that really is what it sounds like you're saying here.
Quote:
The concept is simple. Jesus picked Peter as Vicar.
And you're back to trying to prove Peter ...
Quote:
The Church does not believe it all ended with the departure of Jesus and the death of Peter. Jesus established a Church and gave the church authority to bind and loose. And Peter was the first leader among the Apostles that walked with Jesus. That James and Paul were prominent after Jesus left is moot because Jesus did pick them as the Vicar of Christ.
I thought that Jesus gave the authority to bind and loose to Peter. Are you saying that he gave it to the entire Church? When did that happen? So the entire membership of the Church is the Vicar of Christ? Or are you saying that James and Paul were chosen as Vicar of Christ?
I'm pretty sure I'm misunderstanding that paragraph. Can you please clarify what you meant to say?
god - It appears to me that you are in this only to try and make Catholics look foolish. In other words, your getting-off on trying to bait us with your wise assertions.
This thread and others have clarified the CC teachings on this subject. I think in reality there are 4 possibilities here: 1) You haven't read all of our explanations. 2) You do not want to read our explanations. 3) You don't understand our explanations. 4) You just want to have some fun at our expense.
I believe the 4th possibility. You are not stupid enough to not do your own research on this subject, if you are so perplexed about it. So I'll no longer be playing your game on this subject, because all of the info is out there for those that are interested, not to mention all the folks that read, but do not comment at all.
Thanks for making it possible for us to put so much Catholic teaching on this particular thread! No doubt there are those of the Catholic faith that are in need of explanations, that might enable them to come back home to the CC.
god - It appears to me that you are in this only to try and make Catholics look foolish. In other words, your getting-off on trying to bait us with your wise assertions.
This thread and others have clarified the CC teachings on this subject. I think in reality there are 4 possibilities here: 1) You haven't read all of our explanations. 2) You do not want to read our explanations. 3) You don't understand our explanations. 4) You just want to have some fun at our expense.
I believe the 4th possibility. You are not stupid enough to not do your own research on this subject, if you are so perplexed about it. So I'll no longer be playing your game on this subject, because all of the info is out there for those that are interested, not to mention all the folks that read, but do not comment at all.
Thanks for making it possible for us to put so much Catholic teaching on this particular thread! No doubt there are those of the Catholic faith that are in need of explanations, that might enable them to come back home to the CC.
5) You see the foundation upon which the CC teaching is built on is sinkng sand.
Christ in you is more than enough. He is the rock and soul foundation of those who believe on Jesus Christ.
At least in the first instance of succession, this is extremely problematic because according to Matthew 16 and RCC belief in general, Peter has the keys of the kingdom. So Peter either passed them on to somebody else or he did not. At no point are we told that the Cardinals (though they were not called that back then) had had the keys turned over to them. Only Peter himself could pass them to another. If the Bishop of Rome did not get the keys from Peter himself, then exactly where did he get them??
For the 100th time. Popes don't pass special powers to their successors. The church needs a leader just as Peter was the leader of the apostles. Peter was singled out by Jesus and gave him authority (Matt 16:19). However, the authority is the Church itself.
Quote:
The Magisterium or Teaching Authority of the Church
by Fr. William G. Most
By the Magisterium we mean the teaching office of the Church. It consists of the Pope and Bishops. Christ promised to protect the teaching of the Church : "He who hears you, hears me; he who rejects you rejects me, he who rejects me, rejects Him who sent me" (Luke 10. 16).
Quote:
The real question is whether the Bishop of Rome is a legit successor or a usurper pretending to authority that he never had.
This is not the Tudor dynasty! This is more like the presidency of the US. Obama is the successor of George Washington. And the President has special powers that regular folks don't have.
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.
