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.
1. Peter founded the Christian community at Rome. This community was the Catholic Church in it's embryonic form.
2. Jesus gave the authority to forgive sins to his apostles. Priests are the successors to the Apostles. We are also told to "confess your sins to one another" in the bible. The combination of these two things is the basis for priestly confession. If you were "raised Catholic" you should know this.
3. False. What you are referring to has become a very persistent rumor on the internet. Here's the truth: All Catholic bibles, whether they be the Latin Vulgate, Douay Rheims, NAB, New Jerusalem Bible, or any other Catholic bible, lists the Commandments exactly as they appear in every Protestant bible. Just go online and look at any Catholic bible. You can even view photocopied pages of one of the (Catholic) Gutenberg bibles online dating to 1450 AD. Every commandment is listed there. It's always been thus. Nothing has ever been changed. But there is an abbreviated version of the Commandments that has been stripped to it's bare essence. This bare-bones version of the Commandments is used simply for ease of memorization, particularly for kids and can be found in the Catechism of the Catholic Church. On the very same page of the Catechism, you will find the entire Ten Commandments as listed in every Bible, Catholic or Protestant, in order to see all the original wording. And please remember, the original Commandments in the bible were never numbered. God didn't give Moses the "Ten Commandments". God gave him "The Commandments".
I have a Catholic Bible and it does NOT list the 10 Commandments as they are in my other 28 Bibles. That is NOT true at all. I also have my Catechism from when I was raised in the Catholic church, so you can post what you will, but some of do know the truth no matter how you try to spin. They are not listed in the same way as any other Bible in the Catechism either. In fact, just the other night I was able to prove to a friend of mine how she was taught wrongly about the commandments with her own Catechism book and my Bibles. She was on the fence, but she is now leaving the Catholic church to be in a church that actually teaches the Bible as it was written and not how some papacy changed it to be what they wanted it to be.
Go ahead and tell us why the Catholic Papacy took out the commandment about idol worshipping and split the 10th commandment so they could have 10. Your post above is nothing but misstatements, but if you choose to believe them that is your right. I choose to follow Christ and not some man or men who think they are in the same category as Christ.
How do you know this to be true? This is how the RCC retells history in order to make the Pope into the ruler of all Christianity, but what evidence do you have that Peter was ever involved in the foundation of the Christian community at Rome?
The New Testament doesn't ever even once say anything about Peter being in Rome. When Paul is writing letters to and from Rome, he mentions a lot of people. In his epistle to the Romans, Paul sends greetings to Epaphras, Mary, Andronicus, Junia, Ampliatus, Urbanus, Appelles, Herodion, Tryphena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus, Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Heras, Philologus, Julia, Nereus, Olympas, but Peter is never mentioned. Not as Peter. Not as Cephas. Not as Simon either. In Epistles Paul wrote from Rome (Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 2 Timothy. Titus, Philemon) he sends his greetings on behalf of many fellow-Christians in Rome: Aristarchus, Mark, Barnabas, Jesus Justus, Epaphras, Luke and Demas. Yet Peter is never once mentioned. There isn't even the barest hint that Peter is there in Rome with Paul. If Peter was actually there, can you think of anyone more deserving of mentioning?
I've seen it suggested that Peter was hiding out in Rome for about 25 years and that nobody actually knew he was there. This is a mark of desperation on the part of folks who are determined that Peter really was at Rome. The most idiotic place on earth to hide from capture by Roman authorities is Rome itself, and Peter would have to essentially abandon the ministry in order to hide so well in the Roman capital for 25 years.
There are no firsthand account of Peter being in Rome. Not by Christians. Not by non-Christians. Nobody writing in their journal, "I met a man named Peter today." All you will find is men writing 100+ years after the fact, claiming that Peter was there. How could they possibly know that he was there? They weren't even born yet.
Honestly, this is what the original post is all about. Like most non-Catholics, I do not believe that Peter had the authority to propagate the ruler of Christianity in perpetuity. But the sad truth is, even if some eternally perpetuating succession from Peter was even possible, the See of Rome cannot prove any link between itself and Peter anyways. Peter can be linked to Jerusalem, Galilee, Antioch and many other places, but certainly not Rome.
So you believe that if Peetr was in Rome he was the Pope?
IS Rome that important?
Last edited by Julian658; 05-07-2014 at 07:46 AM..
Even worse because Jesus does not hold well to people who teach false teachings.
Are you saying that Jesus will punish my wife for being a Eucharist minister and because she sees the pastor of the church as the Vicar of Christ.
As a matter of fact when she is not performing as a Eucharist minister she prefers to take communion from the priest rather than from a Eucharist minister.
So you believe that if Peter was in Rome he was the Pope?
IS Rome that important?
Julian, I do admire your insistent stance on inclusiveness of other religions. I wish the RCC was more in line with your thinking. I think they're getting there ... slowly.
I was responding to what AndyPanda said:
Quote:
1. Peter founded the Christian community at Rome.
Consider: The Roman Catholic Church claims their religion is true to the exclusion of all others. And while Vatican II offers mercy to the Protestants and other "heretics", salvation through any other Christian religion requires us to repent of our rebellion against the RCC before entering the kingdom of heaven. Ultimately, the RCC remains insistent that they are right to the exclusion of all others.
What is the basis for this claim? Why is Rome and the Roman Catholic Church better than the other ancient branches of Christianity? Why are they better than Protestantism? The one and only answer I'm aware of comes down to the Pope being the successor to Peter.
I do not think that Peter and the Popes have anything to do with one another and I do not think that an apostles authority and/or significance can be inherited by a mere bishop. But that is precisely what the Bishop of Rome (aka the Pope) has claimed down through the centuries. They've insisted that Rome is somehow better than all other cities because their superiority is inherited through Peter. How did the Popes inherit anything at all through Peter? What connects the Pope to Peter?
Insofar as I can tell, the only connection between Peter and Rome was made up on the spot after Peter and anyone who ever knew him was long since dead and buried. Now I'm not the one claiming that succession from Peter actually matters. That is the Roman Catholic Church's claim. And I'm saying that claim is built on nothing more than the unsubstantiated myth that Peter was the founder of the Christian community at Rome.
Julian, I do admire your insistent stance on inclusiveness of other religions. I wish the RCC was more in line with your thinking. I think they're getting there ... slowly.
Thanks!
Quote:
Consider: The Roman Catholic Church claims their religion is true to the exclusion of all others. And while Vatican II offers mercy to the Protestants and other "heretics", salvation through any other Christian religion requires us to repent of our rebellion against the RCC before entering the kingdom of heaven. Ultimately, the RCC remains insistent that they are right to the exclusion of all others.
Read the bold parts of this portion of the catechism.
Quote:
"Outside the Church there is no salvation" 846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336 847This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation.337
Quote:
What is the basis for this claim? Why is Rome and the Roman Catholic Church better than the other ancient branches of Christianity? Why are they better than Protestantism? The one and only answer I'm aware of comes down to the Pope being the successor to Peter.
Apostolic Succession
Quote:
How did the Popes inherit anything at all through Peter? What connects the Pope to Peter?
Insofar as I can tell, the only connection between Peter and Rome was made up on the spot after Peter and anyone who ever knew him was long since dead and buried. Now I'm not the one claiming that succession from Peter actually matters. That is the Roman Catholic Church's claim. And I'm saying that claim is built on nothing more than the unsubstantiated myth that Peter was the founder of the Christian community at Rome.
Visiting Rome is moot.
Rome became prominent later because Rome was the center of the world. This is a geopolitical issue and has no theological value.
The foundation of the papacy is in the words that Jesus said to Peter.
Later the bishop of Rome became the leader of the church because a leader was needed.
The authority of the church was given to ALL apostles and when a priest becomes the NEW Pope he has authority by apostolic succession and his new appointment as Bishop of Rome.
No different than Obama who is just a simple ma and the successor of George Washington. But, once Obama becomes president he has some powers that you and I do not have.
No different than Obama who is just a simple ma and the successor of George Washington. But, once Obama becomes president he has some powers that you and I do not have.
He only has any power that man gives to him. He has no power, anymore than any of us that is, that Jesus gave to him. He is not what you and all of the others try to purport.
He only has any power that man gives to him. He has no power, anymore than any of us that is, that Jesus gave to him. He is not what you and all of the others try to purport.
Obama has the power of the presidency. As a man Obama has no power.
The Pope has the power of the of the church. The Pope is not God, but a simple man like Obama.
However, Pope represents Jesus in the same manner Obama represents the USA.
Read Matt 16: 19 and you will see where the authority comes. You enjoy bible verses so you can digest that one.
Also read JOHN 21:15-17
The root of the papacy is biblical and has nothing to do with Rome.
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.
