Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (Holy Spirit, Jesus Christ)
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.
All on the first page were "What about the Catholic Church?" topics but one, and that was to say that Catholics would too be in heaven.
Listen, could you open a thread about insights you have gained from that book you recommended? Maybe then we'd get an idea that there is more to you than "My church is the right church trumpeting.
All on the first page were "What about the Catholic Church?" topics but one, and that was to say that Catholics would too be in heaven.
Listen, could you open a thread about insights you have gained from that book you recommended? Maybe then we'd get an idea that there is more to you than "My church is the right church trumpeting.
Done.
And you did order it, right? Maybe we can discuss it together once your copy arrives.
And you did order it, right? Maybe we can discuss it together once your copy arrives.
No, actually, I ordered the What we are about pamphlet from the organization that put out the book. It will take about 4 weeks they said. After I check into that I'll consider ordering the book. So far the organization looks interesting at least.
No, actually, I ordered the What we are about pamphlet from the organization that put out the book. It will take about 4 weeks they said. After I check into that I'll consider ordering the book. So far the organization looks interesting at least.
Gotcha.
Ralph Martin was involved in the Catholic Charismatic movement for many years in Michigan, I believe.
I was a member of a covenant community in Maryland at that time.
Work and life in general is getting very busy, so I will have to forego offering the depth of response that your post deserves. I will make a few brief points and will need to defer further response for the time being.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CRCarson
I do apologize if I have nothing from antiquity to show you of the work of Linus, and Anacletus. The Church was under heavy persecution at the time, and the Christians of that day were more concerned about Roman legions than they were about creating a documentary for future skeptics.
Seems like a period of time when the supposed designated leader of the Church should have been stepping up and leading, don't you think?
Quote:
If you are interested in Clement, however, you may find his letter to the Corinthians here.
I have every confidence that Clement was one of the most capable religious leaders of his time. It doesn't surprise me that Corinth asked him for advice. But I was asking for examples where the Bishop of Rome led the entire Church. When did the Bishop of Rome first begin leading and also being followed? Who was the first Pope who actually acted like the supreme leader of all Christianity? Clement for all his gifts most certainly did not.
Quote:
And by your words, you reveal yourself to be unbiased?
Somebody is trying to sell me the X person is "Vicar of Christ" and supreme leader of Christianity on earth. It would seem pretty silly to accept his claim without even bothering to establish the validity of such a bold claim.
I actually think there a clear and real benefit to religion actually being organized. I also think that it is just ridiculously obvious that there is only one true answer for every doctrinal question humanity and Christianity has. There really should be only one faith, one Lord, one baptism and one unified Church. I just have a lot of reasons to doubt that the RCC is that Church as it claims to be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by godofthunder9010
A lot of your more level-headed Catholic historians are beginning to accept the obvious truth: Peter never lived in Rome, nor did he ever function as Bishop there. Their frankness and honestly at least clears the air. It allows for honest and intelligent discussion to happen.
Quote:
Care to name a few?
There was an excellent and refreshingly honest history by Father Richard P McBrien called Lives of the Popes. While it cannot possibly detail everything about every pope who ever lived, he manages to cover every pope on the canonical list. Father McBrien agrees that there is no evidence to suggest that Peter ever ruled in Rome as bishop, nor did Peter live there for any significant amount of time. McBrien seems to be of a very Vatican II, "Just tell the honest truth and let the chips fall where they may." sort of mentality. When there's a bad pope, breaks with the RCC tradition of trying to sweep it under the rug and just tells the real story whenever possible.
The most significant evidence that Peter was not in Rome is the simple fact that nobody in the entire New Testament says anything that would reliably place him there. In order to be in Rome when Catholic tradition insists Peter was there, Peter would have had to do a lot of jumping around, yet none of the other NT writers say anything about him going to Rome, coming from Rome, living in Rome, dwelling at Rome, etc. There is not even one single passage in the New Testament that comes right out and says, "Peter is in Rome." Not one. Considering that he would have needed to have spent a couple of decades in Rome and actually led the entire Church from there -- this omission seriously stretches the credibility of picture that that RCC wants to paint for us.
Catholic Tradition grabs a handful of scriptures make no clear reference whatsoever to Peter actually being in Rome and starts reading a ton of things into each passage that aren't actually there. Apparently, Protestant denominations don't have a monopoly on this practice.
Ultimately, the answer to the question posed in my OP is as simple as this: "Catholic Tradition holds ..." or "Catholic tradition has long taught that ... " or "Catholic tradition tells us that ..."
Catholic Tradition has an incredibly flawed track record. Catholic Tradition filling in the blanks in the historical record and it always seems to help support the Bishop of Rome's claim to supremacy. Isn't that interesting.
Catholic tradition condemned Copernicus and Galileo for telling the truth. Catholic tradition has insisted upon the the authenticity of a large number of documents that have since been proven to be complete forgeries. Catholic tradition retells history however it wants and just revises the story whenever proven blatantly wrong on a point.
Do you have anything other than Catholic tradition that actually supports the claim that the Bishop of Rome was Peter's exclusive and rightful successor, that Peter lived in Rome for a long time and that Peter actually functioned as Bishop of Rome?
Grand and completely unprovable claims to justify a possession of extreme power. power is the most common story in human history. Alexander the Great claimed to be the son Zeus-Ammon. Chinese Emperors claimed to be the Son of Heaven. Pharaohs and Roman Emperors claimed to be living gods. Traditions building up and supporting the Pope's claim to supremacy with a complete absense of any other evidence is just as credible.
Work and life in general is getting very busy, so I will have to forego offering the depth of response that your post deserves. I will make a few brief points and will need to defer further response for the time being.
Seems like a period of time when the supposed designated leader of the Church should have been stepping up and leading, don't you think?
What suggests that Linus wasn't leading? The lack of extant writings? Sounds like an argument from silence to me.
Quote:
I have every confidence that Clement was one of the most capable religious leaders of his time. It doesn't surprise me that Corinth asked him for advice. But I was asking for examples where the Bishop of Rome led the entire Church. When did the Bishop of Rome first begin leading and also being followed? Who was the first Pope who actually acted like the supreme leader of all Christianity? Clement for all his gifts most certainly did not.
Since Corinth appealed to Rome, the example of Clement exercising his pastoral responsibility outside of his own local diocese is given.
Quote:
Somebody is trying to sell me the X person is "Vicar of Christ" and supreme leader of Christianity on earth. It would seem pretty silly to accept his claim without even bothering to establish the validity of such a bold claim.
Fair enough. That's why evidence was presented.
Quote:
I actually think there a clear and real benefit to religion actually being organized. I also think that it is just ridiculously obvious that there is only one true answer for every doctrinal question humanity and Christianity has. There really should be only one faith, one Lord, one baptism and one unified Church. I just have a lot of reasons to doubt that the RCC is that Church as it claims to be.
Doubts that can be overcome by reading good books and prayer. I suspect you are short on both counts...no offense intended. First, we're ALL short on prayer, and Second, Fr. McBrien, whom you reference, is NOT an author of "good" Catholic books.
Although Fr. McBrien was once the head of the Catholic Theological Society of America, his views on theology--today at any rate--are way out of line with the Church's official teaching. His book, Catholicism, for example, is highly erroneous and an unreliable guide to the Church's teachings.
This conclusion was recently announced by an official Church doctrinal review panel here in America, the Secretariat for Doctrine and Pastoral Practices, which studied Catholicism for fifteen years.
Among other things, the book claims that Catholics may, in good conscience, believe that Jesus could have sinned, that Mary may not have given birth as a virgin, and that issues such as women's ordination, homosexuality, and contraception are open for discussion. None of this is true. In fact, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome recently ruled that the fact women cannot be ordained to the priesthood is an infallibly defined doctrine.
Fr. Augustine DiNoia, executive director of the American secretariat, said the bishops rarely condemn a book, but in this case it was important for them to act publicly because the book is used as an introductory text for Catholics. He explained, "It's like a book review, only it's a book review authorized by the bishops."
Thus, regardless of what some priest may have told you, the bishops have officially declared the book, Catholicism by Fr. Richard McBrien, to be an unsound guide to Church teaching and an inappropriate book to use as an introduction to the Catholic faith. Having written (at least) one book condemned by the Church, I think it would be wise to steer clear of any of Fr. McBrien's works; many other authors whose orthodoxy is unquestioned are available.
If you would like a truly reliable guide to the Church's teachings, you can get a much less expensive and much more authoritative one in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
But the PRIMARY meaning in Matthew 16:18 is that Jesus is the Builder and Peter is the rock.
From the looks of it, metaphorically this is the 'bone in the throat' on which those who have trouble with 'apostolic succession'. Apparently it is difficult to apprehend when trying to get air while continuing to supply negation on the succession. And ,all in all, metaphorically it has to be evident that one simply is 'biting and nibbling on rock' when denying the motif of Matthew 16:18. The evidence is there with the primacy of Peter who was charged by Christ to implement 'universal communion' with all the faithful.
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.
