Why does the Roman Catholic Church believe that the Bishop of Rome is the exclusive and rightful successor to Peter? (preach, Mary)
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.
I agree, that is why I am perplexed by your insistence that Peter must be acting as the pope in Rome. I have said at nauseam that Rome is a moot point. What really matters is that Peter is the leader of the Apostles and Jesus gives Peter the keys. And after the resurrection Jesus asked Peter to be the pastor of his sheep.
The reason this keeps coming up is not because you are championing the cause of "Peter the first Bishop of Rome." It's the fact that RCC tradition insists it is true and insists that Peter ruled as Bishop and Pope (same office but long before the term "Pope" had come into use) for several decades. That is the "party line" of the Roman Catholic Church, so to speak. The reign of Peter as Bishop of Rome is considered foundational and indispensable by a great many Catholic scholars because this alone links Peter to Rome's bishops in a way that is completely exclusive to Rome. The trouble with the whole matter is that in Rome, capital city to of one of the most literate and fastidiously record-keeping empires in history, nobody ever records having met or even seen Peter the Bishop in Rome. No, we don't even have record of a single resident of Rome -- Christian or non-Christian -- jotting down in their personal journal or diary anything about seeing or meeting Peter in Rome. So the entire notions of "Peter, Bishop of Rome" stands entirely on the barest indirect hints, taking writings wildly out of context and the writings of Christians hundreds of years after the fact. No first-hand witness accounts seems to point to it being a made up myth used to support Rome's later claim to primacy.
If you don't buy into the idea that Peter was Bishop of Rome, you're certainly not alone in Catholicism. The trouble is, this leaves the Bishop of Rome as just another bishop. Not greatest among equals. No, not any better than any other bishop. Take that down to the present day and there would the many thousands of bishops worldwide, but there would be no Pope.
Quote:
Infallibility only applies to the issue of morality and faith. And the Pope must speak from the chair of Peter.
Taking into consideration what I've said above, exactly what is "the chair of Peter"?? Does any such thing even exist??
Quote:
He picked Peter to get the ball rolling and then he went back to heaven.
If neither Peter nor God are selecting the successor of Peter, who is??
Quote:
And as I said before Obama succeeds George Washington in the same manner that Pope Francis succeeds Saint Peter.
This comparison doesn't work. George Washington was elected by popular vote. Barack Obama was also elected by popular vote. Was Peter elected by popular vote? The Popes are elected, but Peter was designated by the Son of God directly. Like I said, not a good comparison.
Quote:
As expected history is sketchy. And this is religion! Why in the world are you trying to analyze this in a secular manner. You have to look at this in the context of theology.
This is precisely what I've been trying to say all along. When a Catholic says, "We have the successor of St Peter in the Pope" they are stating a belief and not an absolute undeniable fact. In other words, I'm saying that "this is religion and the Pope is part of the Roman Catholic religion." Religion seldom deals in historical absolutes anyways. The part that annoys me is the Catholic apologists who insist that their notions about Peter and Popes are all so ridiculous obvious that only a complete idiot wouldn't be able to see it.
A big part of why I dig for answers on this topic is because I'm curious to know exactly how much material the RCC has on hand to prove that Peter really is the first Pope. Perhaps I missed something, who knows?
Proving or disproving Peter's supposed primacy is another discussion altogether. For the purposes of this discussion, Peter's primacy is irrelevant. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the RCC can make a clear connection from Peter to their Popes sufficient to demonstrate that the Popes are who they say they are: Heir of St Peter, Vicar of Christ and mortal ruler of all Christendom. I am satisfied that while there is an abundance of rumor, speculation and myth -- all later accepted as true -- the RCC cannot make a clear connection between Peter and Pope. It is simply a matter of denominational faith for Catholics that such a link does in fact exist. In short, it is a cherished belief, but not a proven fact.
Excellent!
Amen! And they are in direct violation of Christ's injunction AGAINST any hierarchy among His followers.
Apples and oranges.Christ is the foundation for His followers (ecclesia) . . . NOT some man-made institution. He is the cornerstone the builders rejected.
From Matthew 21:42
. . . Did you never read in the Scriptures, 'The stone which the builders rejected, has become the corner stone; by the Lord this has been done, and it is wonderful in our eyes?'
Clearly the Jews are the “builders” who rejected Jesus who has, in more ways than one, become the cornerstone! It is this "stone" from the OT that Jesus was referring to. He was fulfilling the prophesy and saying Peter had correctly acknowledged it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
Why are you becoming Sola Scriptura?
I'm not . . . but I AM excluding un-biblical pronouncements that violate what Christ revealed and/or desired. I apply the "mind of Christ" to every question or issue. He definitely did NOT want any hierarchy and especially no pomp and circumstance parading around in special robes receiving adulation and reverence as His Vicar, etc. etc. They have their reward.
The reason this keeps coming up is not because you are championing the cause of "Peter the first Bishop of Rome." It's the fact that RCC tradition insists it is true and insists that Peter ruled as Bishop and Pope (same office but long before the term "Pope" had come into use) for several decades. That is the "party line" of the Roman Catholic Church, so to speak. The reign of Peter as Bishop of Rome is considered foundational and indispensable by a great many Catholic scholars because this alone links Peter to Rome's bishops in a way that is completely exclusive to Rome. The trouble with the whole matter is that in Rome, capital city to of one of the most literate and fastidiously record-keeping empires in history, nobody ever records having met or even seen Peter the Bishop in Rome. No, we don't even have record of a single resident of Rome -- Christian or non-Christian -- jotting down in their personal journal or diary anything about seeing or meeting Peter in Rome. So the entire notions of "Peter, Bishop of Rome" stands entirely on the barest indirect hints, taking writings wildly out of context and the writings of Christians hundreds of years after the fact. No first-hand witness accounts seems to point to it being a made up myth used to support Rome's later claim to primacy.
If you don't buy into the idea that Peter was Bishop of Rome, you're certainly not alone in Catholicism. The trouble is, this leaves the Bishop of Rome as just another bishop. Not greatest among equals. No, not any better than any other bishop. Take that down to the present day and there would the many thousands of bishops worldwide, but there would be no Pope.
Taking into consideration what I've said above, exactly what is "the chair of Peter"?? Does any such thing even exist??
If neither Peter nor God are selecting the successor of Peter, who is??
This comparison doesn't work. George Washington was elected by popular vote. Barack Obama was also elected by popular vote. Was Peter elected by popular vote? The Popes are elected, but Peter was designated by the Son of God directly. Like I said, not a good comparison.
This is precisely what I've been trying to say all along. When a Catholic says, "We have the successor of St Peter in the Pope" they are stating a belief and not an absolute undeniable fact. In other words, I'm saying that "this is religion and the Pope is part of the Roman Catholic religion." Religion seldom deals in historical absolutes anyways. The part that annoys me is the Catholic apologists who insist that their notions about Peter and Popes are all so ridiculous obvious that only a complete idiot wouldn't be able to see it.
A big part of why I dig for answers on this topic is because I'm curious to know exactly how much material the RCC has on hand to prove that Peter really is the first Pope. Perhaps I missed something, who knows?
Proving or disproving Peter's supposed primacy is another discussion altogether. For the purposes of this discussion, Peter's primacy is irrelevant. The purpose of this discussion is to determine whether the RCC can make a clear connection from Peter to their Popes sufficient to demonstrate that the Popes are who they say they are: Heir of St Peter, Vicar of Christ and mortal ruler of all Christendom. I am satisfied that while there is an abundance of rumor, speculation and myth -- all later accepted as true -- the RCC cannot make a clear connection between Peter and Pope. It is simply a matter of denominational faith for Catholics that such a link does in fact exist. In short, it is a cherished belief, but not a proven fact.
Yep, circular reasoning.
No contemporary evidence Peter was ever there while we have LOTS of evidence Paul was AND many Christians there long before the Apostles, as the first members of the ekklesia went back home after Pentecost. They had a "Bishop" even before Paul got there which was nearly 30 years later. They weren't left leaderless.
(Acts 2:5-11) 5 As it was, there were dwelling in Jerusalem Jews, reverent men, from every nation of those under heaven. 6 So, when this sound occurred, the multitude came together and were bewildered, because each one heard them speaking in his own language. 7 Indeed, they were astonished and began to wonder and say: “See here, all these who are speaking are Gal·i·le′ans, are they not? 8 And yet how is it we are hearing, each one of us, his own language in which we were born? 9 Par′thi·ans and Medes and E′lam·ites, and the inhabitants of Mes·o·po·ta′mi·a, and Ju·de′a and Cap·pa·do′ci·a, Pon′tus and the [district of] Asia, 10 and Phryg′i·a and Pam·phyl′i·a, Egypt and the parts of Lib′y·a, which is toward Cy·re′ne, and sojourners from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, 11 Cre′tans and Arabians, we hear them speaking in our tongues about the magnificent things of God.”
(Acts 28:14-16) ; ...and in this way we came toward Rome. 15 And from there the brothers, when they heard the news about us, came to meet us as far as the Marketplace of Ap′pi·us and Three Taverns and, upon catching sight of them, Paul thanked God and took courage. 16 When, finally, we entered into Rome, Paul was permitted to stay by himself with the soldier guarding him.
Originally Posted by Julian658 Why are you becoming Sola Scriptura?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
I'm not . . . but I AM excluding un-biblical pronouncements that violate what Christ revealed and/or desired. I apply the "mind of Christ" to every question or issue. He definitely did NOT want any hierarchy and especially no pomp and circumstance parading around in special robes receiving adulation and reverence as His Vicar, etc. etc. They have their reward.
See what happens when someone puts what they believe ahead of scripture?
I'm not . . . but I AM excluding un-biblical pronouncements that violate what Christ revealed and/or desired. I apply the "mind of Christ" to every question or issue. He definitely did NOT want any hierarchy and especially no pomp and circumstance parading around in special robes receiving adulation and reverence as His Vicar, etc. etc. They have their reward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by expatCA
See what happens when someone puts what they believe ahead of scripture?
But I am not putting what I believe ahead of scripture. Scripture says that everything that Christ taught could not be written down. But we are told that the Comforter will bring to us all that He taught.
John 14:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Those who believe in Sola Scriptura do NOT believe in the New Covenant and do NOT trust the Comforter to guide them to the truth God has "written in our hearts."
But I am not putting what I believe ahead of scripture. Scripture says that everything that Christ taught could not be written down. But we are told that the Comforter will bring to us all that He taught.
John 14:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Those who believe in Sola Scriptura do NOT believe in the New Covenant and do NOT trust the Comforter to guide them to the truth God has "written in our hearts."
The Catholic Church knew from the first century that tradition was important because everything that Christ did was not written down. That is why the church has the power given to Peter in Matt 16: 19.
The reason this keeps coming up is not because you are championing the cause of "Peter the first Bishop of Rome." It's the fact that RCC tradition insists it is true and insists that Peter ruled as Bishop and Pope (same office but long before the term "Pope" had come into use) for several decades. That is the "party line" of the Roman Catholic Church, so to speak. The reign of Peter as Bishop of Rome is considered foundational and indispensable by a great many Catholic scholars because this alone links Peter to Rome's bishops in a way that is completely exclusive to Rome. The trouble with the whole matter is that in Rome, capital city to of one of the most literate and fastidiously record-keeping empires in history, nobody ever records having met or even seen Peter the Bishop in Rome. No, we don't even have record of a single resident of Rome -- Christian or non-Christian -- jotting down in their personal journal or diary anything about seeing or meeting Peter in Rome. So the entire notions of "Peter, Bishop of Rome" stands entirely on the barest indirect hints, taking writings wildly out of context and the writings of Christians hundreds of years after the fact. No first-hand witness accounts seems to point to it being a made up myth used to support Rome's later claim to primacy.
For the love God, you are very wet on this one. Peter's presence in Rome was secret. It the Romans knew he would be martyred right away. In fact, his presence in Rome was only noted after he was caught and crucified.
Why would you expect Peter to act as the Pope in Rome during a time when he would have been instantly murdered? Even when he wrote from Rome Peter used code words for Rome such as Babylon. Check your bible please.
Quote:
A big part of why I dig for answers on this topic is because I'm curious to know exactly how much material the RCC has on hand to prove that Peter really is the first Pope. Perhaps I missed something, who knows?
But I am not putting what I believe ahead of scripture. Scripture says that everything that Christ taught could not be written down. But we are told that the Comforter will bring to us all that He taught.
John 14:26 King James Version (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, He shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Those who believe in Sola Scriptura do NOT believe in the New Covenant and do NOT trust the Comforter to guide them to the truth God has "written in our hearts."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
The Catholic Church knew from the first century that tradition was important because everything that Christ did was not written down. That is why the church has the power given to Peter in Matt 16: 19.
You are free to believe what you will about the RCC, Julian . . . as we all are. I simply cannot trust the traditions of an organization that has shown itself to be so anti-Christ, corrupt and completely evil for so long . . . REGARDLESS of its claimed provenance! The massacre of the Albigensians and so many others in various Inquisitions are so egregiously anti-Christ and evil as to be inexcusable for an institution that claims to represent Christ!!! There is no way such a benighted organization could ever contain men who could legitimately profess to be infallible in representing Christ's faith and morals! (Of course, NO MAN can be infallible about ANYTHING!). Is that clear enough for you, Julian?
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.
Christ is the foundation for His followers (ecclesia) . . . NOT some man-made institution. He is the cornerstone the builders rejected.
