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.
There is no authentic work of scripture that establishes Rome as the center of all Christianity.
Agreed! There is no need to have a specific city as the center of Christianity. It could have been any other city in the world. Nothing in the NT mandates Rome to be the center. Therefore, I do not understand why Protestants put so much emphasis on Rome. They always want to make a point that Peter did not spend much time in Rome. Rome does not make the Pope.
Quote:
There is no passage that says that Peter was ever a Bishop or ever presided in Rome either.
Peter's primacy was not dependent on being the Bishop of Rome. However, Peter was clearly the leader of the Apostles and was selected by Jesus in Matt 16: 18. Protestants love to say Jesus was talking about the confession of Peter in the prior verse. However, in the very next verse (Matt 16: 19) Peter is given the keys and the authority to bind and loose. Matt 16: 19 is the clincher.
After the resurrection Jesus reinstated Peter as the Pastor of his church in John 21: 15-17.
Quote:
IMHO, the authentic Christian Church died when direct revelation from God ceased.
Yep, for Protestants the revelation of God ended once the Apostolic age was over. However, for Catholics the revelation of God is ongoing in the Catholic Church. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the revelation continues. This is incomprehensible to Protestants.
Quote:
just another bishop with no more authority than any other -- being the head of the Church.
It was Pope Leo who had a revelation from God and reinterpret the Scriptures. Rome was important, but Leo could have been in any other city. Not sure why Protestants are so hung up on Rome.
Rome has no effect whatsoever in the Apostolic Succession. Jesus ordained Peter who in turn ordained many others including Mark and Pope Clement. All the other Apostles ordained others. For example, John tutored Ignatius of Antioch and Paul had Timothy as his disciple. The apostolic succession is very important and easy to prove.
Agreed! There is no need to have a specific city as the center of Christianity. It could have been any other city in the world. Nothing in the NT mandates Rome to be the center. Therefore, I do not understand why Protestants put so much emphasis on Rome. They always want to make a point that Peter did not spend much time in Rome. Rome does not make the Pope.
No it's more than that. There is zero evidence that any Roman Pope ever had any God-given authority over the entire Church ever.
When Christianity ceased to be led by direct revelation from God, it was a free for all. After the initial panic realizing that there were no longer any apostles leading the Church, the four most politically important cities in the Roman Empire gradually usurped greater and greater authority for themselves: Rome, Byzantium (Constantinople), Antioch, Alexandria.
If Christianity eventually recognized the Bishop of Rome as their official leader, that is no more valid than the Congress and the people of the United States passing an Amendment recognizing Susan B Anthony as the Only Begotten Daughter of God. Popular consent and God given authority are two very different things. They also most often contradict one another.
Quote:
Peter's primacy was not dependent on being the Bishop of Rome. However, Peter was clearly the leader of the Apostles and was selected by Jesus in Matt 16: 18. Protestants love to say Jesus was talking about the confession of Peter in the prior verse. However, in the very next verse (Matt 16: 19) Peter is given the keys and the authority to bind and loose. Matt 16: 19 is the clincher.
After the resurrection Jesus reinstated Peter as the Pastor of his church in John 21: 15-17.
You can make a solid case for Peter holding a senior role among the apostles, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the line of Popes who have ruled the Roman Catholic Church like gods on earth for the past 2000 years or so. If Peter's primacy is legit, that's got nothing to do with Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I, etc.
What I asked at the beginning of this thread was for somebody/anybody to clearly establish that the Popes were really and truly Peter's successors. Like I said from the start, for the purposes of this thread I'm willing to concede that Peter was given leadership over the whole Church. All I wanted to see was somebody make the connection between Peter and the rest of the men you call Popes.
Quote:
Yep, for Protestants the revelation of God ended once the Apostolic age was over. However, for Catholics the revelation of God is ongoing in the Catholic Church. The Church is guided by the Holy Spirit and the revelation continues. This is incomprehensible to Protestants.
Revelation by Papal decree and revelation by the vote of an Ecumenical Council are very different things from revelation from God received by the prophets and apostles. The best evidence that God was not leading the Church anymore is simple: Everyone pretty much agrees that all scripture ended with the apostles. Both Catholics and Protestants agree on this point. So what is scripture? Revelation from God that somebody managed to write down. Catholics and Protestants both hold scripture in category above any other writings.
Quote:
It was Pope Leo who had a revelation from God and reinterpret the Scriptures. Rome was important, but Leo could have been in any other city. Not sure why Protestants are so hung up on Rome.
If he was Peter's true successor why was he not receiving new scripture for himself? Why the need to "interpret" the scriptures, but no receiving new scripture? And Leo and countless of his successors would find themselves contradicted by later Popes and Eccumenical Councils.
It is absolutely astounding how many times the Pope insisted that X, Y or Z were absolute, eternal and unimpeachable truth. Guys like Copernicus were excommunicated posthumously for contradicting the Pope's presumed divine declaration of absolute truth. And eventually it turned out that the man who is supposed to be God's chosen leader on earth was dead wrong. It might make sense for the Pope to be wrong, corrupt, perverse or licentious every now and then. It has happened many many times. For large stretches of RCC history, having a completely amoral tyrant as Pope was more the rule than the exception.
Quote:
Rome has no effect whatsoever in the Apostolic Succession. Jesus ordained Peter who in turn ordained many others including Mark and Pope Clement. All the other Apostles ordained others. For example, John tutored Ignatius of Antioch and Paul had Timothy as his disciple. The apostolic succession is very important and easy to prove.
You're a bit of a broken record on this point and 100% contradictory to the Popes from 200 AD to 1200 AD who gradually established the primacy of Rome. You say that the city doesn't matter. That's very cute, but every Pope since Linus has been the ecclesiastical leader of the Christians at Rome. Starting whenever the Roman bishop decided he was in charge, he went to great lengths to prove that the See of Rome held authority over all of the Church. There was no hint of, "the city of Rome doesn't actually matter." It mattered. The city of Rome was everything for those Popes. The significance of the city of Rome was the entire basis for claiming primacy for every bishop of Rome.
And yet you insist that the city of Rome doesn't make any difference at all.
Apostolic succession is completely unprovable. Peter, James, John, Thomas or Paul might have ordained any number of men as bishops, priests, deacons, congregational clerk or choir leader. Does ordination as a clerk by an apostle make you an apostle's successor? Does being good friends with Matthew make you the heir to his apostolic authority? Does having the dead corpse of an apostle make your city's bishop that apostle's successor? The entire house of cards known as the Roman Catholic Church is built on the audacious assumption that such things actually do transfer some or full apostolic authority. To make matters worse, all of these supposed transfers of authority are based on tradition and legend.
Because you've always believed it, the idea probably makes sense to you. But honestly, it sounds ludicrous to anyone else. Just because Paul Bunyan is a common legend in America does not mean there was a lumberjack with a giant blue ox who was so tall he could just step across large rivers in a single stride. Likewise, just because there is a legend that Peter was bishop of Rome does not mean he ever was. Just because there is are legends that says that Linus, Anacletus and Clement were the only true successors of Peter does not make it a fact. It's all revisionist history written long after the fact to attempt to validate Rome usurping absolute authority.
No it's more than that. There is zero evidence that any Roman Pope ever had any God-given authority over the entire Church ever.
When Christianity ceased to be led by direct revelation from God, it was a free for all. After the initial panic realizing that there were no longer any apostles leading the Church, the four most politically important cities in the Roman Empire gradually usurped greater and greater authority for themselves: Rome, Byzantium (Constantinople), Antioch, Alexandria.
If Christianity eventually recognized the Bishop of Rome as their official leader, that is no more valid than the Congress and the people of the United States passing an Amendment recognizing Susan B Anthony as the Only Begotten Daughter of God. Popular consent and God given authority are two very different things. They also most often contradict one another.
The Pope is an ordinary man. However, the Church was given authority by Jesus in Matt 16: 19. That authority was given is very clear even if you spend 10 years arguing the preceding verse Matt 16: 18.
So the Magisterium of the Church can have revelation. That is the origin of the Virgin Mary doctrines. You do not have to accept this, but religion is religion and in religion anything goes.
Quote:
You can make a solid case for Peter holding a senior role among the apostles, but that has nothing whatsoever to do with the line of Popes who have ruled the Roman Catholic Church like gods on earth for the past 2000 years or so. If Peter's primacy is legit, that's got nothing to do with Linus, Anacletus, Clement, Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I, etc.
You are one of the few Protestant apologists that sees the importance of Peter.
And you are correct, the concept of the papacy was not in place during the time of Jesus. However, Peter passing down the gospel by Oral Tradition was alive and well. That is how Mark wrote his Gospel. Apostolic Succession was and is a reality. Passing down knowledge from generation to generation to generation is not hard. How do you think the French remain French and the Germans remain German?
Quote:
What I asked at the beginning of this thread was for somebody/anybody to clearly establish that the Popes were really and truly Peter's successors. Like I said from the start, for the purposes of this thread I'm willing to concede that Peter was given leadership over the whole Church. All I wanted to see was somebody make the connection between Peter and the rest of the men you call Popes.
You need to read the writings of Pope Leo I
Quote:
Revelation by Papal decree and revelation by the vote of an Ecumenical Council are very different things from revelation from God received by the prophets and apostles. The best evidence that God was not leading the Church anymore is simple: Everyone pretty much agrees that all scripture ended with the apostles. Both Catholics and Protestants agree on this point. So what is scripture? Revelation from God that somebody managed to write down. Catholics and Protestants both hold scripture in category above any other writings.
Yes, the Church ONLY included books from the Apostolic Age on the canon. They only wanted heavy hitters.
Quote:
If he was Peter's true successor why was he not receiving new scripture for himself? Why the need to "interpret" the scriptures, but no receiving new scripture? And Leo and countless of his successors would find themselves contradicted by later Popes and Eccumenical Councils.
Popes write a lot, but their stuff is not from the Apostolic age. The made the rules and now they have to follow them. However, the Church has received revelation.
Quote:
For large stretches of RCC history, having a completely amoral tyrant as Pope was more the rule than the exception.
Yep, some popes must be in hell. But, the church remains.
The Pope is an ordinary man. However, the Church was given authority by Jesus in Matt 16: 19. That authority was given is very clear even if you spend 10 years arguing the preceding verse Matt 16: 18.
As stated over and over and over again, for the purposes of this thread, I'm conceding that Peter was the leader of the entire ancient Christian Church.
Quote:
So the Magisterium of the Church can have revelation. That is the origin of the Virgin Mary doctrines. You do not have to accept this, but religion is religion and in religion anything goes.
In other words, "You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe."
Okay, fine and good but the Roman Catholic Church's official doctrine is that they are the true, pure and orthodox successor religion to the original religion founded by Jesus and the apostles. I'm saying that I don't comprehend how this can be true. But you're probably right: In the end, we have to agree to disagree. Still, the RCC doesn't seem to have anything of substance proving that the Pope is the legitimate lineal successor to the apostle Peter. The strategy seems to be to just prove Peter and call it a day.
I would contend that there's was not clear successor to the apostles. Apostolic Succession through bishops was invented out of thin air after the apostles were all dead and gone.
Quote:
You are one of the few Protestant apologists that sees the importance of Peter.
If I categorize myself, I would say I'm a Restorationist, but since most throw that in with Protestantism, it's an easy mistake to make. The difference? Protestants believe the Church and Kingdom of God and Christ on Earth was and is repairable, but that it did need serious fixing. A Restorationist believes that Christianity was too far gone and needs God's intervention to restore the lost true religion.
Quote:
And you are correct, the concept of the papacy was not in place during the time of Jesus. However, Peter passing down the gospel by Oral Tradition was alive and well. That is how Mark wrote his Gospel. Apostolic Succession was and is a reality. Passing down knowledge from generation to generation to generation is not hard. How do you think the French remain French and the Germans remain German?
I really don't see where you're going with languages. The German and French languages of today evolved from radically different languages anciently. The ancient Gauls used to inhabit all of modern day France. Their language is nothing remotely similar to French. When history happens to things like religion and language, they tend to change drastically. But we can test your theory out of course. Here's some text written in Old English. You and I should be able to read it fluently since English clearly hasn't changed one bit:
The original language of France is Gaelic. How much difference do you suppose there is between ancient Gaelic and modern French? The truth of the matter is, every language changes drastically over the ages.
The Proto-Catholic Church (the sect that would eventually become the Roman Catholic Church) was just one of many of the successor religions from the apostles. All sorts of different groups were around trying to pick up the pieces and trying to make sense out of everything. There were the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Docetic sects, the Adoptionist sects, Montanists and countless others. Revisionist history written by Catholics describes these "heretical groups" as tiny offshoots from the original church. This is demonstrably false of course. The Universalists/Catholics weren't even the largest group early on. But they were the best organized. They were highly concentrated in Rome and the Roman capital gradually became the de facto head of that one small sub-group within the whole of Christians.
The Proto-Catholic Church gradually won out by:
1.) Taking both sides of the argument on major doctrinal disputes. Ebionites and others believed that Jesus was a mortal man, and therefore could not be God. Docetics believed that Jesus was God the whole time and only seemed to be a mortal. Some said that Jesus was the One True God Himself. Some said he was not the God the Father but a different god. Some claimed there could only be one God, others claimed there were more than one. The Catholic Solution? Tell each group that they're right, then craft a definition of God that makes it possible for everyone to be right.
2.) Mixing a good bit of paganism into doctrines, practices and ordinances in the Church, thereby making it easier for pagans to convert to Christianity.
3.) The Proto-Catholics were the only ones who were endorsed by Constantine. Every other successor religion of Jesus and the apostles was pronounced "heresy" and the full might of the Roman Empire mobilized to eradicate them.
4.) Concentrating in and operating out of the most politically influential cities in the Roman world: Rome, Antioch, Byzantium, Alexandria, Carthage, Ephesus, Pergamon, Jerusalem, Smyrna. This drastically increased the ecclesiastical power of those cities of course.
The Proto-Catholics engaged in a lot of written propaganda against their rival religions. Pity we don't have those religion's responses. What archaeologists have found of the Gnostics, Ebionites, Marcionites and others indicates that they viewed the Proto-Catholics with the same distain that the Proto-Catholics viewed them. It indicates that they viewed themselves and the true successor religion and Proto-Catholics as the heretics. Whose to say that one of those groups wasn't a more accurate copy of the religion of Jesus and his apostles than the Proto-Catholics?
The victorious sub-group of Christianity won out in the end. They rewrote history as they pleased. The de facto leader of their sect was apparently Rome and Rome needed to write a good back story to legitimize their claim to supreme ecclesiastical authority. Some of the texts "proving" Roman primacy like the Donation of Constantine have been debunked. How many other presumed legitimate sources are also works of fiction?
Quote:
You need to read the writings of Pope Leo I.
It is likely that I have read some of his writings at some point. I probably will again. I can't remember anything that was all that remarkable. Can you be more specific where you're going with this bit about Leo I??
Quote:
Yes, the Church ONLY included books from the Apostolic Age on the canon. They only wanted heavy hitters.
Because the RCC acknowledges that the apostles are more authoritative than everyone who came after them. What makes the apostles, all of them just regular men who were called by God to server, so absolutely essential for 70 years and then suddenly so completely unnecessary?
Quote:
Popes write a lot, but their stuff is not from the Apostolic age. The made the rules and now they have to follow them. However, the Church has received revelation.
Can you offer some brief examples of Popes receiving actual revelation? Why would a Pope's revelation but less important than one of the apostles? The apostles led mere thousands of followers. The Pope is tasked with leading about 1.6 billion. Seems to me that makes a Pope's revelation profoundly important, don't you think?
It really comes down to a lot of Popes behaving very badly or making command decisions that ended up being absolutely disastrous. With the track record of the Roman Popes to date, placing their words on the same level as the apostles might not be a very good idea.
Quote:
Yep, some popes must be in hell. But, the church remains.
If God rejected Israel for becoming corrupt, making unauthorized additions to the Law/the rules, accepting false doctrines, mixing pagan idol religions and customs into the true religion. Why would God be so very different to the Catholic Church who did all of those things? Why would he not reject them as his people just as he did with Israel?
Obviously, the RCC didn't go extinct. Anyone can see that. Neither did the Jews. Both are alive and well. Both claim to be the only true followers of the One True God. The continued existence of a thing says absolutely nothing about whether they are God's exclusive approved people/religion.
The original language of France is Gaelic. How much difference do you suppose there is between ancient Gaelic and modern French? The truth of the matter is, every language changes drastically over the ages.
The original language of France is Gaulish...French is descended from Latin, not Gaulish...
As stated over and over and over again, for the purposes of this thread, I'm conceding that Peter was the leader of the entire ancient Christian Church.
Quote:
In other words, "You believe what you believe and I believe what I believe."
That is the essence of religion. And no religion is better than another.
Quote:
Okay, fine and good but the Roman Catholic Church's official doctrine is that they are the true, pure and orthodox successor religion to the original religion founded by Jesus and the apostles. I'm saying that I don't comprehend how this can be true. But you're probably right: In the end, we have to agree to disagree. Still, the RCC doesn't seem to have anything of substance proving that the Pope is the legitimate lineal successor to the apostle Peter. The strategy seems to be to just prove Peter and call it a day.
This has to do with the concept of "religion is religion". The Catholics read Matt 16: 18-19 and decided to interpret the verses in that manner. It is that simple!
Quote:
I would contend that there's was not clear successor to the apostles. Apostolic Succession through bishops was invented out of thin air after the apostles were all dead and gone.
Apostolic Succession is difficult to deny. All cultures have Oral Traditions that are passed down from generation to generation. The religious tradition of the day was no exception. Furthermore, there are biblical examples of Apostolic Succession: Peter to Mark and Paul to Timothy.
Quote:
The original language of France is Gaelic. How much difference do you suppose there is between ancient Gaelic and modern French? The truth of the matter is, every language changes drastically over the ages.
Yest, and Christianity went through changes as well. Immediately after the Apostolic Ge things were not crystal clear.
Quote:
The Proto-Catholic Church (the sect that would eventually become the Roman Catholic Church) was just one of many of the successor religions from the apostles. All sorts of different groups were around trying to pick up the pieces and trying to make sense out of everything. There were the Marcionites, the Ebionites, the Gnostics, the Docetic sects, the Adoptionist sects, Montanists and countless others. Revisionist history written by Catholics describes these "heretical groups" as tiny offshoots from the original church. This is demonstrably false of course. The Universalists/Catholics weren't even the largest group early on. But they were the best organized. They were highly concentrated in Rome and the Roman capital gradually became the de facto head of that one small sub-group within the whole of Christians.
I agree, but somehow our church prevailed. And the men from that era probably saw this as a divine mandate.
Quote:
2.) Mixing a good bit of paganism into doctrines, practices and ordinances in the Church, thereby making it easier for pagans to convert to Christianity.
Yes, I agree! But, the conversion of Constantine and the conversion of the Roman Empire is probably one of the most important achievements in world history. And churches generally adapt to attract converts. That is why you have rock bands in some churches.
Quote:
3.) The Proto-Catholics were the only ones who were endorsed by Constantine. Every other successor religion of Jesus and the apostles was pronounced "heresy" and the full might of the Roman Empire mobilized to eradicate them.
The Christianization of Rome was HUGE. I agree!
4.) Concentrating in and operating out of the most politically influential cities in the Roman world: Rome, Antioch, Byzantium, Alexandria, Carthage, Ephesus, Pergamon, Jerusalem, Smyrna. This drastically increased the ecclesiastical power of those cities of course.
Quote:
Whose to say that one of those groups wasn't a more accurate copy of the religion of Jesus and his apostles than the Proto-Catholics?
Sure, it is possible. BUt, it is what it is. History cannot be changed. And those that write history always try to make themselves look good.
Quote:
The victorious sub-group of Christianity won out in the end. They rewrote history as they pleased. The de facto leader of their sect was apparently Rome and Rome needed to write a good back story to legitimize their claim to supreme ecclesiastical authority. Some of the texts "proving" Roman primacy like the Donation of Constantine have been debunked. How many other presumed legitimate sources are also works of fiction?
Debunked in non Catholic circles. But, if you take a non-bias course in Church history you will see that Pope Leo I was sincere in his admiration and devotion to Saint Peter. Pope Leo also believed he had a calling after he was able to hold off Atilla and this gave him the inspiration needed to see himself as the successor of Peter.
Quote:
It is likely that I have read some of his writings at some point. I probably will again. I can't remember anything that was all that remarkable. Can you be more specific where you're going with this bit about Leo I??
Read about how Leo handles Atilla nd about his devotion to Saint Peter.
Quote:
Can you offer some brief examples of Popes receiving actual revelation? Why would a Pope's revelation but less important than one of the apostles? The apostles led mere thousands of followers. The Pope is tasked with leading about 1.6 billion. Seems to me that makes a Pope's revelation profoundly important, don't you think?
For example, in 1950, with Munificentissimus Deus, Pope Pius XII's infallible definition regarding the Assumption of Mary, there are attached these words:
Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which We have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. WIKI
Quote:
Why would God be so very different to the Catholic Church who did all of those things? Why would he not reject them as his people just as he did with Israel?
The God from the OT is petty and jealous. The God from the NT is tolerant and ALL goodness.
Apostolic Succession is difficult to deny. All cultures have Oral Traditions that are passed down from generation to generation. The religious tradition of the day was no exception. Furthermore, there are biblical examples of Apostolic Succession: Peter to Mark and Paul to Timothy.
Pope Linus appears in the book of Acts, and Pope Clement was ordained by Peter.
Irenaeus remembered the apostle John himself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Julian658
The God from the OT is petty and jealous. The God from the NT is tolerant and ALL goodness.
This opinion has been condemned as heresy 1900 years ago. it was an opinion of
the eastern gnostics and the cultist Marcion.
Pope Linus appears in the book of Acts, and Pope Clement was ordained by Peter.
Irenaeus remembered the apostle John himself.
Exactly! Apostolic Succession cannot be denied
Quote:
This opinion has been condemned as heresy 1900 years ago. it was an opinion of
the eastern gnostics and the cultist Marcion.
Sure, but you will not find any church reading verses about the killing of children and concubines. Most folks use the good parts of the OT. The bad parts of the OT are simply ignored. I think Marcion had a point.
Sure, but you will not find any church reading verses about the killing of children and concubines. Most folks use the good parts of the OT. The bad parts of the OT are simply ignored. I think Marcion had a point.
The “new atheists” call God’s commands to kill the Canaanites “genocide,” but a closer look at the horror of the Canaanites’ sinfulness, exhibited in rampant idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, homosexuality, and bestiality, reveals that God’s reason for commanding their death was not genocide but capital punishment. After all, the Old Testament unequivocally commands that those who do any one of these things deserves to die.
Wow!!!!!!!!
God should kill all infidels. That is why militant Muslims crashed two airplanes into the twin towers.
It is sad to discover Christians that are no different than the barbaric men that murdered thousands on on 9-11-2001. : smack:
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.
