Bishop of Rome?

  • Thread starter Thread starter tiny_smommy
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
mardukm:
Actually, Antioch CAN and DOES claim a list of successive bishops all the way back to St. Peter.

I believe Latin Catholics should read up more on the Eastern Churches. Some of your arguments cause Catholicism in general to lose credibility with other apostolic Christians.

Blessings,
marduk
Click to expand...
The three original patriarchates could all trace back to Peter I am pretty sure.
 
The term pope is an ancient Christian term that was used for other bishops at times. It came to be exclusively associated with the Bishop of Rome in the fifth or sixth century. It is far from pagan, its meaning is simply father. I believe that you can see Jerome(he calls St. Athanasius Pope Athanasius) use it in his writings along with many other early Christian authors.
 
Dear BrianH,

It was prophesied that there would come a time when true worship would move away from Jerusalem. It is not hard to imagine that Jerusalem would lose its primacy, though it would hold its traditional place and honor as the birthplace of Christianity.

Blessings,
Marduk
 
And here I thought the term “Pope” was Biblical.
From Isaiah 22: 21-22, “I will clothe him with your robe, and gird him with your sash, and give over to him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; when he opens, no one shall shut, when he shuts, no one shall open.”

Silly me.

Notworthy
 
40.png
BrianH:
To summarize a non-catholic contention, you can accept that Peter was the first bishop of Antioch, you can even accept, although this is open to serious debate, that Peter was the first bishop of Rome.
I contend the Bible teaches that JERUSALEM is the location of the apostles and if ANY location has supreme importance, that is it AND that the office itself…the Bishop of Rome lacks biblical evidence in its importance. That the Catholic church has placed such an importance on Peter’s third job is a result of historical circumstances, (destruction of Jerusalem), developing tradition(as opposed to tradition which comes from 30 to 60 CE) and not a teaching of Christ Jesus.
BH
Click to expand...
Are you saying that Jesus Christ did not give Peter the keys to the Kingdom? That he did not give Peter the power to loose and bind? Those are both attested in the gospels.

Are you saying that Peter did not act as the leader of the Apostles after the Resurrection? That is also attested.

Your position must ultimately degenerate into an argument that somehow the authority Jesus granted could not be passed on – and that would mean Jesus failed.

And that’s nonsense. He did not fail, and the authority He granted to Peter exists to this day.
 
I do not post very often, but this thread caught my attention, so I thought I’d add my two cents, such as they are. 😃

It seems that the terms “pope” and “pontiff” are possibly being confused with one another.

To the best of my understanding, “pope” is not a pagan term, but “pontiff” is indeed based on “Pontifex Maximus,” which (if I understand history correctly) was a term used in ancient Rome to designate the individual who held supreme religious authority over the various temples and rites at the time.

I am merely an amateur in these matters, so please forgive me if I’m incorrect. 😛
 
QUOTE=vern humphrey]Are you saying that Jesus Christ did not give Peter the keys to the Kingdom?
Click to expand...
No, reread my post.
That he did not give Peter the power to loose and bind
Click to expand...
?
And all the other apostles two chapters later…yes. I have read it a great deal.
Are you saying that Peter did not act as the leader of the Apostles after the Resurrection? That is also attested.
Click to expand...
Peter is the leader yes, Paul does put him in check though at times you agree? You are so used to thinking the keys of the kingdom and loosing and binding mean the position of Bishop of Rome…here is my contention again:

t"he Bishop of Rome lacks biblical evidence in its importance. That the Catholic church has placed such an importance on Peter’s third job is a result of historical circumstances, (destruction of Jerusalem), developing tradition(as opposed to tradition which comes from 30 to 60 CE) and not a teaching of Christ Jesus."

BH
 
BrianHPeter is the leader yes:
t"he Bishop of Rome lacks biblical evidence in its importance. That the Catholic church has placed such an importance on Peter’s third job is a result of historical circumstances, (destruction of Jerusalem), developing tradition(as opposed to tradition which comes from 30 to 60 CE) and not a teaching of Christ Jesus."
Click to expand...
BH

The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter – it isn’t Rome that’s the key, it’s Peter. Peter passed his authority to the bishops of Rome, and they have it still.

The proof is the Catholic Church, under Peter’s successors, has taught a consistent message for over 2000 years. In less than a quarter of that time, Protestantism has fractured, fragmented, split and re-split into thousands of denominations.
 
QUOTE=vern humphrey]The Bishop of Rome is the successor of Peter – it isn’t Rome that’s the key, it’s Peter. Peter passed his authority to the bishops of Rome, and they have it still.
Click to expand...
the “passing of authority to the Bishops of Rome” as it relates to Catholic authority is precisly what I am talking about
The proof is the Catholic Church, under Peter’s successors, has taught a consistent message for over 2000 years. In less than a quarter of that time, Protestantism has fractured, fragmented, split and re-split into thousands of denominations.
Click to expand...
that proof is not biblical, that proof is not the earliest tradition, and that proof was not taught by Christ. Consistent…thats another post…
so you DO agree that the office of Bishop of Rome is not biblical but it relates only to Peter himself? I will ask more after you repeat this to make sure I am understanding you correctly.
BH
 
40.png
BrianH:
the “passing of authority to the Bishops of Rome” as it relates to Catholic authority is precisly what I am talking about
Click to expand...
Do you reject history? Peter passed on his authority – in fact, we see a couple of examples of authority being passed or conferred – Mattias was selected by the Apostles to succeed Judas. Paul was accepted as an Apostle by the other Apostles.

Paul even explains how it is done – by laying on of hands.

Now, either the passing of authority is real, or Christ failed.
40.png
BrianH:
that proof is not biblical, that proof is not the earliest tradition, and that proof was not taught by Christ.
Click to expand...
Christ didn’t teach us to make airplanes or to stop at intersections either. He created a Church. He conferred authority on His Apostles. They passed it on.
40.png
BrianH:
Consistent…thats another post…
Click to expand...
Don’t run away so fast!http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
40.png
BrianH:
so you DO agree that the office of Bishop of Rome is not biblical but it relates only to Peter himself? I will ask more after you repeat this to make sure I am understanding you correctly.
BH
Click to expand...
No. I don’t agree with this. The office was given to Peter by Christ. So that Christ’s Church would not fail, Peter passed it on to his successors.

And the proof this was necessary is that those who have broken with the Apostolic succession have split, fragmented and failed to maintain a consistent message.
 
Peter is credited with starting the Church of Antioch. Some might say that since he founded the Church in Antioch, it was in Antioch where Peter’s Stewardship lies (not true). Not too long after founding the Church of Antioch, Peter left and there was another bishop of the church in Antioch, guiding the faithful of Antioch. His name was Evodius, and he is known as the first bishop of Antioch. Peter, Steward of the Church, then eventually goes to Rome and preaches the gospel to the people there. Peter became the leader of the Church of Rome (and at the same time, he was the leader of the entire Church). And it was in that location where Peter was crucified and died.
Click to expand...
Peter was bishop of Rome for 25 years:
Click to expand...
newadvent.org/cathen/05653a.htm
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=543631&postcount=45

Also… if Evodius (bishop of Antioch) is the successor of Peter’s stewardship after Peter left Antioch, how is this possible since Peter was STILL alive. It’s impossible.

The stewardship lies with Peter. Peter’s successor after his death is the next steward of the Church. The person who succeeded the Peter after his death was the bishop of Rome.
 
Vern
Lets simplify
Prove the OFFICE was passed on…the OFFiCE
early historical records welcome…fair warning…Im bringing 1st Clement into this
BH
 
40.png
BrianH:
Vern
Lets simplify
Prove the OFFICE was passed on…the OFFiCE
early historical records welcome…fair warning…Im bringing 1st Clement into this
BH
Click to expand...
Read Acts Chapter 1 in which Matthias is chosen to succeed Judas after Peter calls a synodal election. The office of Bishop and the office of the Papacy are passed on through Apostolic Succession and there is Biblical evidence for it.
 
40.png
BrianH:
Vern
Lets simplify
Prove the OFFICE was passed on…the OFFiCE
early historical records welcome…fair warning…Im bringing 1st Clement into this
BH
Click to expand...
Simple – if the office was not passed on, then Christ failed.

And the proof of that is evident in Protestantism today – in less than a quarter of the time the Catholic Church has been in existance, Protestantism has splintered into thousands of sects – each proclaiming that it teaches the truth.

Without the Magisterium, there would be no Church. And without Peter and his successors there would be no Magisterium.
 
Semper Fi:
Read Acts Chapter 1 in which Matthias is chosen to succeed Judas after Peter calls a synodal election. The office of Bishop and the office of the Papacy are passed on through Apostolic Succession and there is Biblical evidence for it.
Click to expand...
Bishop yes yes yes of course
Papacy no no no…
The Bible does not support the importance of the Bishop of Rome.
Early church history does not.
Jesus did not.
BH
 
vern humphrey:
Simple – if the office was not passed on, then Christ failed.

And the proof of that is evident in Protestantism today – in less than a quarter of the time the Catholic Church has been in existance, Protestantism has splintered into thousands of sects – each proclaiming that it teaches the truth.

Without the Magisterium, there would be no Church. And without Peter and his successors there would be no Magisterium.
Click to expand...
You are reasserting your claim … by appealing to logic, I understand how important this is to you guys but I have not, am not argue the logic of it all…I can do that on a different thread…I am talking scripture…early church tradition…where is the meat? Sorry 🙂 Just ate a double…
 
40.png
BrianH:
Bishop yes yes yes of course
Papacy no no no…
The Bible does not support the importance of the Bishop of Rome.
Early church history does not.
Jesus did not.
BH
Click to expand...
The Bible does indeed support the Papacy as taught to us in Matthew 16:18 and other passages.

Early Church history also does because it is the Pope, Clement I, Bishop of Rome, not Corinth, who writes to the Corinthians to re-address the problems St. Paul addressed in his Epistles to them.

Jesus most certainly did as shown in John 21:15-18.
Jesus most certainly did because He said He was going to build His Church on him: Matt 16:18

Ken
 
Seeing how the Eastern Father’s or “Popes”, as some of our Eastern Brothers seem to be asserting, did not seem to claim this authority on themselves, and the fact that there was clear evidence that they, in fact, submitted to Rome on matters of final authority, I find these claims a bit disingenuous. When the evidence points to Ignatius himself referring to the Primacy of Rome, it is hard for me to understand how one could have him in a list that is the supposed “lineage of the Primacy of Antioch”. Maybe that was not your intent in posting the list. I realize you were responding to a previous poster’s request. However, if you were making this claim, I think this demands explanation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top