Disrespect of the Holy Mother

[rod_of_iron]

rod of iron,

I hope this clarifies a few things for you concerning the Church, Scripture, and the Blessed Virgin Mary. I am certain that you were unaware of the aforementioned scriptural connections which is understandable.

I believe you are reaching too far in your scriptural connections. You are trying to show parallels where I don’t believe such parallels exist. Just because any two scriptures may have the same phrase in them, it doesn’t mean that there is any significant connection between the two. You try to make a connection because of phrases like “arose and went”, “come to me”, “the house”, “with shouting/with a loud cry”, “leaping and dancing/leaped”, “three months” that you have found within any two verses of scripture.

I did a word search for those phrases in the Bible. I used the KJV Bible, because I was not sure which version you were using.

“Arose and went” appears in 32 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“Come to me” appears in 11 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“The house” appears in 1016 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“With shouting” appears in 7 verses.
“With a loud cry” appears in 1 verse.
“With a loud voice” appears in 47 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“Leaping and dancing” appears in 1 verse.
“Leaped” appears in 8 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“Three months” appears in 17 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

This just shows how language works and that all these phrases are common among the English language. There needs to be more than just a phrase occurring in two different verses for me to make a parallel between the two verses.

Pax:

It’s important to note, however, that you are ridiculing the ancient teachings of the only Christian church which existed until after the Protestant reformation in the 16th century.

How can you make this claim? The Eastern Orthodox church was in existence well before the 16th century. Many other Christian groups were in existence before the 16th century. Just because the Roman Catholic church declared that other Christian groups that did not share the exact same doctrines and beliefs as the Catholic church were heretical, it does not mean that these other groups were not Christian, or that they necessarily were heretical. If you believe that the only group that could call itself Christian before the 16th century was the Roman Catholic church, then you are in a state of denial. You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

rod of iron:

I . You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?

Allright, the New Testament account of the Apostles (Acts) breaks off before the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul in Rome. There is some major indication of Nero’s historicaly documented persections in Revelations—abeit in a highly coded form.

The Apostles appointed sucessors to their authority;i.e. the chosing af Matttias in Acts and Paul personaly appointing heirs (bishops-episkopos (overseers)) by the laying on of hands.

To document the sucession From the Apostles to the Patristic Fathers, we have to go beyond where the NT leaves off. No other way around it. There is a wealth of information availible, and what i quote is just a small part of it. To say that if the NT didn’t mention something then it can’t be true is a statement of historical nonsense.

The Patristic Fathers devoted A LOT of their writings to the sucession of apostolic authority–They could claim without contradiction that “I received my teaching of the faith from so-and -so and he received it (how many connections in direct line) from “X” apostle. My teaching of the faith is ALSO in agreement with several other teachers who can show their direct line of sucession. Heretical teachers and teachings invariably show a break in sucession”

Granted, the word “Catholic” does not appear in the scripture. It was a later description, means “Universal” to go with “Church” (ecclasia=assembly) However that description comes EARLY and our first documention it is used matter-of-fact, no big deal:

“Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains *. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church” (St. Ignatius of Antioch, *Letter to the Smyrneans *8:2 [A.D. 110]).

“And of the elect, he was one indeed, the wonderful martyr Polycarp, who in our days was an apostolic and prophetic teacher, bishop of the Catholic Church in Smyrna. For every word which came forth from his mouth was fulfilled and will be fulfilled” (Martyrdom of Polycarp 16:2 [A.D. 155]).

Now the concept of legitimate line of succesion was fully documented within the first century:

“Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry” (Clement, *Letter to the Corinthians *42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

In the second century, Hegesippus:

“When I had come to Rome, I [visited] Anicetus, whose deacon was Eleutherus. And after Anicetus [died], Soter succeeded, and after him Eleutherus. In each succession and in each city there is a continuance of that which is proclaimed by the law, the prophets, and the Lord” (Memoirs, cited in Eusebius, *Ecclesiastical History *4:22 [A.D. 180]).

rod of iron, the quotes above are just a small portion the Churchs uses to trace its lineage, its continuity.

Above quotes via www.catholic.com*

 

[Pax]

rod of iron:

I believe you are reaching too far in your scriptural connections. You are trying to show parallels where I don’t believe such parallels exist. Just because any two scriptures may have the same phrase in them, it doesn’t mean that there is any significant connection between the two. You try to make a connection because of phrases like “arose and went”, “come to me”, “the house”, “with shouting/with a loud cry”, “leaping and dancing/leaped”, “three months” that you have found within any two verses of scripture.

I did a word search for those phrases in the Bible. I used the KJV Bible, because I was not sure which version you were using.

“Arose and went” appears in 32 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“Come to me” appears in 11 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“The house” appears in 1016 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“With shouting” appears in 7 verses.
“With a loud cry” appears in 1 verse.
“With a loud voice” appears in 47 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“Leaping and dancing” appears in 1 verse.
“Leaped” appears in 8 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

“Three months” appears in 17 verses.
Do you want to make a scriptural connection between all these?

This just shows how language works and that all these phrases are common among the English language. There needs to be more than just a phrase occurring in two different verses for me to make a parallel between the two verses.

How can you make this claim? The Eastern Orthodox church was in existence well before the 16th century. Many other Christian groups were in existence before the 16th century. Just because the Roman Catholic church declared that other Christian groups that did not share the exact same doctrines and beliefs as the Catholic church were heretical, it does not mean that these other groups were not Christian, or that they necessarily were heretical. If you believe that the only group that could call itself Christian before the 16th century was the Roman Catholic church, then you are in a state of denial. You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?

I am not being lazy, and I want to avoid being uncharitable, but I must tell you that this the weakest response I have come across on this subject, and it really isn’t worthy of an analytical response. There is no mere coincidence in these verses. The connections are obvious. You are in denial if you can’t see it.

You claim that I am in denial if I say that the Catholic church was the only Christian church prior to the 16th century. That is ridiculous. Sure, Arians, Gnostics, Docetists and others thought themselves to be Christian but they did not hold the beliefs of the one true church. These heresies and others do not substantiate your contention, but merely reinforce the Catholic position. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church prior to the 16th century you and many of the rest of us could be Arians today. It was a vigorous and wide spread heresy that took a very long time to die out.

I apologize if I came on too strong or if I have offended you with the opening of my response. This just seems to be one of those times when I’m either out of control or the situation demands that I be blunt. In either case, I do not wish to hurt anyone’s feelings.

 

[truthseeker1]

Faustina:

As far as the website Former Catholics for Christ, I found it to be totally uncharitable. Anything you try to tell them about the doctrines, they answer back that you are believing in the lies generated by the Vatican. I finally gave up. Every now an again I will visit the site and I am surprised at how mean everyone is.

If I know that you have been lied to, and that you believe the lie, and I try to point that out to you to save you from deception, am I being mean? No, I am doing it because I love you!

 

[truthseeker1]

Pax:

I am not being lazy, and I want to avoid being uncharitable, but I must tell you that this the weakest response I have come across on this subject, and it really isn’t worthy of an analytical response. There is no mere coincidence in these verses. The connections are obvious. You are in denial if you can’t see it.

You claim that I am in denial if I say that the Catholic church was the only Christian church prior to the 16th century. That is ridiculous. Sure, Arians, Gnostics, Docetists and others thought themselves to be Christian but they did not hold the beliefs of the one true church. These heresies and others do not substantiate your contention, but merely reinforce the Catholic position. If it weren’t for the Catholic Church prior to the 16th century you and many of the rest of us could be Arians today. It was a vigorous and wide spread heresy that took a very long time to die out.

I apologize if I came on too strong or if I have offended you with the opening of my response. This just seems to be one of those times when I’m either out of control or the situation demands that I be blunt. In either case, I do not wish to hurt anyone’s feelings.

Out of all due respect, let me be blunt here. The man has a point when he says “You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?” Very good point. I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

 

[Hans_A]

truthseeker1:

…I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

Where is your proof?

In Christ,
Hans

 

[chimakuni]

rod of iron:

Are you claiming that there are prophets in the Catholic church? Is the pope a prophet?

No, I do not claim that…you are asking if I do, and I do not.

I question whether the Catholic church has handed down the truth without error for 2000 years. Should I believe this just because the Catholic church makes this claim? No, absolutely not - you should search scripture and see what Christ says. Then you will know that it is not the Church that makes the claim, it is Jesus.

First, the “gates of hell” is another way of referring to death, or the grave. Jesus did not say that Satan could not prevail against the church. In fact, in Daniel 7:25, it says, “And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.”. Some king would wear out the saints of the most high. No matter who you think this king is, the verse clearly shows that the saints would be worn out, or prevailed over. Jesus said that the “gates of hell”, the grave, would not prevail over the church. If the grave did prevail over the church, it would mean that once we die, the church would be no more and we would no longer be part of it. But Jesus conquered death, so that the grave will not prevail over His church. In Revelation, it says that “death and hell will deliver up its dead”. If this was not so, the “gates of hell” would prevail over the church.

Your interpretations are quite fascinating, rod of iron. That is why you give me joy! You have your own beliefs - good for you - but will they hold you in good steed when you meet God face to face as surely we all will?

Praying for you rod of iron!

 

[AngelicDoctor]

Anglo-catholic:

.

Don’t each and every one of you receive and carry the living Christ in your unworthy sinful bodies at every Eucharist? The Ark carried the artifacts of God not God. You can’t keep Him boxed up.

You can’t keep God boxed up–true. However, you can keep God Incarnate boxed in a womb, that is what God did in Mary, when the the Son, God-Inarnate was contained in her very womb. While the Ark of the Old Covenant carried the artifacts of God, the Ark of the New Covenant carried something greater–God himself. That is why Mary is called the Mother of God. (So what is your point, Anglo-Cath?) The whole point of the empyting (kenosis) of the Incarnation is that the eternal, omnipotent, omnipresent God so willed to be “boxed-up” in human flesh and the human condition. While taking on flesh, the Son remained God, and that is why Mary is called the Mother of God. When Protestants call her the “God-Bearer” this is an awkward way of saying the same thing (mothers bear childdren). This point by Anglo-Catholic seems like Nestorianism all over again.
Also, there is a distinction between receiving the flesh and blood of Jesus as Mary did (in order to bring about the birth of the Incarnate Word), and as we do in the sacrament of the Eucharist (even though the latter is the body, blood, soul, and divinity). Perhaps that can be explored by someone here?

 

[kevinfraser]

convertmjh:

I was searching the web and I came across a former Catholics for Christ discussion board. I am always curious to know why people leave Catholicism so I took a look around and I couldn’t believe the disrespect for the Holy Mother. In one thread they were talking about a “false prophecy” of Mary and one man replied: "

Try this line from Father Corapi:

Mary was good enough for Jesus. You telling me she’s not good enough for you?
fathercorapi.com

Or this (mine):

You do realize that if you believe in the Trinity, you’re mocking the Mother of God. What would happen to somebody who mocked YOUR mother?

or:

“Man behold your mother. Woman, behold your son.” What makes you think He was only talking to John and Mary?

 

[AngelicDoctor]

rod of iron:

It is quite interesting that whenever the New Testament speaks of saints, they are living Christ-believing people. They are not dead people that have been exalted. If you truly do belong to the true church, you are a saint. You do not have to live an exemplary life to become a saint. What makes a person a saint? Entering into a covenant relationship with Christ. If you have done so, you are a saint. I have entered into a covenant relationship with Christ and therefore, I am one of His saints. Praise the Lord!

Yes, there are multiple sense of “saint”–holy one. To enter into the covenant of Christ through baptism, you are made holy. However, let us remember all of the times that the NT warns about those (who are already “saints” in this first sense) who can FALL AWAY especially through not persevering in love and in not obeying God’s word (I do not have citations on hand but read Hebrews and 1 John for a start).

In the second, saints are those who have persevered, who have finished the race–those who are finally with God in heaven, and whose holiness (sanctity), initiated in their accpetance of Christ and baptism, has been perfected. Saints in this second sense are “dead people who have been exalted” because they are exemplary models of how to live out the life of grace in Christ,… they are examples of Christ’s grace incarnate in our lives and how we can accept that grace in our lives. St. Paul said that death cannot seperate us from Christ, tell me how Christians who pass away from earthly life are just, as you crudely put it, “dead people who have been exalted.” No one who is part of the body of Christ is dead–but those saints who are in heaven, who have been perfected, are more “saintly” then the saints fighting the battle on earth. Show me exactly how the Catholic sense of saints mirrors the morman sense of human deification, please. In Charity, Angelic Doctor

 

[Jennifer123]

rod of iron:

You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?

Because your only proof is apparently that it has to be found in the bible (2 Tim 3:16 does not prove sola scriptura, especially in the context of the entirety of scripture, esp. in light of 2 Thes 2:15)and you won’t make any concessions to scripture or interpretation that we’ve offered.
Proof about the Church beginnings can be found all throughout the NT, especially Acts, and in the writings of the Church fathers and the various councils, which you refuse to acknowledge, even though there was no “bible” as we know it in the beginning of Christiandom to give you the proof you require. I guess we’re hamstrung!!
Even though you may disagree, my hope at least is to help you understand why the Church declares what she declares and that these aren’t outrageous or blasphemous claims, rather they are logical and right considering what we believe.

 

[Pax]

truthseeker1:

Out of all due respect, let me be blunt here. The man has a point when he says “You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?” Very good point. I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

The Catholic church can trace its Papal lineage all the way to Peter as the Bishop of Rome. Read the early Church Fathers for the proof. If you believe otherwise you have been deceived. Even non-catholic and atheist historians point out that the Catholic Church was, at one time, the only Christian Church. This is not a fabrication or lie. You are simply ignorant of this otherwise obvious historical fact. There is also plenty of evidence that Peter was in Rome.

It is not our job as Catholics to do your honest homework for you. Try reading real history books, rather than simply listening to what anti-catholics have taught you. If I seem a bit agravated it is because it is irritating to have to contend with objections to objective history. If you disagree with Catholic teaching you need to base it on something other than an erroneous view of the historical data.

 

[Pax]

I also challenge you to prove that Peter was preaching only to the Jews and not Gentiles. I would suggest you read 2 Peter 3:15. Please note that we know that Paul was writing and preaching to Gentile Jews. In 2 Peter 3:15-16, Peter says, " And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures."

Obviously, Peter is giving a message to the same churches that Paul preached to. These were Gentiles…Peter preached and taught the Gentiles and not just the Jews.

Was Peter ever in Rome? You don’t need the Church or history to prove that he was. In 1 Peter 5:1 he says, “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.” Babylon was a code word for pagan Rome and Peter is sending his message along with his greetings from that church and his son, Mark, from Rome.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Jennifer123:

Because your only proof is apparently that it has to be found in the bible (2 Tim 3:16 does not prove sola scriptura, especially in the context of the entirety of scripture, esp. in light of 2 Thes 2:15)and you won’t make any concessions to scripture or interpretation that we’ve offered.

Do you expect me to accept your interpretation of scripture, when I do not see how your interpretation is correct? I don’t see you or others making any more concessions for my interpretation of the scripture than what you accuse me of.

Jennifer123:

Proof about the Church beginnings can be found all throughout the NT, especially Acts, and in the writings of the Church fathers and the various councils, which you refuse to acknowledge, even though there was no “bible” as we know it in the beginning of Christiandom to give you the proof you require. I guess we’re hamstrung!!

As I have said a number of times, I do not reject the proof about the beginnings of the church that Jesus established. But I do not see how the Catholic church is that church mentioned in the Bible.

Jennifer123:

Even though you may disagree, my hope at least is to help you understand why the Church declares what she declares and that these aren’t outrageous or blasphemous claims, rather they are logical and right considering what we believe.

I see even more that the Catholic church bases its beliefs and doctrines on misinterpretations of scripture.

 

[Emmaus]

truthseeker1:

Out of all due respect, let me be blunt here. The man has a point when he says “You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?” Very good point. I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

Truthseeker,

This will require multiple posts. #1
As you may already be aware the Catholic position on Peter, the papacy and papal infallibility starts at Matthew 16:18-19. “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Anyone demanding a proof text that says literally: “the popes are Peter’s successors and are infallible” should read no further. It isn’t in the bible and you won’t find it here. A discussion of Church structure and authority also presumes a belief in a visible Church. Catholics believe in that also, based on their understanding of scripture, others may not.

Catholics as everyone knows are not “ Sola Scriptura” or “Bible Alone” people. Which is not to say they are unbiblical people, opinions to the contrary notwithstanding.

Infallibility is not impeccability. Popes can and do sin. Some few seem to have wallowed in sin. That is not what this discussion is about.

Let’s start with Matt 16:18 in its context: Matt 16:13-19

When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?”
They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.”
He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?”
Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.
And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

At this point a few facts indicating Peter’s primacy among the Apostles seems in order. In the New Testament, Peter, under his various names, Simon, Peter, Cephas, Kephas, Simon Peter, is mentioned 195 times. The closest after him is the Apostle John mentioned 29 times. Whenever all the names of the Apostles are listed Peter is always first and Judas Iscariot is always last. Matt 10:2-5, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-17, Acts 1:13. Sometimes they are referred to only as “Peter and his companions” or in a similar manner. Luke 9:32, Mark 16:7, Acts 2:37. Peter is seen as the spokesman for the whole group in Matt 18:21, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45, Luke 12:41, John 6:68-69.

 

[Emmaus]

truthseeker1:

Out of all due respect, let me be blunt here. The man has a point when he says “You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?” Very good point. I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

Trutseeker,

#2 on Peter

A scriptural antecedent or Old Testament type of the kind of commission Jesus gives to Peter in Matt: 16:18-19 can be found in Isaiah 22:15-25. It is the description of the delegation of authority to the chief steward or minister of the king. The steward is given the key of the House of David It is an office with succession. The authority over the House of David is transferred from one servant to a new servant and his line. Much as the stewards of temple worship in Jerusalem were cut off and Jesus the Son of David passes the authority of His house to Peter. You see there also the transfer of authority to bind and loose even as given to Peter in Matthew.

What examples do we have in scripture of Peter exercising this authority? They are found in

Acts 1:15 Peter leads the other apostles in the selection of Matthias to succeed Judas in his office.
Acts 2:14 Peter is first to proclaim the Gospel at Pentecost.
Acts 3:1-12 The first public miracle is worked through Peter.
Acts 4:8-12 Peter professes the faith before the Sanhedrin.
Acts 5:1-5 Peter exercises Church discipline on Ananias and Sapphira dramatically and
Acts 5:3-10 speaks with amazing and frightening authority.
Acts 5:15 The faith of the people in Peter’s authority is demonstrated by their actions.
Acts 8:14-15 Peter goes to Samaria to lay on hands so the Holy Spirit would come.
Acts 8:20-24 Peter speaks for the Apostles rebuking Simon Magus.
Acts 10:1-48 Peter baptizes the first Gentiles into the Church.
Acts 11:18 Peter’s authority in baptizing Gentiles is accepted after he explains actions.
His decision was binding on the Jewish Christians to accept the Gentiles
and loosing for the Gentiles, loosing them from any obligation to be circumcised.
Acts 15:1-35 At the Council of Jerusalem after much debate on the matter of the Gentiles
Peter again states his position on the question. The assembly falls silent,
Paul and Barnabas speak, and James accepts and supports Peter’s doctrinal
Declaration. James then addresses the issues of minimum disciplines the Gentiles must
practice now that they are accepted without having to be circumcised.

If one accepts the scriptural evidence of Peter’s primacy among the Apostles, which Catholics do, the next question is whether the office of the Apostles and their authority can be transmitted
from generation to generation within the Church.

The first scriptural evidence that the office of the Apostles can be transmitted is found in Acts 1:15-30.When Matthias is chosen to succeed in the office left vacant by Judas Iscariot. Later in Acts 13:1-3 Hands are laid on Barnabas and Paul. The true apostles after the original twelve are recognized because they are sent the original Apostles who have laid hands on them so that they speak with true authority. See also 1Timothy 4:14, 2 Timothy 1:6, Titus 1:5

See Matt: 10:40-41, John 14:16-18 and John 16:12-13.

This extremely brief treatment, excludes the Church Fathers witness on the subject.

Continuing…

 

[Emmaus]

truthseeker1:

Out of all due respect, let me be blunt here. The man has a point when he says “You still have not substantiated the claim that the Roman Catholic church succeeded Peter. Why should I believe any other claim that you or the Catholic church makes?” Very good point. I have even come to understand that Peter was never even in Rome…he was preaching to the Jews not the Gentiles. Could the whole thing be a fabricated lie to give the Pope and the Bishops absolute power over the populace? Absolutely!

Truthseeker,

#3 on Peter

A few other passages that deal with Peter’s unique position among the Apostles are:

Luke 22:31-32 “ And the Lord said unto Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has desired to have you that he may sift you as wheat; But I have prayed for you, that your faith does not fail; and when you are converted, strengthen your brethren.”

John 21:2, 15-17. In this passage Jesus questions Peter three times whether he loves Him.
“Do you love me more than these?”
Jesus tells Peter, “feed my lambs…, tend my sheep…, feed my sheep.”
He is appointing Peter as the Shepherd of his flock. But he does not address the several other Apostles who are present. It is clear that Peter is to shepherd not only the flock of lambs but also the other sheep. This has been interpreted by some to refer to the laity as lambs, and the clergy as sheep. All including Peter himself are sheep of Christ’s flock with Jesus the ultimate shepherd. But again Jesus is here delegating His authority to Peter to be a shepherd of the flock and the other shepherds.

Earlier Jesus had promised the special guidance of the Holy Spirit to guide the Apostles and the Church in all truth. John 14:16-18, 26 and John 16:12-13. It is the Holy Spirit who will preserve the Church and the successors of the Apostles from teaching error.

There are too many passages of Scripture Old and New Testament to list indicating the imagery of the shepherd as ruler. But this is the image in which the Apostles are cast by Jesus, with Peter as the chief shepherd by Jesus’ delegation of authority. The other Apostles do have similar authority invested in them by Jesus, but Jesus never gives them the keys nor deals with them in the special individual manor He deals with Peter. Their authority is real but must be in unity with Peter, the guarantor of the unity of the Church on earth by Christ’s investiture. The other Apostles or bishops represent the diversity of the Church and Peter its essential unity.

I will not go into all the early Church Fathers who support this general understanding. I will only mention one of the earliest, a successor of Peter who asserted his universal authority over another local Church. That is Clement of Rome whose Letter to the Corinthians some wanted o be included in the Canon of Scripture. In that letter, circa 80-98 A.D., Clement asserted his authority over the Corinthian Church as Peter’s successor. The letter is easily available on any number of web sites.
I cite it only because it is so early in the apostolic succession and because some argue that papal authority was an invention of the fifth century. The outward dressing of that authority may have developed over the years but the inner essential has remained the same.

The dogmatic formulation was done at the Vatican Council I, 1870 and further refined at Vatican II.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Pax:

The Catholic church can trace its Papal lineage all the way to Peter as the Bishop of Rome.

The office of bishop is a pastoral office. The office of apostle is an evangelical office. How can a pastoral office be substituted for an evangelical office and still be the same office? It can’t. Since Peter was an apostle, he couldn’t have been a bishop also. A pastoral office is one that stays in one place, while an evangelical office is one that travels and is missionary. If the Catholic church is the successor of the Apostles, apparently the church quickly filtered the office of apostle out of the church. If so, it would no longer be the true church.

Pax:

There is also plenty of evidence that Peter was in Rome.

I would like to see it. It’s funny. If Peter was the bishop of Rome, it is strange that Paul doesn’t mention Peter in his salutations in his Letter to the Romans. In fact, Peter is never mentioned in Romans. How could Paul be so oblivious to not salute Peter or even mention him in his letter if Peter was the bishop of Rome?

Pax:

It is not our job as Catholics to do your honest homework for you.

You’re accusing us of trying to get out of honest homework? Not so. A person expects that when someone claims something that that someone will provide the evidence to support that claim. When I make a claim, I do not expect you to do research for me to support my claim. Why do you expect it of me? It is not your job to prove my claims, and it certainly is not my job to prove your claims. Why would I care if your claims are ever proven?

 

[rod_of_iron]

Pax:

I am not being lazy, and I want to avoid being uncharitable, but I must tell you that this the weakest response I have come across on this subject, and it really isn’t worthy of an analytical response. There is no mere coincidence in these verses. The connections are obvious. You are in denial if you can’t see it.

You claim that my response was weak. But your scriptural connections were very weak. You tried to make a connection between verses based on their having a certain phrase in them. Therefore, when anyone uses those phrases in writing, your logic would also compel us to make a logical connection between that writing and the verse in the Bible. You still have to show more than that for me to believe there is a logical connection between the verses you were comparing.

 

[rod_of_iron]

Emmaus:

Truthseeker,

This will require multiple posts. #1
As you may already be aware the Catholic position on Peter, the papacy and papal infallibility starts at Matthew 16:18-19. “And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it.
I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Anyone demanding a proof text that says literally: “the popes are Peter’s successors and are infallible” should read no further. It isn’t in the bible and you won’t find it here. A discussion of Church structure and authority also presumes a belief in a visible Church. Catholics believe in that also, based on their understanding of scripture, others may not.

I guess I will read no further. If the Bible does not make concession for a pope or for a succession of bishops to succeed the apostles, we must believe that they were added after Jesus had established His church. It they are indeed additions, the Catholic church cannot be the true successor to the church of Jesus Christ.