How can you believe that the Church was founded upon Peter?

  • Thread starter Thread starter askeptic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Atreyu:
Roady did you read my reply to you at all? What is the foundation of the Church, according to Ephesians 2?
I’m sorry I missed your post, you can give me the number and I’ll go back and read it.

Do you claim that:

a) the church is built upon the foundation of all the apostles and the prophets
b)the church is built only upon Peter
c) the church is built upon Christ as the bedrock/petra on which the foundations of the apostles/prophets rest

Roady
 
40.png
askeptic:
I googled “oxyrhinos paprii” and nothing came up, might you have mistyped it? Please provide a link to this reference. Thanks.
Try Oxford Paprii. Oxyrhinos was a Greek/Egyptian city in which archeologists found some paprii trash, which they preserved. A few years ago, they began examining the “trash” with modern techniques and found a fragment of the Gospel of Matthew – which can be dated to the mid-'60s.

Research continues, but if the original findings hold, this casts doubt on the Marcan Primacy theory.
40.png
askeptic:
Are you telling me that Aryans, Monophysites etc. all acknowledged Peter’s authority?
That’s kind of like saying, “Are you telling me that Muslims acknowledged Peter’s authority?”

The Aryans, Monophisites and so on were heretics, were they not?
40.png
askeptic:
The shortest of the four which also happesn to omit the virgin birth, the whole idea that Mary was a virgin (there are in fact passages about Jesus’ brothers, which seem to imply that Mary had other children), and the shorter ending of which doesn’t even have post-resurrection appearances.
So you reject the other Gospels as false, do you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

What other books of the Bible do you reject?
 
40.png
Roady:
I’m sorry I missed your post, you can give me the number and I’ll go back and read it.

Do you claim that:

a) the church is built upon the foundation of all the apostles and the prophets
b)the church is built only upon Peter
c) the church is built upon Christ as the bedrock/petra on which the foundations of the apostles/prophets rest

Roady
None of the above. Are you the guy who made up the question: When did you stop beating your wife?
 
Thal59 said:
>>>Roady here…this is what I said with my first post. The catholic church is built upon Peter. But the true church is built upon Jesus Christ. <<<

This is nonsense. Christ “authorized” Peter and his successors to be His vicar. The Catholic church is therefore the true church built upon Jesus Christ “through” Peter and his successors.
Just for a flavour change, it’s very odd that Jesus would build his church on so many corrupt popes.<<<
Please list the corrupt Popes and their crimes, thank you.

Thal59

Really? Keep in mind that the catholic church is built upon this man as successor to Peter:

Pope Alexander VI
(Removed link to anti-Catholic website as per Forum Rules)

Sandra
 
Corruptness has nothing to do with anything. Christ built His Church on a man who denied Him, a man who killed His followers ruthlessly, and countless other sinners.
 
40.png
Lazerlike42:
Corruptness has nothing to do with anything. Christ built His Church on a man who denied Him, a man who killed His followers ruthlessly, and countless other sinners.
No, no, no…Peter and Paul repented and became great men of God. We can’t take someone like Pope Alexander and make him into a humble sinner who was saved by grace.

Roady
 
40.png
Thal59:
Such a claim is constantly being made against the church. But if this is the case, why not make up verses that “explicitly” support the church?

“And I say to thee that thou art Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church, and it will be called Catholic, and all will be obedient to your successors who will be called Pope.”

You have to remember that the oldest gospels in existence date back only to the 3rd and 4th centuries. If you are willing to believe that these texts have been corrupted by the church, then you have no basis for believing **anything **in the bible is true.

You might as well just put your faith into the Lord’s promises that the Holy Spirit would recall to your minds all that I have taught you, teach you all things, guide you into all truth, and be with you forever.

Thal59
I agree that evidence of corruption would weaken the basis of the entire New Testament. However, I don’t think we should hesitate to ask questions because we don’t like the implications of possible answers.
 
40.png
Roady:
No, no, no…Peter and Paul repented and became great men of God. We can’t take someone like Pope Alexander and make him into a humble sinner who was saved by grace.

Roady
It is not Catholic teaching that a Pope will be without sin. It is not Catholic teaching that a Pope cannot end up in Hell. It is not Catholic teaching that a Pope will be a Saint. The power of the keys applies to *teaching *and is a negative assurance that a Pope will not teach error.

It is always surprising that someone who challenges the Catholic position as energetically as you do on this thread seems to have only the vaguest third-hand idea of what the Catholic position actually is.

Come to think of it, we do know that Alexander VI was a humble sinner who was saved by grace. On August 12, six days after contracting a fever, he made his confession and received the last Sacraments. Man! If there’s hope for a scoundrel like Alexander VI, maybe there’s hope for me!
 
40.png
Roady:
We can’t take someone like Pope Alexander and make him into a humble sinner who was saved by grace.
We can’t, but God can. Otherwise, none of us can be saved.

– Mark L. Chance.
 
40.png
mlchance:
We can’t, but God can. Otherwise, none of us can be saved.

– Mark L. Chance.
You are correct. We have no power to declare anyone condemned to hell.

Let me point out that the proposition that “corruption” invalidates the Apostolic Succession is the Donatist Heresy.

Donatism can be summed up as, “The validity of a sacrament depends on the state of grace of the celebrant.” The logical implications are that you will not go to Heaven – because the priest who baptized you had sinned. And you committed adultry and fornication (the priest who officiated at your marriage had sinned.) And you never attended mass and communion (the priest who officiated had sinned.) And, although you confessed them, your sins were never forgiven (the priest to whom you confessed was a sinner.)

Isn’t it interesting how those who attack the Church resurrect the old, discredited heresies?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
Roady here…this is what I said with my first post. The catholic church is built upon Peter. But the true church is built upon Jesus Christ. <<<
This is nonsense. Christ “authorized” Peter and his successors to be His vicar. The Catholic church is therefore the true church built upon Jesus Christ “through” Peter and his successors.
Just for a flavour change, it’s very odd that Jesus would build his church on so many corrupt popes.<<<
Please list the corrupt Popes and their crimes, thank you.

Thal59
40.png
Roady:
Really? Keep in mind that the catholic church is built upon this man as successor to Peter:

Pope Alexander VI

(Removed link to anti-Catholic website as per Forum Rules)

Sandra
You are kidding, right Sandra? The church was built on Pope Alexander VI??? The church was built on a Pope who served for 11 years at the end of the 15th century?

Peter received his authority as Christ’s vicar directly from Jesus. There are many threads you can follow that will demonstrate this. I will say it again… it is nonsense to suggest that the church is built upon Jesus Christ but not upon the one whom He authorized as His vicar.

I also asked you for a list of corrupt popes and their crimes and all you offer is one Borgia pope! On top of that, you link as a verifiable source a Protestant website! The last time I went to a Protestant website for a “factual” (and I use the term loosely) dissertation about the bible it was not only laced with easily verifiable historical errors it also claimed that Wycliff invented bifocals!

You are not making much of a case.

Thal59
 
40.png
Roady:
Roady here…this is what I said with my first post. The catholic church is built upon Peter. But the true church is built upon Jesus Christ. Enough “arguing” about it. I disagree that you interpreted it correctly, but I agree that your church is built upon Peter, and his successors. Just for a flavour change, it’s very odd that Jesus would build his church on so many corrupt popes. This should be more evidence that the true church is not built upon men.

Roady
You are not arguing against me, but common sense, your position is an extreme one based on opinion and flies in the face of
Protestant scholars, patristic witness and the clear grammatical meaning of scripture.

In regards corrupt Popes lets put this perspective, there were many bad kings and prophets in the Old Testament along with many good ones, the best of these was King David who committed adultery and murder, and yet it is his throne that Christs sits on.

In regards building the Church on a man, it is not the qualities of the man but the special charism of Grace that is inherit in the position as leader of the Church that makes Peter the ‘rock’ on which the Church is built.

Pax

Brian
 
Brian Ingram:
You are not arguing against me, but common sense, your position is an extreme one based on opinion and flies in the face of
Protestant scholars, patristic witness and the clear grammatical meaning of scripture.

In regards corrupt Popes lets put this perspective, there were many bad kings and prophets in the Old Testament along with many good ones, the best of these was King David who committed adultery and murder, and yet it is his throne that Christs sits on.

In regards building the Church on a man, it is not the qualities of the man but the special charism of Grace that is inherit in the position as leader of the Church that makes Peter the ‘rock’ on which the Church is built.

Pax

Brian
Since it was Christ who said, “upon this rock I build my Church” his argument also flies in the face of Jesus Christ.
 
40.png
Roady:
Roady here…this is what I said with my first post. The catholic church is built upon Peter. But the true church is built upon Jesus Christ. Enough “arguing” about it. I disagree that you interpreted it correctly, but I agree that your church is built upon Peter, and his successors. Just for a flavour change, it’s very odd that Jesus would build his church on so many corrupt popes. This should be more evidence that the true church is not built upon men.

Roady
  1. You’re wrong and the early church doesn’t agree with you either. The Catholic Church is founded on Jesus Christ. Jesus just picked Kephas, the real name that Jesus called him in the language that they really spoke at the time.
  2. You allege “so many corrupt popes.” which is historically inaccurate. If you’d like to name them for us then I’ll wager that there are only a handfull, and if impeccability is a requirement then no church leadership is valid, not even whatever one you are part of. :eek:
  3. Straw man arguement since that is not Catholic teaching…and because it is your asertion then the burden of proof falls upon you.
 
40.png
Roady:
Really? Keep in mind that the catholic church is built upon this man as successor to Peter:

Pope Alexander VI
(Removed link to anti-Catholic website as per Forum Rules)
Sandra(I figured it was you Sandra…Misrepresenting Catholicism again.) When did you become impeccable? Are you now without sin so that you have the right to throw that first stone. One bad guy…and even your evidence is from a biased source.

BTW better re-read the Forum Rules as links to anti-Catholic sites are not allowed.
The facts: Alexander VI

So little have Catholic historians defended him that in the middle of the nineteenth century Cesare Cantu could write that Alexander VI was the only Pope who had never found an apologist. However, since that time some Catholic writers, both in books and periodicals, have attempted to defend him from the most grievous accusations of his contemporaries. Two in particular may be mentioned: the Dominican Ollivier, “Le Pape Alexandre VI et les Borgia” (Paris, 1870), of whose work only one volume appeared, dealing with the Pope’s cardinalate; and Leonetti “Papa Alessandro VI secondo documenti e carteggi del tempo” (3 vols., Bologna, 1880). These and other works were occasioned, partly by a laudable desire to remove a stigma from the good repute of the Catholic Church, and partly by the gross exaggerations of Victor Hugo and others who permitted themselves all licence in dealing with a name so helpless and detested. It cannot be said, however, that these works have corresponded to their authors’ zeal. Dr. Pastor ranks them all as failures. Such is the opinion of Henri de l’Epinois in the “Revue des questions historiques” (1881), XXIX, 147, a study that even Thuasne, the hostile editor of the Diary of Burchard, calls “the indispensable guide of all students of Borgia history”. It is also the opinion of the Bollandist Matagne, in the same review for 1870 and 1872 (IX, 466-475; XI, 181-198), and of Von Reumont, the Catholic historian of medieval Rome, in Bonn. Theol. Lit. Blatt (1870), V. 686. Dr. Pastor considers that the publication of the documents in the supplement to the third volume of Thuasne’s edition of the Diary of Burchard (Paris, 1883) renders “forever impossible” any attempts to save the reputation of Alexander VI. There is all the less reason, therefore, says Cardinal Hergenroether (op. cit., II, 583), for the false charges that have been added to his account, e. g. his attempt to poison Cardinal Adriano da Corneto and his incestuous relations with Lucrezia (Pastor, op. cit., III, 375, 450-451, 475). Other accusations, says the same writer, have been dealt with, not unsuccessfully, by Roscoe in his “Life of Leo the Tenth”; by Capefigue in his “Eglise pendant les quatre derniers siècles” (I, 41-46), and by Chantrel, “Le Pape Alexandre VI” (Paris, 1864). On the other hand, while immoral writers have made only too much capital out of the salacious paragraphs scattered through Burchard and Infessura, there is no more reason now than in the days of Raynaldus and Mansi for concealing or perverting the facts of history. “I am a Catholic”, says M. de l’Epinois (loc. cit.), “and a disciple of the God who hath a horror of lies. I seek the truth, all the truth, and nothing but the truth Although our weak eyes do not see at once the uses of it, or rather see damage and peril, we must proclaim it fearlessly.” The same good principle is set forth by Leo XIII in his Letter of 8 September, 1889, to Cardinals De Luca, Pitra, and Hergenroether on the study of Church History: “The historian of the Church has the duty to dissimulate none of the trials that the Church has had to suffer from the faults of her children, and even at times from those of her own ministers.” Long ago Leo the Great (440-461) declared, in his third homily for Christmas Day, that “the dignity of Peter suffers no diminution even in an unworthy successor” (cujus dignitas etiam in indigno haerede non deficit). The very indignation that the evil life of a great ecclesiastic rouses at all times (nobly expressed by Pius II in the above-mentioned letter to Cardinal Rodrigo Borgia) is itself a tribute to the high spiritual ideal which for so long and on so broad a scale the Church has presented to the world in so many holy examples, and has therefore accustomed the latter to demand from priests. “The latter are forgiven nothing”, says De Maistre in his great work, “Du Pape”, “because everything is expected from them, wherefore the vices lightly passed over in a Louis XIV become most offensive and scandalous in an Alexander VI” (II, c. xiv).
 
Roady my initial post in this thread is number 105. There’s a lot there, but for now, how about answering my question? According to Paul in Ephesians 2, what is the foundation of the Church? Once you’ve answered this question, then we can move on.

Thal I’m not interested in listing corrupt popes, as it doesn’t really matter to me how many corrupt popes there may or may not have been. But I will discuss one of them: the archetypal pope, Peter. Now I don’t think that “corrupt” is the best word to describe Peter, but he was undoubtedly a sinner! We see that Christ will build His church on Peter in Matthew 16, but then later on we see Peter denying Christ three times! Then after the resurrection, Christ forgives Peter. But still later on, Paul actually rebukes Peter for not being faithful to the gentiles. It is clear that Peter was a sinner, yet Christ still chose him to be the first among the apostles. Remarkable.

It has just occurred to me that Peter’s example could be a good case to disprove OSAS? What does everyone think? Oh, and I don’t want to hijack this thread, so if anyone feels like saying more than a line or two on this, please start a new thread! And yes I know I’m lazy 🙂
 
40.png
Atreyu:
askeptic, I think that your arguments that “silence is telling” and so forth aren’t really very good, as imo your preconception as to the reason why the gospels were written, is incorrect. Imo, the gospels were written to document and teach the teachings of Jesus. What is the most important thing in the gospels? Imo it is the parables, and maybe other events such as the Sermon on the Mount. Is the establishment of the papacy as important as the teachings of Jesus? No way! Is the virgin birth as important as the teachings of Jesus? Again, no way! What about the death and resurrection of Jesus? This is definitely very important, as it shows that Jesus is God. But still, it is not important as the teachings of Jesus, in my opinion.

Yes I know that arguments that contain one let alone several “imo” aren’t very reliable, but I’m just trying to demonstrate that maybe the authors of the gospels had a different agenda to what you suppose they do. I hope this makes sense…
Yes you are right “arguments that contain one let alone several “imo” aren’t very reliable”. Especially when the self is the one making these definitions.

Sorta, like saying this commandment is more important versus another.

I’d just say just let Christ be our leader in everything we do… resting on the fact that God ways are not our ways thus He know more than what we ever will or are capable of understanding.​

On a second note, regarding bad popes… do you know that out of over 360 popes throughtout history there is really only 10 or 12 that are considered “bad”. Making the percentage of undesireable Popes less than that of the apostles which were hand picked by Jesus Christ himself. Of those, none gave any substantial theological contribution. Actually, the relationship is directly proportional the worst had the least theological contribution… You can say this is direct intervention by Christ as he protects his Church. Additionally, dispite their “bad” papacy they never contradicted prior doctrines. Any doubter should investigate this.

Personally, it is one of the real truths why I believe the Catholic Church IS the Church spoken of by Christ in Mt 16 and is the "pillar and foundation of truth " as stated by Paul (1 Tim 3:15), and the same church Earliest of Church Fathers, Ignatius of Antioch(30-107 AD), describes: “wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church.” in his letter to the Smyraeans.

That despite the fact, that it is run by sinners, the magesterium is forever intact, and protected. Really what other organization run by human beings can claim this and persist for 2000 years none-the-less… personally, this would be impossible without a direct divine intervention and protection.
 
40.png
Atreyu:
Roady my initial post in this thread is number 105. There’s a lot there, but for now, how about answering my question? According to Paul in Ephesians 2, what is the foundation of the Church? Once you’ve answered this question, then we can move on.

Thal I’m not interested in listing corrupt popes, as it doesn’t really matter to me how many corrupt popes there may or may not have been. But I will discuss one of them: the archetypal pope, Peter. Now I don’t think that “corrupt” is the best word to describe Peter, but he was undoubtedly a sinner! We see that Christ will build His church on Peter in Matthew 16, but then later on we see Peter denying Christ three times! Then after the resurrection, Christ forgives Peter. But still later on, Paul actually rebukes Peter for not being faithful to the gentiles. It is clear that Peter was a sinner, yet Christ still chose him to be the first among the apostles. Remarkable.

It has just occurred to me that Peter’s example could be a good case to disprove OSAS? What does everyone think? Oh, and I don’t want to hijack this thread, so if anyone feels like saying more than a line or two on this, please start a new thread! And yes I know I’m lazy 🙂
I asked for the list, fully expecting not to get it. I did it for a reason. Most Protestants who make a statement like… “Everybody knows about all of those corrupt popes…etc.,” usually have NO idea as to how many there are or what they did. They certainly have NO idea as to what the other popes did for the church as well as humanity itself. I call them out for a list of the so-called corrupt popes because I know they are making the accusation out of prejudice and not out of knowledge.

By the way, your dissertation on Peter is too ludicrous to be credited. Since all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, who can God choose other than sinners? I suppose Moses and Aaron had no authority vested in them by God because they were sinners? Imagine that! Every prophet and evangelist in the Bible who was inspired by God through the Holy Spirit to write sacred scripture was a sinner!

Remarkable.

Thal59
 
I often marvel at the choice of Peter. Who better than Peter, with all his human failings, underlaid by a final strength and wisdom, to typify and lead the Church?

Of all the Apostles, Peter is most like us – faithful, yet fearful, backsliding, yet coming on again. A leader and yet a weak man at times.
 
vern humphrey:
I often marvel at the choice of Peter. Who better than Peter, with all his human failings, underlaid by a final strength and wisdom, to typify and lead the Church?

Of all the Apostles, Peter is most like us – faithful, yet fearful, backsliding, yet coming on again. A leader and yet a weak man at times.
Exactly, Vern. Fr. John Corapi made the statement that he felt Christ picked people like Peter so that when he did something remarkable, everyone would know he didn’t do it of his own ability; there had to be someone higher who was responsible for the success.

Thal59
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top