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

[vern_humphrey]

Thal59:

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

After the Viet Nam War, I worked for Colonel Floyd James Thompson, who was a POW for nine years. I often had to help out in debriefings and other intelligence activities that revolved around what happened to our POWs.

They were tortured horribly – so much that any man would give in. But they developed a tactic they called “rolling.” Instead of breaking under torture, the would hold out as long as they could, then give in enough to lessen the pressure – and when they built up their strength (moral, physical and spiritual) again, stiffen their resistance.

After my experiences with Colonel Jim, I see Peter in that light – a man who was often faced with more than he could bear, but who would come back – a little stronger each time.

 

[Atreyu]

Thal59:

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

What’s wrong with my dissertation on Peter? It seems to me that you later on agreed with what I was trying to say! Possibly I didn’t get my point across clearly enough.

I was trying to say that Peter himself was a sinner, and particuarly his sin of denying Christ three times before the cock crowed, was pretty terrible. Yet despite this, Christ still chose Peter to be the leader of the apostles, and I believe, the first pope. Therefore I couldn’t care less how many corrupt or sinful popes there were afterwards!

Vern then said this:

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.

And you say exactly?! Well this was exactly what I was trying to say! Why is my dissertation ludicrous, yet you completely agree with what Vern has said? I don’t get it.

You said:

I suppose Moses and Aaron had no authority vested in them by God because they were sinners?

Never did I imply that Peter didn’t have any authority, nor did I imply that the later popes didn’t have any authority. I’m a Catholic!! Of course I think they have authority! Look again at what I wrote (assuming you even read it a first time):

It is clear that Peter was a sinner, yet Christ still chose him to be the first among the apostles.

Happy?

 

[Thal59]

Atreyu:

What’s wrong with my dissertation on Peter? It seems to me that you later on agreed with what I was trying to say! Possibly I didn’t get my point across clearly enough

Relax Atreyu.

You didn’t get your point across earlier.

Look at what I had highlighted in bold.

…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…<<< In other words, it sounds as if you are saying… It doesn’t matter to me how many corrupt popes there may or may not have been, but I will discuss one of them (i.e. - one of those corrupt popes.)

When you then stated that you didn’t think that corrupt was the best word to describe Peter (which gave the impression that you were implying someone could say that) you then said he undoubtedly was a sinner (!) with an exclamation point. This leads the reader to think that you are denying the validity of Peter’s commission on the basis that he is a sinner.

The misunderstanding occured when I tasked Roady for the list and you replied…

Thal there were plenty of corrupt popes, I don’t think you’re going to do very well there… That being said, it’s hardly something to be worried about! They’re just humans after all…<<<

This sounded to me like a challenge to what I had asked Roady. You casually asserted “plenty of corrupt popes,” and then informed me that I wouldn’t do very well challenging that assertion.

That being said, it’s hardly something to be worried about!<<<

I am worried about this, Atreyu. Whenever someone, Catholic or Protestant, makes a blanket statement like… “there were plenty of corrupt popes,” or “everyone knows about all of the corruption in the Catholic church’s history…” etc., I expect them to back up thier accusations. From my experience, most attacks on the RCC is out of prejudice and bias and the accuser has no basis of fact that he can provide to support his accusations. This kind of unsubstantiated accusations of excessive evil in the church is certainly what caused Bishop Fulton J. Sheen to remark… “There are not one hundred people in America who hate the Catholic church, but there are millions who hate what it has been falsely misrepresented as.”

I understand you are Catholic, Atreyu. But please don’t feed the fires of the scandalmongers by saying things like “there were plenty of corrupt popes,” especially if you do not know how many, or how few there were.

Thal59

 

[Atreyu]

From my experience, most attacks on the RCC is out of prejudice and bias and the accuser has no basis of fact that he can provide to support his accusations.

I don’t doubt that. However, there were corrupt or very sinful popes. What is my source for this? Catholic apologists. The only point I was trying to get across, is that it is irrelevant how many sinful popes there may or may not have been, as they are only human after all. But if you want to show that the relative sinfulness of the people who were bishops of Rome is very limited compared to the rest of society, then go ahead. I imagine this would be a very difficult thing to prove, although the converse would be an easy thing to prove if it were true (ie it would be easy to show that there was rampant sin in the office of pope if indeed there was rampant sin!).

What I objected to, is you telling me that my dissertation of Peter was “ludicrous”, when you actually agreed with what I was saying!

 

[cheeto1]

If I’m not mistaken, the argument of this thread is

Peter vs. Paul and Catholic vs. Protestant.

It reminds me of an argument of who is better, batman or
superman?

If you will notice in Galations that when Paul had a difference
of opinion with Peter, he did not go to Peter’s followers and
advise them that because of his view on dietary laws, he was no longer the Rock on whom Christ built His church. Rather, he
opposed him to his face. Paul didn’t come to condemn the church, but to strengthen it.

What is your purpose in coming here as a non-Catholic?
Is it to attempt to scatter the flock? or is it to find the Truth?
If you come to find the truth, then you shall have your fill. All
of the mysteries of the faith are contained in the Catholic Church,
waiting for us to discover. If you come instead to scatter, you
are wasting your time. The sheep hear His voice and will not
follow a stranger’s voice.

If you want to be like Paul, then follow his example. Use your
energy for hard work, encouraging the faithful, and denouncing sin.
If I were Protestant right now, I’d be spending my time on a
Protestant answers forum.

 

[Atreyu]

I spend some time on Protestant forums, what are you trying to say…?

That is, until I get banned, which has happened two and a half times now (I managed to talk my way out of one)