Petrine Papacy and Apostolic Succession

  • Thread starter Thread starter Snow
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
avenger said:
You mean the bones that were attested to according to legend? You might find this interesting:

mtc.org/bones_p.html
Click to expand...
No. I was not referring to this shopworn anti-Catholic apologetic, which is cobbled up out of thin air. I was referring to the archaeological excavation of the necropolis beneath St. Peter’s basilica from which the bones of Peter were recovered before World War II and finally identified in the 1970s.

Peter’s tenure in Rome is testified to by more than 30 references from ancient sources. Again, the counter argument from nothing fails to stand up to the testimony that DOES exist.
 
avenger said:
So you would logically think it would be spelled out pretty plainly in Scripture, yet it isnt…
Click to expand...
Well, we read it differenlty.😃

Persons who are not wearing anti-Catholic spectacles see the primacy of Peter just fine! 👍
avenger said:
“Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? As for those who come to me and hear my words and put them into practice, I will show you what they are like. They are like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. But those who hear my words and do not put them into practice are like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete” (Luke 6:46–49).

The Greek for rock here is petra. Notice that building on rock has nothing to do with Peter or papacy, it is accomplished by following and practicing the teachings of Christ, the theme that is throughout the NT. That is the teaching of the “rock”. And who is our true rock and foundation? ONLY Christ Himself.
Click to expand...
Catholics read scripture through Sacred Tradition. That means, we understand it from the mindset of those who wrote it. Jesus grafted Peter into Himself, making him part of the foundation of the Church, himself being the cornerstone. He did this subsequently with all the apostles and prophets, and will do so for each of us, if we are willing to be grafted into His Rockness as Peter was. The “jesus only” mentality is a trap. Jesus never intended to be “only”. He built a Church, and made us members of one another, so that there could be unity, not “only” ness.
avenger said:
there, that’s from the NAB, feel better now? The word rock is still in there, so what is your point?
Click to expand...
My point is that you have been erroneously caught up in the false teaching and fruit of the Reformation to "divide and separate. Jesus is not divided or separated from the foundation of which He is the Cornerstone.
avenger said:
Why wasnt he bishop of Jerusalem?
Click to expand...
Because God called him to a larger task. Bishops stay put, and shepherd the flock that is in their care. Peter was called by God to travel, and eventuallly, go to Rome. Such a question is like asking “why was the Messiah not born as a woman?”. God did not plan it that way!
avenger said:
That was the cradle of Christianity, so if he was primary, wouldnt he have been bishop of the primary Church at the time?
Click to expand...
No. Primacy does not mean a person has to be the boss of everything.
avenger said:
"“In any case, Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23).
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree. It seems quite possible that Paul’s letter was addressed the Peter’s converts prior to his arrival there.
avenger said:
If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the ‘superfine apostles’ who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in his letter.
Click to expand...
No, this is not a reference to any of the 12, but a slur against false, stuck up Judiazing Apostles who were trampling on Paul’s work.
avenger said:
Code: 
Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman Church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts,” ibid. 30."
Click to expand...
It is very possible that Paul and Luke did not receive word that Peter had gone to Rome. However, the beginnings of the Roman Christian Community are not “shrouded in mystery”, as you suppose. Jews from Rome were present in Jerusalem at Pentecost, converted at Peter’s preaching, and returned to Rome to begin a fledgling Christian Community. They dedicated themselves to the Apostles teaching. Peter was not longn in Rome prior to his martyrdom.
avenger said:
You guys always want to evade this…

Why wasnt he bishop of Jerusalem? That was the cradle of Christianity, so if he was primary, wouldnt he have been bishop of the primary Church at the time?
Click to expand...
No one is avoiding anything, except you, who apparently are trying to force your preconceived notions into the text. The bishops are successors of the Apostles. Most of the Apostles travelled widely, establishing Churches, and appointing bishops to rule after they moved on to another area.
 
Well, the Orthodox position (although the Orthodox churches are admirable and holy institutions) is untenable, since, in the 15th century, they rejoined the Catholic Church, acknowledged the Authority of the Pope, the Filioque, the legitimate use of western liturgy, fasting on Saturdays, and other western customs, and, therefore, from an Orthodox point of view, which is the the Orthodox churches are the True Church, the True Church would have apostasized.
 
Zenas said:
I would post a list here but it is too long–265 names altogether, beginning with St. Peter and ending with Benedict VI. Here is a link to the list: therealpresence.org/dictionary/popes.htm Each and every one of these men served as the Bishop of Rome and history records an unbroken succession. What more evidence do you want? Seriously.
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to know how many of them were actually regenerate!
 
Martin777 said:
Do you assume that every pope, every bishop, every priest is actually regenerate?
Click to expand...
Every baptized Christian is regenerate; however, you can still go to Hell if you die in mortal sin.

I just read a history of the Church, which deals with all the Popes too. There were lots of good ones, about 30+ saints, and there were twelve particularly bad ones.

We can only hope they reconciled with the Lord before they died; however, even if we were to live back then, we should have still referred to these worldy men as Holy Father, because it is the virtue of their office, not their character, which is holy.

An analogy would be that, although Obama supports infanticide and other evils, the dignity of the office requires me to refer to him as “President Obama” when elected.

Hope this helps.
 
Matariel said:
Every baptized Christian is regenerate; however, you can still go to Hell if you die in mortal sin.

I just read a history of the Church, which deals with all the Popes too. There were lots of good ones, about 30+ saints, and there were twelve particularly bad ones.

We can only hope they reconciled with the Lord before they died; however, even if we were to live back then, we should have still referred to these worldy men as Holy Father, because it is the virtue of their office, not their character, which is holy.

An analogy would be that, although Obama supports infanticide and other evils, the dignity of the office requires me to refer to him as “President Obama” when elected.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
And how does one become a Christian?
 
Martin777 said:
And how does one become a Christian?
Click to expand...
The ceremony of baptism (water & the Spirit) is the normative means, but baptism of blood and desire (like the the Good Theif on a cross) are extraordinary means.

Note: I said “baptized Christians” (redundant) because there are some groups which call themselves Christians but remain yet unbaptized. Baptism must be in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and must be with water coming in contact with the body in order to be valid.
 
I would like to suggest that there are literally millions of baptized Catholics who have never become true Christians. The reason is that they have never understood and received the salvation that is by faith in Jesus, apart from the works of the law. You can’t be forgiven in that condition. Don’t assume that all popes, bishops and priests have been saved. It simply isn’t true.
 
Martin777 said:
I would like to suggest that there are literally millions of baptized Catholics who have never become true Christians. The reason is that they have never understood and received the salvation that is by faith in Jesus, apart from the works of the law. You can’t be forgiven in that condition. Don’t assume that all popes, bishops and priests have been saved. It simply isn’t true.
Click to expand...
And where is your source insulting millions of baptized Catholics? How do you know if you are NOT Catholic? I know many, many faithful Catholics who love Scripture and Our Lord, right here on CAF you can start.
Are you God? If you are not God, then how can you judge all the faithful popes, priests and bishops as to where they go when they die?
The problem I am seeing here which is extremely annoying is non-Catholic’s always assuming how Catholics live their lives. I know several Protestants who can’t even quote from their own bible and I have to correct them! None of them even go to church! There are many Protestants who are like this.
And as far as the popes, bishops and priests, can you give your life up for God like they do? Their undying love and zeal for the Catholic church is amazing.
 
Martin777 said:
I would like to suggest that there are literally millions of baptized Catholics who have never become true Christians. The reason is that they have never understood and received the salvation that is by faith in Jesus, apart from the works of the law. You can’t be forgiven in that condition. Don’t assume that all popes, bishops and priests have been saved. It simply isn’t true.
Click to expand...
I would ask you … what is the difference between ‘works’ and ‘works of the law’?
If you do not have works, what does that say about your faith?

michel
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top