Question regarding the Papacy and Catholicism

[thunderbolt94]

Hi,

I’m currently on my way to become Catholic, and I had a question regarding arguments for the Papacy (and catholicism in general). Someone made some objections to Catholicism that I admit that I do not have an answer to. Here they are:

“How do you reconcile Peter’s supposed headship of the church with 1) the fact that the vast majority of NT historians believe the Roman church was founded by Roman Jews who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost, and 2) that Peter was subservient to James at the Council of Jerusalem? Purgatory and the dogmas of Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception (which the Orthodox and, I also believe, Aquinas rejected) seem to be utterly absurd, fantastical pipe dreams with no Scriptural support whatsoever.”

I will admit that I do not know how to answer these objections, so if you can help me, that would be great.

God Bless!

 

[At_Trent]

I think these “experts” may simply be in denial.

Matthew 16:18

 

[pablope]

Hi,

I’m currently on my way to become Catholic, and I had a question regarding arguments for the Papacy (and catholicism in general). Someone made some objections to Catholicism that I admit that I do not have an answer to. Here they are:

“How do you reconcile Peter’s supposed headship of the church with 1) the fact that the vast majority of NT historians believe the Roman church was founded by Roman Jews who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost, and 2) that Peter was subservient to James at the Council of Jerusalem? Purgatory and the dogmas of Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception (which the Orthodox and, I also believe, Aquinas rejected) seem to be utterly absurd, fantastical pipe dreams with no Scriptural support whatsoever.”

I will admit that I do not know how to answer these objections, so if you can help me, that would be great.

God Bless!

Here are some book recommendations that would answer those questions:

Crossing the Tiber and Upon this Rock, authored by Steve Ray, a convert, who had issues with the papacy prior to converting.

Here is some free mp3 audio you can listen at your leisure:

bringyou.to/apologetics/audio.htm#EWTN

 

[po18guy]

Please get a copy of Catholicism for Dummies. It is a great book for learning the faith. I learn something each time I open it. Also, you can listen to Mp3 apologetics on John Martignoni’s website.

Notice that most of what you have heard is from fairly recent, protestant sources. These same sources will use Orthodox points of disagreement only for the purpose of attacking Catholicism. All the while, these same critics also reject the Orthodox Church, which is essentially identical to the Catholic, and therein reveal that they are spirit-driven only against the Catholic Church.

 

[pablope]

Hi,

I’m currently on my way to become Catholic, and I had a question regarding arguments for the Papacy (and catholicism in general). Someone made some objections to Catholicism that I admit that I do not have an answer to. Here they are:

“How do you reconcile Peter’s supposed headship of the church with 1) the fact that the vast majority of NT historians believe the Roman church was founded by Roman Jews who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost, and 2) that Peter was subservient to James at the Council of Jerusalem? Purgatory and the dogmas of Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception (which the Orthodox and, I also believe, Aquinas rejected) seem to be utterly absurd, fantastical pipe dreams with no Scriptural support whatsoever.”

I will admit that I do not know how to answer these objections, so if you can help me, that would be great.

God Bless!

Found the link to a thread that discussed this:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=518559

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

Hi,

I’m currently on my way to become Catholic, and I had a question regarding arguments for the Papacy (and catholicism in general). Someone made some objections to Catholicism that I admit that I do not have an answer to. Here they are:

"How do you reconcile Peter’s supposed headship of the church with 1) the fact that the vast majority of NT historians believe the Roman church was founded by Roman Jews who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost,

I’m unclear as to why they think that’s evidence against Peter’s headship, which is quite clear from the New Testament. In any case, it doesn’t even contradict the fact that he ended up as bishop of Rome, let alone his leadership role in the early Church! So I’m not even sure what they think this proves.

and 2) that Peter was subservient to James at the Council of Jerusalem?

Highly debatable, as any impartial historian will admit. On its own, out of context, Acts 15 makes it unclear who is in charge, Peter or James. In any case, Peter speaks first before James announces the decision.

Purgatory and the dogmas of Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception (which the Orthodox and, I also believe, Aquinas rejected) seem to be utterly absurd, fantastical pipe dreams with no Scriptural support whatsoever."

These are entirely separate arguments.

Concerning purgatory, start looking around on this website and elsewhere for apologetics on it. People act like it’s some convoluted doctrine, but it’s not. It’s really quite simple, and the notion of purification after death of some kind is not only common to all apostolic churches (Catholic, Orthodox, etc.) despite the vehement Orthodox objection to the word “purgatory,” but is also shared by Jews (who pray for the dead) and many intelligent Protestants like C.S. Lewis.

Concerning the Marian dogmas, don’t let your interlocutors get away with citing the Orthodox and Thomas Aquinas, both of whom confidently teach and believe that Mary is totally sinless. The only reason the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception is because they reject our understanding of what we call “original sin” - but they do indeed believe that the Blessed Virgin Mary is totally sinless. Likewise with Thomas Aquinas, who only rejected the Immaculate Conception because he didn’t believe that human life itself begins at conception.

I will admit that I do not know how to answer these objections, so if you can help me, that would be great.

I know I haven’t given you the greatest answers, but take heart, there are plenty of great resources out there, including this website for some basic apologetics.

As you read more, you’ll discover that objections to Catholic doctrine inevitably fall apart, often - like the objection above that the Orthodox reject the Immaculate Conception - even undermining themselves.

 

[laszlo]

"How do you reconcile Peter’s supposed headship of the church with

1. the fact that the vast majority of NT historians believe the Roman church was founded by Roman Jews who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost, and
2. that Peter was subservient to James at the Council of Jerusalem?

Purgatory and the dogmas of Mary’s assumption and immaculate conception (which the Orthodox and, I also believe, Aquinas rejected) seem to be utterly absurd, fantastical pipe dreams with no Scriptural support whatsoever."

1./ According to the recorded (Eusebius) traditional view after Peter was saved from the chains and death (42AD) he went to Rome, and established the Church there. This was dissolved by Claudius (Acts 18:2), and reestablish again by Peter and Paul who suffered martyrdom there.

2./ The Gospels and the Acts clesrly show the primacy of Peter. Always he speaks first. When in 42 AD he went to Rome he appointed James junior to be bishop of Jerusalem and thus saying the closing words (the Church of Jerusalem was asked) about the controversy.

3./ The whole faith is utterly absurd.

1 Cor 1: [23] But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews indeed a stumblingblock, and unto the Gentiles foolishness: [24] But unto them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. [25] For the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

We Catholics believe that the living Tradition completes the faith

 

[Todd_Easton]

the vast majority of NT historians believe the Roman church was founded by Roman Jews who were in Jerusalem for Pentecost

Yes, there is every reason to believe that there were lay Christians in Rome long before Peter ever arrived there. However, a local community of lay Christians isn’t a local Church in the proper sense until it gets its first ordained bishop. (Titus 1:5) Thus, the founding of the local Church of Rome was completed by Peter when he became its first ordained bishop.

At the time Peter was the bishop of the local Christian Church of Rome, he was still also the bishop of the universal Christian Church. When Peter died in Rome, the man who succeeded him as the bishop of the local Christian Church of Rome also succeeded him as the bishop (pope) of the universal Christian Church.

 

[BertBlyleven]

Answers

1. Read the Church fathers. Peter was given authority over the world (Chrysostom), and the Apostolic See and chair of Peter have only been identified with Rome.
2. Acts 15 does not even imply subserviancy. Nor would Acts 15 negate Peter’s headship consistently found in the New Testament.
3. The Orthodox do believe in the assumption (called dormition) of Mary. The immaculate conception has had mixed opinions and views over Church history. The Orthodox believe Mary is sinless save original sin (which results in death, and as a result believe Mary did die). If your friend cannot accept the Orthodox teaching, then arguing the immaculate conception will be a dead end. Mary referred to herself as the immaculate conception at Lourdes; if this apparition is true, and the record is true, then she was conceived without sin. Note that Eastern Catholicism has tiptoed around the immaculate conception.