Who was the 2nd Pope?

[lindalou725]

Todd Easton, post 19

:clapping: Right! So many of the problems Protestants have with understanding the primacy of Peter and the Catholic (Universal) Church, is their idea of WHAT Church is.

Protestant churches are founded by men who have their own idea of what a church should be. Usually it is bible based–but not everything is IN the bible (evidence the last paragraph of John’s gospel)…therefore they a serious problem with AUTHORITY becouse each individual church leader interprets the bible himself. That is why there are so many DIFFERENT denominations. In 2Peter 1:20 he tells us"no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation".

The Catholic Church is ONE body encompassing all those baptised into it and members of the individual churches throughout the world who make the same profession of faith and look to the same head–the successor of Peter–and accept the traditions past down to us over the last 2000 years. It works because Jesus himself taught the apostles and told them before he acended to Heaven to go forth and PREACH the gospel to all the earth. There was NO INSTRUCTIONS TO WRITE ANYTHING! Jesus knew 2 Peter 3:16 that the bible was hard to understand and would be distorted.

No other church can claim the AUTHORITY given to it by Christ.
1 Corr 12:27 tells us “Now you are Christ’s body, and individually parts of it.” Remember when Saul (Paul) was knocked off his horse and Jesus said, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting ME?” Saul was persecuting those who were baptized into his Church–his body! Church is unity with Christ in HIS body–the Church.

Lindalou

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

While it’s true that the Antiochene bishops are successors of Peter, in that they derive their episcopal ordination from him, this cannot be further extrapolated to support a claim to the “true” Petrine succession (meaning primacy), as another post pointed out well. Ignatius, second successor of Peter as bishop of Antioch, recognized the preeminent status of the Roman church in his epistle to that community. Irenaeus, writing a half-century or so later, quite firmly declares the primacy of Rome and that church’s role in safeguarding the faith. While he was bishop of Lyon, he actually began life as an eastern Christian, so he’s not biased by mere geography (i.e., being a Christian in the patriarchate of Rome).

 

[Madaglan]

“no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation”.Although a Catholic, I don’t like using that verse as proof against the Protestant doctrine that the Holy Spirit tells one the meaning of verses in the Bible. To me, the related passage is simply saying that one cannot simply use his or her own rational abilities to come to a correct conclusion as to what the passage totally implies. The Holy Spirit helps, of course, but one must also learn from other Christians and from the Apostolic Traditions to better understand these verses. I have Protestant friends, besides, who believe that one needs to consult with other Christians inflamed with the Spirit to fully understand the Bible. Is that an okay perspective?