Why the confusion over apostolic authority?

  • Thread starter Thread starter traillius
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

traillius

Guest
" you are peter the rock, and on this rock will I build my church. "
Some other people will interpret this to mean that there are two rocks, and Christ is the one he was referring to upon which the church would be built. If Jesus meant himself as the rock, why would he even call Peter thus. Jesus wasn’t ever a person to mince words. He meant what he said. If He said this rock, It must have been peter, hence the apostolic authority.
 
I’m not confused, I just don’t think its quite so literal as you interpret it. Maybe peter was the rock, doesn’t mean he’s all the stuff that is inferred into the papacy.
 
A common protestant technique is to say what’s literal, only if it supports one’s anti-catholic position. Anything that supports catholicism, at least if you use the bible in the argument, is not to be taken literally. Maybe you think, as one man, you can interpret the bible yourself, but I choose not to adopt such arrogance. I will trust 2000 years of people much wiser than myself to opine with greater accuracy, and reach more acute conclusions, the vast majority of which fully support the catholic faith.
 
Right, and a common tactic on this board is to ask loaded questions which you already have your own answer to. You trust 2000 years of accumulated knowledge of Catholic scholars which would obviously support the case for Catholicism. And for what its worth I am neither a “common” Protestant nor a biblical literalist.
 
nhylan said:
I’m not confused, I just don’t think its quite so literal as you interpret it. Maybe peter was the rock, doesn’t mean he’s all the stuff that is inferred into the papacy.
Click to expand...
If he is the rock then how does that NOT mean that upon Peter Christs Church was built? And if it is true, then how can you ignore the Church built upon Peter by Christ? Or if you dont ignore it than how can anyone deplore that Church?

FSC
 
I neither ignore nor diplore it. Its your choice to accept papal leadership. Just because you think that that passage means that it directly correlates to the papal office and its infallability does not mean that it either A) truly does or that B) everyone thinks so or needs to think so.
 
What is the Orthodox position? If I remeber correctly it’s very similar to what Protestants claim…and their position is as old as the Catholic position…is it not?
 
traillius said:
" you are peter the rock, and on this rock will I build my church. "
Some other people will interpret this to mean that there are two rocks, and Christ is the one he was referring to upon which the church would be built. If Jesus meant himself as the rock, why would he even call Peter thus. Jesus wasn’t ever a person to mince words. He meant what he said. If He said this rock, It must have been peter, hence the apostolic authority.
Click to expand...
  1. It seems there are two possibilities. The Rock is Peter, in which case the keys were given to HIM and are still in his cold, dead hands today. Or the Rock is the faith/confession of Peter in which case the keys were given to such faith/confession and those that embrace it.
  2. There seems to be some unawareness that all 12-14 Apostles are dead. They’ve been so for quite a long time. Now, some view that WHATEVER these 12-13 “had” (and that seems to be amazingly ‘fuzzy’ among those supporting this view; authority for WHAT???), such as “passed on” to “successors.” There’s no biblical support for this, but I suppose it depends a bit on what is believed to be “passed on.” In any case, it’s moot since there are virtually no records of ordinations (or what “passing on” method may be embraced) for the first 3 centuries or so of Christianity, so NONE today can “trace” such “succession” back to the Apostles. It might be a nice theory, but since no one can document such a succession, it’s moot - regardless of whatever is thought to be “passed on” by such.
  3. I think there is sometimes a bit of confusion between authority and unaccountability. They are not the same thing. President Obama has MUCH authority, yet I doubt too many insist that ergo he is infallible/unaccountable when he states that abortion on demand must be upheld in our land; not a LOT of Catholics accept that “with docility” just because obviously, he has “authority.” Authority does not equal infalliblity/unaccountability.
  4. All this is moot to whether The Catholic Church or any other is correct in what it teaches. The Catholic Church insists that The Oriental Orthodox Churches and The Eastern Orthodox Churches all have valid Apostolic Succession - and yet insists they are WRONG, thus it is the position of The Catholic Church that valid Apostolic Succession is moot vis-a-vis the correctness of teachings.
Thank you.

Pax
  • Josiah
.
 
The biggest difference is that Catholics use bible verses and reference that with other bible verses to prove a position. While on the other hand, protestants take bible verses and use them in the context as if the bible passages where meant to adhere to everyone equally. But this is not the case because not all passages apply to the general population.
 
The biggest difference is that Catholics use bible verses and reference that with other bible verses to prove a position. While on the other hand, protestants take bible verses and use them in the context as if the bible passages where meant to adhere to everyone equally. But this is not the case because not all passages apply to the general population.
Click to expand...
No… thats a pretty broad assumption on your part. Your theory could also be construed to mean that the Catholic Church insert themselves into the conditions of the said bible versus to make a case for sole legitimacy hoping that this will somehow bring people to their church.
 
traillius said:
" you are peter the rock, and on this rock will I build my church. "
Click to expand...
The rock is the strength of character and faith on which Christ builds His church. The church is strongest when the rocks are all like Peter, regardless of how many parts it is. If you look to all the different churches, those which stand strong, all have been built on the strength of various ‘Peters’. Jesus was accustomed to identifying the nature of a person my their name, just as all the Jews were.

A church built on rock will not be like a church built on sand. It’s a call for wisdom when building a church, to ensure it has good solid foundations, ie the love of Christ, sacrifice, the bread and the wine, so that it can withstand battering from any external force.

God bless
 
traillius said:
" you are peter the rock, and on this rock will I build my church. "
Click to expand...
The rock is the strength of character and faith on which Christ builds His church. The church is strongest when the rocks are all like Peter, regardless of how many parts it is. If you look to all the different churches, those which stand strong, all have been built on the strength of various ‘Peters’. Jesus was accustomed to identifying the nature of a person my their name, just as all the Jews were.

A church built on rock will not be like a church built on sand. It’s a call for wisdom when building a church, to ensure it has good solid foundations, ie the love of Christ, sacrifice, the bread and the wine, so that it can withstand battering from any external force.

God bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top