Will the real successor of Peter please stand up

[vern_humphrey]

santaro75:

Of course there are many ways to refute the primacey of the roman church. But for me, not knowing a lot about church history, it seems too big a coincedence that Jesus gave Peter authority and promised his church would prevail and the fact that the Roman church is the most powerful and visible christian church in the history of christianity.

Well, some may say the church is evil and there is evil in the church but what other church can claim to be the one jesus described in a literal way?

One of the most telling arguments in favor of the Papacy is that it works. For 2000 years, the Catholic Church has taught a consistent message. In less than a quarter of that time, Protestantism has fragmented and split, and refragmented and resplit – until today the IRS lists 33,000 separate, independent churches holding tax-exempt status in the US.

As for the Church being venal and sometimes sunk in sin, Christ knew His humans! Did He not tell Peter, “Before the cock crows, you will deny me three times?”

He knew us fallible, weak and sinful humans, and built a Church that would compensate for our weaknesses and stand until His return.

 

[Phil_H]

Madaglan:

I know that this question is probably covered in scores of other threads, but unlike many other posts, many of which deal with the papacy in general, I hope to p(name removed by moderator)oint in this thread the connections among the Apostle Peter, His claimed apostolic authority, the bishop of Rome (AKA the pope), and the pope’s claimed apostolic authority over the Church through his connection with Peter.

Recently I have become increasingly aware of the fact that there are today several living successors of Peter. Unless I am mistaken, Fr. Ambrose in a post several months ago noted that two bishops who follow their roots through the see of Antioch have roots in Peter. I also remember that Peter is supposed to have been bishop of Alexandria, too. So, it seems that there are three sees that have roots in Peter: Rome, Antioch and Alexandria.

This now said, I am having difficulties making the exclusive connection between the bishop of Rome and Peter. Granted that Peter did have an authority over the other apostles, why was this apostolic authority passed through the bishop of Rome and not the bishops of Alexandria and Antioch?

Also, let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the bishop of Rome is indeed the best successor of Peter. Why does the bishop of Rome inherit Peter’s claimed universal authority? Even if Peter is the foundation of the Church, how do the bishops of Rome become the foundation of the Church as well?

Sometimes I think that we as Catholics jump from “Peter is the foundation and has universal authority over the Church” to “the bishop of Rome (as opposed to the bishop of Antioch) is the foundation and has university authority over the Church.” I hope to discover the logic behind this connection.

Sorry if this may result in a rehash of earlier posts, but I really do intend to focus specifically on the connection between Peter and the bishop of Rome, from a Catholic perspective, of course.

Peter was not the first pope since there was no Roman Catholic Church before Peter was crucified. Peter was the Rock upon which the Christian Church was founded. The word pope does not appear in the scriptures. The successor of Peter is not important. Our faith in Jesus and our baptism is what should be important to us all.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Phil H:

Peter was not the first pope since there was no Roman Catholic Church before Peter was crucified. Peter was the Rock upon which the Christian Church was founded. The word pope does not appear in the scriptures. The successor of Peter is not important. Our faith in Jesus and our baptism is what should be important to us all.

The successor to the shepherd is not important to the welfare of the Flock? Christ entrusted His Flock to Peter see the end of John’s Gospel. Peter entrusted it to his successor. (see Clements letter)

 

[vern_humphrey]

Phil H:

Peter was not the first pope since there was no Roman Catholic Church before Peter was crucified. Peter was the Rock upon which the Christian Church was founded. The word pope does not appear in the scriptures. The successor of Peter is not important. Our faith in Jesus and our baptism is what should be important to us all.

There was no “Roman” Catholic Church until some Protestant invented the term. But the Catholic Church began on Penecost following the Curcifixion and Resurrection. Peter was the leader of that Church, having been appointed by Christ.

With the martyrdom of Peter in Rome, his successor in that see, Linus, assumed his authority. And Christians, from the very earliest days, even when other Apostles were still living, recognized the authority of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[ahimsaman72]

vern humphrey:

There was no “Roman” Catholic Church until some Protestant invented the term. But the Catholic Church began on Penecost following the Curcifixion and Resurrection. Peter was the leader of that Church, having been appointed by Christ.

There’s a “Roman Catholic Church” here locally that has a sign out front that specifically has these words to identify themselves. Are protestants the ones who made it up? If Catholics identify themselves as such then why are protestants degraded for identifying them as such?


Peace…

 

[vern_humphrey]

ahimsaman72:

There’s a “Roman Catholic Church” here locally that has a sign out front that specifically has these words to identify themselves. Are protestants the ones who made it up? If Catholics identify themselves as such then why are protestants degraded for identifying them as such?

Peace…

The term “Roman” Catholic Church was coined by Protestants. It has passed into contemporary usage. Nevertheless, no one called our Church the “Roman” Catholic Church until Protestants started using that term.

And the Catholic Church dates back to the Pentecost following the Crucifixion and Resurrection. It was led by Peter, whose authority passed to his successor, Linus. The authority of the Bishop of Rome was recognized even when some of the original Apostles were still alive.