The Papacy: The ultimate insult to the Apostle Peter?

stevenfrancis · May 22, 2015

St. Paul said:
The history of the pope's over the centuries did the following in Peter's name: having innocent people murdered, having people strangled to death, burning people at the stake, having illegitimate children, sex with prostitutes, sex with children, homosexuality, protecting child molesters, digging up corpses and putting them on trial, killing someone for wanting to translate the Bible for people, etc. Why do they claim to do this stuff in Peter's name? Do you think Peter would approve of the Papacy? The answer is no. It's not a trick question.

Why does the Roman Catholic Church continue to dishonor the memory of the Apostle Peter with these "successors of Peter?" They should be ashamed of themselves and so should every Catholic having the audacity to associate the "papacy" with the Apostle Peter!!

What on earth are you on about? I think you'll find most of this to be hyperbole, and the historical equivalent of "urban legends". But that is not to say that there wasn't a small smattering of popes, who looked at the position as one of political power rather than as the vicar of Christ. Power corrupts. The papacy during the period of time referred to the "renaissance" had some bad actors. The Church by and by figured out, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit how to prevent this from happening again. And it hasn't. It should be pointed out also, that when a pope is "bad", (which hasn't happened for a long long time), those popes who would be considered in that category did not change Church teaching, or monkey with the dogmas or infallible teachings of the Church. Considering the cross purpose paths a couple of these guys were on, (Alexander VI, comes to mind more than any others), it is a testament to the Holy Spirit of God that the Church, even then was protected from doctrinal damage.

I'm not sure if anti-Catholic reactionaries ever stop to consider that bad actors who have been popes and bishops etc., are firstly not that large in number, but most importantly, where they were wrong in their actions, they were wrong against the standards of the Church, and Christ's teachings. They were wrong. Not right. The actions which would be immoral that they would take would land squarely on their shoulders. Not on the Church, whose doctrines don't, and never have dictated or made into doctrine, any immoral actions or teachings. In fact it is the Church charged with protecting the fullness of Christian deposit of faith, and which protects the very standards and measures by which any bad actions are deemed bad to begin with.

In other words, when a Christian sins, they sin individually. No matter what their position or station in life. And the moral and faith standards against which they sin, are protected by the Catholic Church.

The Church falls under much more hatred and criticism for the good she preserves, then the actions of some of the sinners within her midst.

Peace, and God's blessings,
Steven

Open Heart · May 22, 2015

Albion said:
What you actually wrote was about being unaware of "the truth," not of "the teaching." So I guess we're wondering if you were also including those who had heard the claim/theory/idea but had concluded that it wasn't correct.

Let's say you grow up Protestant and are taught your whole life that Mary never assumed. You are not held responsible for that belief

seekingsolace said:
Sorry I still don't understand what you mean. So only Catholics are unsaved by rejecting that?

A Catholic who was properly taught and understood it. I would not be so presumptuous as to say this is true of all Catholics. I don't judge who is going to hell. Only God can see the heart.

Job8 · May 23, 2015

tz620q said:
So you would advocate deserting any search for truth because all you would find is bias? Or are you so comfortable in your own assumptions and biases that the truth is just an inconvenience?

When discussing the pope, Papists do not look for the truth. So why are we suddenly so enamoured of the truth? The very existence of the papacy is a lie, so where would you begin?
Peter was never a *bishop* of Rome according to the New Testament.

Open Heart · May 23, 2015

Job8 said:
When discussing the pope, Papists do not look for the truth. So why are we suddenly so enamoured of the truth? The very existence of the papacy is a lie, so where would you begin?
Peter was never a *bishop* of Rome according to the New Testament.

I was not always Catholic. I started out being completely opposed to the Papacy. I became convinced of the Papacy through study of the Scriptures and the Early Church fathers. Only then did I become Catholic.

The Bible is not the only source for history. I'm sure you believe that Christians were thrown to the lions, even though this is not in the Bible. It's because you rely on other historical documentation. In the same way, we know that after Peter was bishop of Antioch, he became bishop of Rome. He is buried there now, beneath the basilica.

Job8 · May 24, 2015

Open Heart said:
I was not always Catholic. I started out being completely opposed to the Papacy. I became convinced of the Papacy through study of the Scriptures and the Early Church fathers. Only then did I become Catholic.

Had you talked to the Eastern Orthodox and consulted the Greek Fathers, you would have discovered that they flatly rejected the papacy (although more recently they are trying to mollify the Catholics). Since the RCC and EOC are so close, one would expect that the EOC would have no problem with the papacy. But here is a quote from the Orthodox Church in America:

The bottom line is that, during its 2000 year existence, the Orthodox Church had not been subject to the administrative authority of the Pope of Rome, and this is borne out in the extant decrees of the early Church councils. These councils, while acknowledging the Pope as the “first among equals,” in no way envision the Bishop of Rome’s “primacy of honor” as a “supremacy of jurisdiction.” The papal claims to supremacy are of much later origin, and there are many who would argue that such claims have done far more damage to the unity of Christendom than anything else.

tz620q · May 26, 2015

Job8 said:
When discussing the pope, Papists do not look for the truth. So why are we suddenly so enamoured of the truth? The very existence of the papacy is a lie, so where would you begin?
Peter was never a *bishop* of Rome according to the New Testament.

First, since the Papacy has existed for nearly 2000 years, making it the oldest continuously held office in the world, saying it is a lie is historically inaccurate. It exists, end of proof.

Next I would ask you if all truth is contained in the Bible? I do not hold to the Pharisaical, nose in the book mentality that makes the Bible a fourth part of the Trinity. It fulfills the purpose of revealing God to us; but it is a partial picture even of that. St. Paul did not say, "Read the Bible and the fog will dissipate and you will be led to all knowledge". Instead he said that we will all only see dimly until we stand before God. Therefore we have to muddle forward and try to find the truth, which is Jesus Christ. To say that Papists do not look for the truth is saying that they do not look for Jesus Christ. I would wonder how omniscient you are in claiming that you know all Papists and what they are looking for? I for one have studied the Papacy, warts and all. I try to get both Catholic and non-Catholic sources in doing this. The reason I do this is to try to take out any bias that one person might have. Are you willing to do the same with your views?

Open Heart · May 26, 2015

Job8 said:
Peter was never a *bishop* of Rome according to the New Testament.

All the apostles were bishops. Further, Peter wrote his epistles from Rome aka Babylon "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, salutes you." 1 Peter 5:13

Open Heart · May 26, 2015

Job8 said:
Had you talked to the Eastern Orthodox and consulted the Greek Fathers, you would have discovered that they flatly rejected the papacy (although more recently they are trying to mollify the Catholics). Since the RCC and EOC are so close, one would expect that the EOC would have no problem with the papacy. But here is a quote from the Orthodox Church in America:

As I already said...

I was not always Catholic. I started out being completely opposed to the Papacy. I became convinced of the Papacy through study of the Scriptures and the Early Church fathers. Only then did I become Catholic.

This ruled out Eastern Orthodoxy for me.

laternonjuror · May 28, 2015

The real business of the papacy stands or falls on the question of the Bishop of Rome's Jurisdiction and Infallibility? There is a lot of talk about S.Peter, but there's nothing definite in Christ's revelation, or in Scripture.At Trent, the Council affirmed that Scripture should be understood as read and interpreted through the lens of the Holy Fathers. For the first three hundred years there is no affirmation , worth talking about, of the claims of Rome! His authority was simply the same as that of any other bishop of that time and when the Church Councils organised the One , Holy Catholic Church it did so , it based the reforms on custom and practice. Rome ws given human authority on the basis of the pope being a servant of the State. Reclaiming , or repossessing houses from the Donetist Heretics. The Pope was given authority to use the Roman Stasi for his own usage, in recognition of his usefulness to the Roman Emperor. Pope Leo, ',the Great,' used this gift of the Emperor to arrest one of the monks of Lerins in France and have him carted over the Alps in the middle of winter! This power was used up until the time of Justinian of Constantinople. With the collapse of the Western Empire it became a right as the Western Emperor disappears from history and the pope assumed kingship in northern Italy! (550 AD. Approx.)
It was not only in the political spere that the papacy bloomed; on the Ecclesiastical front also, fortune smiled, the Ecumenical councils enhanced his position within the Church by endowing him by the Title of Primate of the Western Church,(Old Rome,) whilst the Archbishop of Constantinople was given a similar title for the Eastern Church.
This was thought of as no more than being ,'Primus inter pares,' first amongst equals.Sadly some cleric forged a will, 'The Donation of Constantine,'purporting to make the then pope the inheritor of the remains of the Stae of Rome and the Empire! (800 AD,) and it was not seriously challenged till the 1500's Further the Latin Councils of the middle ages, in Europe, spent a great deal of time combating Roman errors . Just before the Reformation the Councils sacked three popes at one mad rush, with one doing a runner and disappearing and another going to gaol. It was aid down by the Councils, that a Council, (A general One,) was superior in authority to the Pope. Unffortunately the Council, didn't have an army at its beck and call and the Kings of Europe wouldn't attack one of their own!

Open Heart · May 28, 2015

Laternonjuror, I don't know where you got the quote, but it wasn't me. Can you please track it down and edit your post? Thanks.

laternonjuror · May 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
Laternonjuror, I don't know where you got the quote, but it wasn't me. Can you please track it down and edit your post? Thanks.

Sorry for my clumsiness.I have tried to resolve what was a mistake.Please accept my apologies.

Albion · May 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
I was not always Catholic. I started out being completely opposed to the Papacy. I became convinced of the Papacy through study of the Scriptures and the Early Church fathers. Only then did I become Catholic..

And that idea (which I've heard before) almost mystifies me, since any study would show that Christ did not create any Papacy, make Peter the head of a universal church, or even that he had a successor in Apostolic Succession in Rome who took over as the second bishop of Rome. I say "any" study, but of course, I'm assuming that simply taking the Vatican's claims at face value is not what's called "the study of" this matter. And as for the Early Church Fathers, it's more than apparent that their deference towards the Roman bishop was for other reasons.

Open Heart · May 29, 2015

Albion said:
And that idea (which I've heard before) almost mystifies me, since any study would show that Christ did not create any Papacy, make Peter the head of a universal church, or even that he had a successor in Apostolic Succession in Rome who took over as the second bishop of Rome. I say "any" study, but of course, I'm assuming that simply taking the Vatican's claims at face value is not what's called "the study of" this matter. And as for the Early Church Fathers, it's more than apparent that their deference towards the Roman bishop was for other reasons.

Obviously I saw something that you missed.

Albion · May 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
Obviously I saw something that you missed.

It's not as "obvious" as that you took someone's word for evidence--someone who is not exactly objective when it comes to this particular subject.

Open Heart · May 29, 2015

Albion said:
It's not as "obvious" as that you took someone's word for evidence--someone who is not exactly objective when it comes to this particular subject.

Authors like Matthew and Clement are not objective. Gee, I was so deceived.

Albion · May 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
Authors like Matthew and Clement are not objective. Gee, I was so deceived.

I really think you can do better than that, especially since I laid much more before you than you're letting on here.

Open Heart · May 29, 2015

Albion said:
I really think you can do better than that, especially since I laid much more before you than you're letting on here.

Of course there is more, but Matthew and Clement were for me foundational. I could base my Papism on those two alone.

Albion · May 29, 2015

Open Heart said:
Of course there is more, but Matthew and Clement were for me foundational.

Well, I don't want to deprecate those men, but the facts just aren't there to support the Papal claims. What, exactly, did you extract from either of them that made the difference to you?

Open Heart · May 29, 2015

Albion said:
Well, I don't want to deprecate those men, but the facts just aren't there to support the Papal claims. What, exactly, did you extract from either of them that made the difference to you?

In Matthew, I could not escape the fact that Christ stated he was building the church upon Peter. The protestant efforts to avoid this statement rang thoroughly untrue to me at face value. Furthermore, the giving of the keys is to me obviously the giving of authority. That was my HONEST opinion even though I didn't want it to be true.
The 1 Letter of Clement is interesting in that as Bishop of Rome he is writing to a church outside of his Bishopric, something that no other Bishop did. It grants that right to the Bishop of Rome from the beginning.

laternonjuror · May 30, 2015

Open Heart said:
In Matthew, I could not escape the fact that Christ stated he was building the church upon Peter. The protestant efforts to avoid this statement rang thoroughly untrue to me at face value. Furthermore, the giving of the keys is to me obviously the giving of authority. That was my HONEST opinion even though I didn't want it to be true.
The 1 Letter of Clement is interesting in that as Bishop of Rome he is writing to a church outside of his Bishopric, something that no other Bishop did. It grants that right to the Bishop of Rome from the beginning.

Your study was neither deep nor thorough, as far as I can see! At the Robber Council of Trent , which is classed as a Ecumenical Council, by Rome, and obligatory on all Ecclesiastics and on all ," who promise and swear that they will continue in obedience to the Church of Rome", it was firmly stated of the Scriptures ,'Nor, will I ever understand or interpret it, except according according to the unanimous consent of the holy Fathers."
Thinking on Matthew, there are different interpretations, Maldonatus a 16th Cent, Jesuit, whose Commentaries are mentioned as, 'the best ever published,' says clearly, ' There are amongst ancient authors some who interpret,'this rock, that is,'on this' faith,,or,'on this confession of faith, in which thou hast called Me the Son of the living God,' as Hilary and Gregory Nyssen, as well Chryostom and Cyril of Alexandria. S.Augustine going still father away from the true sense, interprets , on this rock, that is, 'on myself Christ, because Christ was the Rock.' Origin however, claims, 'on this rock, that is to say, on all men who have the same faith.'
Launoy, another Jesuit I understand,made lists,
17 Fathers in favour of the Rock being S.Peter.
Fourty Four, meaning the faith S.Peter Confessed.
Sixteen for it being Christ Our Saviour and eight for it being all the Apostles.
Archbishop Kenrick, in the famous speech never given at Vat.1 wrote,
'From this it follows either that no arguement at all or only a very feeble one , can be drawn in proof of the primacy of Peter from the words ,'on this rock will I build my Church.'
(Fred., Documents Vol1, pp195.)

The Papacy: The ultimate insult to the Apostle Peter?

Disciple

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Facilitator

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Similar threads