The Papacy: The ultimate insult to the Apostle Peter?

[Albion]

Actually, a "thoughtful person like myself" started out in life believing that the papacy was a horrible thing, but after searching scripture and studying the early church, came to believe that this was as Christ intended.

I'm not going to argue that, but buying into that "key" rationalization....

My transition into Catholicism was not an easy thing; I was dragged kicking and screaming across the Tiber. To me it is obvious that the keys represent authority.

It's clearly not obvious, but the full blown theory is much more than that and full of holes.

 

[Open Heart]

[/quote]I don't trust your website in the slightest. Just because something is on the web doesn't mean it is truthful. I realize that this is an estimate that is commonly given by many protestants, but it is overblown. Look, only several thousand died during the Inquisition years, and those were pretty bad years. So how do we get from several thousand to millions?

Next, the popes have always held the title of Pontifex Maximus. That come directly from the pagan priesthood in Rome.
(source Wikipedia)

Pontifex Maximus simply means "Greatest Bridge Builder." Yes it was first used by pagans. But then again, Satan was originally called the Morning Star, and that didn't stop Jesus from being called the Morning star, so why should I be offended at the title of Pontifex Maximus?

BTW you will find no reference to Peter in the Epistle to the Romans (which would be the logical and scriptural place for him to be mentioned as *Bishop of Rome*), so all the talk about Peter and his keys is another farce.

Peter was bishop of Antioch before he became bishop of Rome. He was not yet bishop of Rome when the epistle to the Romans was written. I do recommend broadening your Christian understanding with a bit of Church history outside the Bible. The parts about the martyrs in particular are very inspiring.

 

[seekingsolace]

The doctrine of infallibility was not declared until Vatican 1, so none of those pope made infallible statements. However, they were still infallible in matters of faith and doctrine in the normal sense with all the normal conditions and restrictions.

Thank you for your patience with replies.

So how can these popes, with all the dubious deeds extending through all these years, in any way be apostolic successors? It sounds absurd to me.

"...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation"

So is this statement correct? That to achieve salvation, you must accept dogmatic faith, lending the Church the authority of salvation rather than God. Does the promulgated doctrine of the assumption of Mary in any way effect a persons salvation?

 

[Open Heart]

"...According to the testimony of Holy Writ, faith and indeed dogmatic faith, is the indispensable prerequisite for the achieving of eternal salvation"

So is this statement correct? That to achieve salvation, you must accept dogmatic faith, lending the Church the authority of salvation rather than God.

Don't kid yourself, there are going to be popes in hell. As far as dogmatic faith, if you are aware of the truth and walk away from it, you will be held accountable. That would include the assumption of Mary. However, if a person is not aware of the truth, they are not held accountable for not knowing that truth. I don't know if those sinful popes didn't have dogmatic faith. You can be pretty sinful and still have all the right beliefs -- but it won't save you from hell.

 

[Albion]

Thank you for your patience with replies.

So how can these anti-popes, with all the dubious deeds extending through all these years, in any way be apostolic successors? It sounds absurd to me.

I have the feeling that you are not actually thinking of anti-popes but of popes who were not of the highest character.

 

[seekingsolace]

I have the feeling that you are not actually thinking of anti-popes but of popes who were not of the highest character.

You know me so well.

 

[Albion]

You know me so well.

I'm not so sure about that. "Anti-pope" is a specific term referring to a certain type of election to the Papal throne. It's not a judgment about any Pope's morals or abilities. I couldn't tell in which way you were using the word.

 

[seekingsolace]

I'm not so sure about that. "Anti-pope" is a specific term referring to a certain type of election to the Papal throne. It's not a judgment about any Pope's morals or abilities. I couldn't tell in which way you were using the word.

You're absolutely right, I've been using the wrong term. I had a certain one in mind and forgot I was referring to others.

 

[seekingsolace]

Don't kid yourself, there are going to be popes in hell. As far as dogmatic faith, if you are aware of the truth and walk away from it, you will be held accountable. That would include the assumption of Mary. However, if a person is not aware of the truth, they are not held accountable for not knowing that truth. I don't know if those sinful popes didn't have dogmatic faith. You can be pretty sinful and still have all the right beliefs -- but it won't save you from hell.

So if non-Catholics reject the assumption of Mary, they are deemed unsaved?

 

[tz620q]

If you add up all the Christians persecuted and killed by the papacy, it does add up to between 50 and 150 million. See http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/estimates.html.

Have you read the link that you posted? Here is the list of references this man who seems to be a Professor of Computer Science at UNC uses:

"REFERENCES
Many other references are cited in line and not included in this list.

[Armitage] Armitage, Thomas, 1819-1896. A history of the Baptists�: traced by their vital principles and practices, from the time of Our Lord�and Saviour Jesus Christ�to the year 1889 / New York�: Bryan, Taylor, 1889.

[Bourne] Bourne, George, The American Textbook of Popery, Griffith & Simon, Philadelphia, 1846.

[Brownlee�34] Letters of the Rev. Dr. W. C. Brownlee on the Roman Catholic Controversy,� second edition, 1834

[Brownlee�36] Brownlee, W.C., Popery the Enemy of Civil and Religious Liberty, J. S. Taylor, New York, 1836.

[Bunch] Bunch, Taylor, The Book of Daniel, 1950.

[Chiniquy] Chiniquy, Charles, Fifty Years in the Church of Rome, Protestant Literature�Depository, London, 1886.

[Edwardson] Edwardson, Christian, Facts of Faith, Southern Publishing Association, 1943.

[Lord] Lord, John, Beacon Lights of History, 1902, volume VI.

[Perrin] Perrin, Jean Paul, History�of the Ancient Christians, 1618.

[Peterson�59] Peterson, F. Paul, The Rise and Fall of the Roman Catholic Church, published privately, 1959.

[Peterson�60] Peterson, F. Paul, Peter�s Tomb Recently Discovered in Jerusalem, 1960

[Wills] Wills, Gary, Papal Sins: Structures of Deceit, Doubleday, 2000.

[Wylie] Wylie, J.A., History�of the Waldenses, Cassell and Company, London, 1860."

Do you really think Charles Chiniquy and other anti-Catholic histories from the 1800's are the most unbiased sources for this sort of research?

 

[Albion]

So if non-Catholics reject the assumption of Mary, they are deemed unsaved?

I was waiting for Open Heart to reply to you, but she did say "if you are aware of the truth." I suppose this (being aware) includes having heard the claim but not thinking it to be correct.

 

[seekingsolace]

I was waiting for Open Heart to reply to you, but she did say "if you are aware of the truth." I suppose this (being aware) includes having heard the claim but not thinking it to be correct.

Yeah I wanted to clarify if that was actually what she meant. Quite erm...

 

[Job8]

Do you really think Charles Chiniquy and other anti-Catholic histories from the 1800's are the most unbiased sources for this sort of research?

Since bias exists on all sides, we are not looking for unbiased sources at all. The papacy was always biased so to speak about unbiased is not valid. Was the Council of Trent biased? Extremely. Was the Inquisiton biased? Very definitely. Was the burning of martyrs and Bibles biased? Absolutely. Were the political shenanigans of popes biased? Check it out for yourself.

 

[Open Heart]

So if non-Catholics reject the assumption of Mary, they are deemed unsaved?

You didn't read what I wrote, it seems. I said that if someone were unaware of this teaching, they are not held accountable for it.

 

[Albion]

You didn't read what I wrote, it seems. I said that if someone were unaware of this teaching, they are not held accountable for it.

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.

 

[tz620q]

Since bias exists on all sides, we are not looking for unbiased sources at all. The papacy was always biased so to speak about unbiased is not valid. Was the Council of Trent biased? Extremely. Was the Inquisiton biased? Very definitely. Was the burning of martyrs and Bibles biased? Absolutely. Were the political shenanigans of popes biased? Check it out for yourself.

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?

 

[Open Heart]

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. This is even discussed in the CCC where Protestants i.e. are held as true Christians.

 

[seekingsolace]

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. This is even discussed in the CCC where Protestants i.e. are held as true Christians.

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

 

[SkyWriting]

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!!

Did you happen to notice the references to "loving others" in your signature?
Jesus mentions that "others" is quite inclusive.

 

[Albion]

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. This is even discussed in the CCC where Protestants i.e. are held as true Christians.

OK, then that's the answer.