A lineage of Popes in unbroken succession

[racer]

I base all of these beliefs on Jesus and his Church.

But, that's what I believe I do. So, how do "you" know that "you" are right and I am wrong?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

But, that's what I believe I do. So, how do "you" know that "you" are right and I am wrong?

I have an authority known as the Church.

If you were to study what the church was like at it's earliest and then looked for that church today you would find the Catholic Church.

Why should I go anywhere else?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Well, New Advent explains it in slightly loftier terms.

New Advent makes my eyes tired at times. LOL

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Yet, you won't acknowledge that he did not trust his message to be delivered accurately by word of mouth will you? Why didn't he just tell the messenger (with whom he sent the written instructions) to go and tell . . . . so-and-so . . . so-and-so? I mean if they trusted that things would be preserved in "Oral form only" for a couple of thousand years, why wouldn't he trust the messenger to preserve it "orally" in the short time it would take him to deliver the message?

As far as I know every region has had a Bishop to oversee it. This was true with New Testament writings.

I think the best way to understand this is by saying the Pope is like a prime minister and the Bishops of a region are like ministers. The ministers have their own areas that they are in charge of. So does the Prime minister. All the ministers enforce laws and their decisions are final including the prime minister.

However if the prime minister deems it appropriate he can and will over rule a minister.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

You're still missing it. In absence of it's previous bishop, the church at Syria was lead by "Christ alone," no district/area/or regional bishop lead during this time--not even the bishop of Rome. This definitely creates a problem for your theory.

Not at all...

How many times do you hear people say to trust in God? That is what is being said.

But it is not a long term solution when we need an authority to deicde on things. Jesus is not going to come to your church and say who is right or wrong in a debate.

If that debate is over scripture, we have never had Jesus come to the church and tell everyone that one person is correct and the other false (since Jesus was lifted to heaven).

We see Jesus as the Spiritual Head of the Church but also realize that Jesus left MEN in charge until he returns. Jesus is the King that has left his household and place MEN in charge of his household.

 

[racer]

What is the New Testament except Apostolic Tradition?

Says who? You mean you are willing to reduce the very words that Jesus delivered to His apostles as "Apostolic Tradition?" How did Jesus' Gospel become the Apostles' traditions?

Who decided on which books to go into the New Testament?

God. So, here's another scenario. I'm a writer a poet in fact, and after many years of struggle I become famous and well known. Then, as it is known to happen to starving artists, I kick-the-bucket. Well, my editor, publisher, husband, best friend discover after I have passed that there are many poems in my office which have never been published nor have they (all of my people) ever even read them. But, they, also, know that as a "well known" poet, many other wannabes have sent me examples of their work. So, in honor of my passing, they decide to combine all of my as-of-yet unpublished works into one anthology. They have the daunting task of sorting through all of the works and determining which are actually mine and which were written by someone else. Now, after they have done this, using their knowledge of my style and techniques, my beliefs, my prejudices, basically they would know what works are truly mine and which are not. So, they combine this anthology, does that make them the authors of my work? Does that give them authority over my work?

Who authored the books of the New Testament with divine inspiration?

The writers of the New Testament.

Who has preserved the New Testament for many centuries?

Well, it wasn't just the RCC. Once it was put in print, it was kind of out of their hands. You know they were real happy when the laity began to get their hands on it.

It has been the Catholic Church that has preserved the writings and decided on which writings to go into the Bible. Of course it was with the Holy Spirit. So why is it so hard to accept that the Holy Spirit could protect the oral Apostolic Traditions as well???

No, it was divinely inspired men, who God used as you and I use a pencil to record His Gospel and preserve it for us. You can claim that these men were Roman Catholic in the same sense that your church is today. But, one only has to read the ECFs for him or herself and see differently.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Says who? You mean you are willing to reduce the very words that Jesus delivered to His apostles as "Apostolic Tradition?" How did Jesus' Gospel become the Apostles' traditions?

I am leaving for home right now but I want to address this...

I think you may not understand what Apostolic Tradition means???

 

[racer]

Why would he say to look to the Bishop of Rome now? As it was they had trouble communicating at with long distances between churches.

Here, I'll just say it myself---washmymouthwashmymouthwashmymouthwashmymouth . .

Each region has a Bishop that shephards it. Rome has a shephard too. So until they had a new bishop appointed they were being told to trust in God.

I see no problem with that...

So, then at what point did they all become aware of the Primacy of Rome? Who knew it first?

C'mon this is absurd argumentation.

 

[racer]

I am leaving for home right now but I want to address this...

I think you may not understand what Apostolic Tradition means???

No, more like I disagree with the RC interpretation of it.

 

[racer]

As far as I know every region has had a Bishop to oversee it. This was true with New Testament writings.

I think the best way to understand this is by saying the Pope is like a prime minister and the Bishops of a region are like ministers. The ministers have their own areas that they are in charge of. So does the Prime minister. All the ministers enforce laws and their decisions are final including the prime minister.

However if the prime minister deems it appropriate he can and will over rule a minister.

Jack,

I understand how a "chain-of-command" works. I understand what the Papacy is and what the RCC teaches regarding it. I, also, know that it has been a hotly debated subject even within Catholcism. If it were merely what you've asserted above, it would be pretty much suitable to all. But, you know it means much, much more than that.

 

[racer]

Not at all...

I'm afraid it definitely does.

How many times do you hear people say to trust in God? That is what is being said.

But, the RCC of today thinks we can't trust ourselves to do this accurately without them spelling it out for us.

But it is not a long term solution when we need an authority to deicde on things. Jesus is not going to come to your church and say who is right or wrong in a debate.

That's why we have our Bibles. It wasn't all about teaching and settling disputes. It was about coming together and worshipping and edifying Christ.

If that debate is over scripture, we have never had Jesus come to the church and tell everyone that one person is correct and the other false (since Jesus was lifted to heaven).

If we can not trust ourselves to properly discern the Gospel, why would Jesus have told us to beware of false prophets. If I can not discern truth, how could I recognize a false prophet?

We see Jesus as the Spiritual Head of the Church but also realize that Jesus left MEN in charge until he returns. Jesus is the King that has left his household and place MEN in charge of his household.

Jesus sent the "Comforter" to guide and protect His church--He did not leave it solely in the hands of men.

 

[racer]

I have an authority known as the Church.

Answer my question, please. What makes "you" think "your" authority knows anymore than mine?

If you were to study what the church was like at it's earliest and then looked for that church today you would find the Catholic Church.

What makes you think I haven't done this? You've clearly based what you believe regarding me on way less than what I've based my beliefs about the RCC upon.

Why should I go anywhere else?

I never said you should, did I?

 

[racer]

Clearly Peter was not aware of it??? Is this a "Divine" revelation of your own?

Can you show evidence that Peter was aware of his primacy?

You have no leg to stand on with "Clearly Peter wasn't aware of it". If you think you do then please show me...

What would you consider evidence? Peter explicitly denying that he possessed primacy over the others? Why would he deny something that was never even hinted at or given a thought? Why deny something of which you're not aware? However, I can cite for you Scripture, and have cited for you St. Augustine citing Scripture, refuting the primacy of any of the apostles.

Also, I have not ignored anything you have shown me. But when you show 'evidence' that proves nothing then it either needs more evidence or you should also consider the why it does not prove anything and consider the possibilities.

You have ignored much. How about you address my quotes from Augustine? Do I need to repost them for you?

 

[racer]

Your point here is not clear to me...

I understand what an Apostolic See is. I also explained and gave a link to what a "vicar" is and how it works in relationship to the Apostolic See.

You may need to explain your point to me? Otherwise it appears (to me) that you agree with what I previously stated.

I did explain to you. New Advent not only defines "vicar" but it also defines "Vicar of Christ." There is a vast difference between the two. New Advent also distiguished between "an" Apostolic See and "the" Apostlic See." Perhaps, if you would read my quotes, I wouldn't have to keep spoon-feeding you.

 

[racer]

Non RCs/EOs can only go so far in their interpretation because they lack the teaching authority that has kept the teachings since the Apostles. These groups also lack some of the teachings that have been preserved of the Apostolic Tradition. With Sola Scriptura you only have a fraction of the teachings that God gave us. Because you lack 100% of the teachings you cannot have 100% of the teachings.

How in the world does this address the question to which you are responding?

 

[racer]

From post #491:

From the above link:

. . . The following extensive documentation reveals that Augustine taught that Peter was simply a figurative representative of the Church, not its ruler—a view reminiscent of Cyprian:

But whom say ye that I am? Peter answered, ‘Thou art the Christ, The Son of the living God.’ One for many gave the answer, Unity in many. Then said the Lord to him, ‘Blessed art thou, Simon Barjonas: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but My Father which is in heaven.’ Then He added, ‘and I say unto thee.’ As if He had said, ‘Because thou hast said unto Me, “Thou art the Christ the Son of the living God;” I also say unto thee, “Thou art Peter.” ’ For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people. For the rock (Petra) is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock; not the rock from Peter; as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. ‘Therefore,’ he saith, ‘Thou art Peter; and upon this Rock’ which Thou hast confessed, upon this rock which Thou hast acknowledged, saying, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, will I build My Church;’ that is upon Myself, the Son of the living God, ‘will I build My Church.’ I will build thee upon Myself, not Myself upon Thee.

For men who wished to be built upon men, said, ‘I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas,’ who is Peter. But others who did not wish to built upon Peter, but upon the Rock, said, ‘But I am of Christ.’ And when the Apostle Paul ascertained that he was chosen, and Christ despised, he said, ‘Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?’ And, as not in the name of Paul, so neither in the name of Peter; but in the name of Christ: that Peter might be built upon the Rock, not the Rock upon Peter. This same Peter therefore who had been by the Rock pronounced ‘blessed,’ bearing the figure of the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VI, St. Augustin, Sermon XXVI.1-4, pp. 340-341).

And this Church, symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven,’ he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by divers temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falleth not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name. For petra (rock) is not derived from Peter, but Peter from petra; just as Christ is not called so from the Christian, but the Christian from Christ. For on this very account the Lord said, ‘On this rock will I build my Church,’ because Peter had said, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ On this rock, therefore, He said, which thou hast confessed, I will build my Church. For the Rock (Petra) was Christ; and on this foundation was Peter himself built. For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Christ Jesus. The Church, therefore, which is founded in Christ received from Him the keys of the kingdom of heaven in the person of Peter, that is to say, the power of binding and loosing sins. For what the Church is essentially in Christ, such representatively is Peter in the rock (petra); and in this representation Christ is to be understood as the Rock, Peter as the Church (Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1956), Volume VII, St. Augustin, On the Gospel of John, Tractate 124.5).

Before his passion the Lord Jesus, as you know, chose those disciples of his, whom he called apostles. Among these it was only Peter who almost everywhere was given the privilege of representing the whole Church. It was in the person of the whole Church, which he alone represented, that he was privileged to hear, ‘To you will I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ (Mt 16:19). After all, it isn’t just one man that received these keys, but the Church in its unity. So this is the reason for Peter’s acknowledged pre–eminence, that he stood for the Church’s universality and unity, when he was told, ‘To you I am entrusting,’ what has in fact been entrusted to all.

I mean, to show you that it is the Church which has received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, listen to what the Lord says in another place to all his apostles: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit;’ and straightway, ‘Whose sins you forgive, they will be forgiven them; whose sins you retain, they will be retained’ (Jn 20:22-23). This refers to the keys, about which it is said, ‘whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven’ (Mt 16:19). But that was said to Peter. To show you that Peter at that time stood for the universal Church, listen to what is said to him, what is said to all the faithful, the saints: ‘If your brother sins against you, correct him between you and himself alone’ (John Rotelle, Ed., The Works of Saint Augustine (Hyde Park: New City, 1994), Sermons, III/8 (273-305A), On the Saints, Sermon 295.1-3, pp. 197-198).
​

According to Augustine the Apostles are equal in all respects. Each receives the authority of the keys, not Peter alone. But some object, doesn’t Augustine accord a primacy to the apostle Peter? Does he not call Peter the first of the apostles, holding the chief place in the Apostleship? Don’t such statements prove papal primacy? While it is true that Augustine has some very exalted things to say about Peter, as do many of the fathers, it does not follow that either he or they held to the Roman Catholic view of papal primacy. This is because their comments apply to Peter alone. They have absolutely nothing to do with the bishops of Rome. How do we know this? Because Augustine and the fathers do not make that application in their comments. They do not state that their descriptions of Peter apply to the bishops of Rome.

Address Augustine's thoughts on Peter for me please . . . .

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Racer I need to go back and reread some of these posts and get back on track...

Also, I need to correct a previous statetment of mine after listening to Scott Hahn this morning. It is regarding the Assumption when I said the Bible has nothing.

Revelation 12.
1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

 

[racer]

Racer I need to go back and reread some of these posts and get back on track...

Also, I need to correct a previous statetment of mine after listening to Scott Hahn this morning. It is regarding the Assumption when I said the Bible has nothing.

Revelation 12.
1 A great sign appeared in the sky, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.

I was surprised when you said that. You mean this is the first you've heard of that argument?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

I was surprised when you said that. You mean this is the first you've heard of that argument?

Not the first I heard of it. I forgot is all.

have you ever done that?

 

[racer]

Not the first I heard of it. I forgot is all.

have you ever done that?

NeVER!!