Papal apologetics

[RhetorTheo]

Morph, those recent quotes are non-commital (eg, the church "claims" or "traces" the Pope back to Peter) or oppose the Church's teaching (Elaine Pagels says three leaders by year 100). The older sources appear to be regurgitating doctrine (especially the World Book Encyclopedia, which does not make even a pretense of objectivity in those quotes). Again, I'd like to see an unbiased, credible source that addresses the issue.

 

[RhetorTheo]

RollTroll, you also got to think. Are non-catholics really if they had a chance to and had historical proof, that the Church was founded on Saint peter, would they admit it? Let alone put it in writing?

Sure. Why would an atheist (or agnostic, etc) care one way or the other?

 

[MorphRC]

Thank you Maximus!! That is a fascinating website. Too many misconceptions persist between the Catholic and Orthodox laity. Although I am considering joining the Catholic church under the Latin Rite, I was previously starting my Orthodox catechisis. I love my brothers and sisters of that faith (I will still attend youth group at OCF ) but I do see enough evidence that Peter had a primacy that most Orthodox ignore (another one of those throwing the baby out with the bathwater things hehe..) Of course, I'm still worried because I'm not sure if all the doctrines in the Catholic church are the most correct but I do feel at more at home here.
May God have mercy on me,
-Catherine

Wow. Welcome [Almost Sis].

Sister just list the Doctrines and so forth you have difficulty with and we will try and help you. I myself dont get a few of them, but the best thing to do is try and learn why the Church has them. You dont have to agree with them, but you do have to believe their there for some reason we cant understand yet.

 

[MorphRC]

Morph, those recent quotes are non-commital (eg, the church "claims" or "traces" the Pope back to Peter) or oppose the Church's teaching (Elaine Pagels says three leaders by year 100). The older sources appear to be regurgitating doctrine (especially the World Book Encyclopedia, which does not make even a pretense of objectivity in those quotes). Again, I'd like to see an unbiased, credible source that addresses the issue.

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E.
(Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

Whats wrong with that, I see nothing. RoleTroll. Stop wasting our time, I gave you non-catholic sources that either agree, or agree with our beliefs, but dont personally believe them, either way its proof of it. You want "credible" proof, in other words, you want non-catholics to clearly state it was. You're looking for something that doesnt exist. You can try the orthodox Church members, but I guess their not Credible sources.

 

[Amandine]

Wait..I think I'm confused about RoleTroll's question..you mean, "What historical evidence is there for the papal line of Rome?"? One could also "What is the historical evidence for the patriachal lines of the Eastern Orthodox?"
Well, folks...what is there?
I personally trust that God would guide his church and give us leaders gifted by the Holy Spirit. I guess that's the faith that includes "Tradition"
-Catherine

 

[MorphRC]

Sure. Why would an atheist (or agnostic, etc) care one way or the other?

Multiple Reasons: Government Funding or Subsedes taken away. Protesting and violent acts for supporting one religion and ignoring the other. Showing sides, which in a political sitution is trouble. There are many reasons, they have a lot to lose and a lot to gain. Goes both ways. It depends on the country and what the majority religion is.

 

[MorphRC]

Wait..I think I'm confused about RoleTroll's question..you mean, "What historical evidence is there for the papal line of Rome?"? One could also "What is the historical evidence for the patriachal lines of the Eastern Orthodox?"
Well, folks...what is there?
I personally trust that God would guide his church and give us leaders gifted by the Holy Spirit. I guess that's the faith that includes "Tradition"
-Catherine

The only evidence that is visible today is John Paul II[Abba]. But of course I guess a Pope isnt "Credible" evidence. Oy.

 

[KennySe]

What would be most convincing, is if there were a writing of a Church Father, let us say for example Augustine of Hippo (which is in Africa) bemoaning that the Chair of peter has fallen and some usurper has taken over the bishopric of Rome.

Alas, there is no such writing.

 

[RhetorTheo]

ROMAN CATHOLICISM: Christian church characterized by its uniform, highly developed doctoral and organizational structure that traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E.
(Marriam-Webster's Encyclopedia of World Religions © 1999, page 938 )

Whats wrong with that, I see nothing.

I already explained what is wrong with it. Now I will give an example to amplify the point:

"Religious historians trace the beginning of the Pentecostal movement to 1901. Pentecostals, themselves, trace the experience back to the inauguration of the early church."

http://www.dmgospelassembly.org/church/aboutus.html

 

[Amandine]

I still don't see what you are driving at...
Pentacostals have their history.
Catholics (Orthdox, Anglicans as well) have one as well.
I wanted to know the Catholic one. That is why I posted a thread called "Papal apologetics" in OBOB because I was curious about their viewpoint on this topic. Not athiests, not agnostics, not anti-Catholics...
-Catherine

 

[MorphRC]

I already explained what is wrong with it. Now I will give an example to amplify the point:

"Religious historians trace the beginning of the Pentecostal movement to 1901. Pentecostals, themselves, trace the experience back to the inauguration of the early church."

http://www.dmgospelassembly.org/church/aboutus.html

RoleTroll. I gave you examples exactly like that! I even gve you a source.

Hmm I just noticed something:

trace [Your Statement]

traces its history to the apostles of Jesus Christ in the 1st century C.E. [My Source]

Your such a hypocrite. Accept one thing, but ignore the other. This is a waste of time, he obviously doesnt want to know our believes but he clearly accepts his own source for the Pentacostals, which I might add have NO SUCCESSION TO CONNECTION TO THE EARLY Church. There a break off of Protestantism, which is a break off of Catholicism.

 

[KennySe]

I already explained what is wrong with it. Now I will give an example to amplify the point:

"Religious historians trace the beginning of the Pentecostal movement to 1901. Pentecostals, themselves, trace the experience back to the inauguration of the early church."

http://www.dmgospelassembly.org/church/aboutus.html

As Catherine has explained, your post is off topic.

However, I want to encourage you to pursue the Origin of Pentecostalism further than the one link you have put here.

It is not a very convincing argument for the Pentecostal movement to be traced "back to the inauguration of the early church" when the article.page states:
While there has been a 2000-year continuation of the Holy Spirit experience, the historical record of Pentecostalism disappears at the close of the New Testament and reappears on January 1, 1901. For eighteen centuries, the history of these people is lost in the mists of hatred, persecution, and unrelenting rejection by formal, apostate Christianity. Only a few anecdotal accounts still exist, such as Margaret McDonald, in Scotland in the early 1800s. She and a few others were said to speak in tongues. In the 1870s William Doughty ministered in New England, with tongues-speaking, shaking, and dancing. Perhaps more evidence will be unearthed sometime. But for now, the movement cannot be traced back much before that date.

Please consider my constructive criticism. Find the historical record.

Peace.

 

[RhetorTheo]

My post had nothing to do with pentecostalism. It had to do with a reference to a religious group tracing its history. The text I quoted says the pentecostals trace their history back to the days of Jesus, but religious historians disagree. I've known pentecostals (eg, UPC pentecostals) who trace the history of pentecostalism directly back to the Day of Pentecost, and claim that there have always been pentecostals throughout history. Yet, history disagrees. As the link and text I posted demonstrates, to say that a group traces their history back to the apostles does not mean that the group has a real, historical link back to the apostles - that is, their trace could be wrong.

 

[RhetorTheo]

BTW, I think this is what I was looking for, the view of "religious historians":

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm

 

[Wolseley]

I'd be carefuly about posting anything from Pope Fiction as anything other than, ahem, fiction. Here is a google link with "response to pope fiction" - the first link it brings up has a devastating rebuttal against Mr. Madrid's credibility and honesty. (I won't post the link directly, get it yourself.)

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=response+to+pope+fiction

Somehow or other, I fear that muddled arguments on inconsequential points, based on the misunderstanding of a Seventh-Day Adventist author (who clearly didn't quite understand his material) doesn't quite equal a "devastating rebuttal".

A "mangled muddle" of a rebuttal possibly---but not even close to approaching "devastating", or even "worrisome".

(shrug) Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

[ps139]

Sure. Why would an atheist (or agnostic, etc) care one way or the other?

To put down the credibility of organized religion. Your question is logical but many atheists/agnostics are often anti-Christian, anti-Catholic instead of "knowing nothing."

I still have one question that I haven't been able to address.... although Peter has primacy, he established a few other lines of bishops and stuff (sorry, I'm not really up on how that whole thing worked), not just in Rome. So, what means the Roman pope has the power instead of the Antiochan patriach (or whomever it would be *apologies*)?
-Catherine

Catherine, this answer may be too simple, but it makes sense to me. When Jesus instituted Peter as the leader of the Church in Matt16:18, he created the office of the papacy. Peter went to Rome and the Bishop of Rome is the pope. I think that if Peter went to Youngstown Ohio, then the Bishop of Youngstown, OH would be the pope. Where Peter is, there is the Church.

 

[Michelina]

I think that if Peter went to Youngstown Ohio, then the Bishop of Youngstown, OH would be the pope.

What a horrorific thought!

 

[Michelina]

I think that if Peter went to Youngstown Ohio, then the Bishop of Youngstown, OH would be the pope.

Horrific!

 

[MorphRC]

BTW, I think this is what I was looking for, the view of "religious historians":

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_ch.htm

Religious Tolerance.Great Site...NOT!

 

[Amandine]

Catherine, this answer may be too simple, but it makes sense to me. When Jesus instituted Peter as the leader of the Church in Matt16:18, he created the office of the papacy. Peter went to Rome and the Bishop of Rome is the pope. I think that if Peter went to Youngstown Ohio, then the Bishop of Youngstown, OH would be the pope. Where Peter is, there is the Church.

Yes, but what I have heard is that he went many other places (Antioch is the only name I remember) and created other lines of bishops. So, I'm asking what made the Roman one the best line of Peter? This is an Orthodox argument against the sole leadership of the Roman patriarch.
-Catherine