DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
Love God Only
HTML https://lovegodonly.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Biblical Discussions
*****************************************************
#Post#: 10209--------------------------------------------------
Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Mike
Date: January 24, 2015, 6:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
All of our New Testament Scriptures were written in the 1st
century during which time Linus, Anacletus, and Clement are
listed as having been the early Papal successors to Peter.
Is it not strange that none were mentioned in the New Testament
Scriptures? (or is there a mention that I haven't noticed?)
And is it not strange that whereas Linus, Anacletus, and Clement
were accorded full Papal authority, none of the original
apostles seem to have figured in comparable echelons of
authority.
Any thoughts, anyone?
#Post#: 10210--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: meshak
Date: January 24, 2015, 7:13 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mike link ---
>
> All of our New Testament Scriptures were written in the 1st
century during which time Linus, Anacletus, and Clement are
listed as having been the early Papal successors to Peter.
> Is it not strange that none were mentioned in the New
Testament Scriptures? (or is there a mention that I haven't
noticed?)
> And is it not strange that whereas Linus, Anacletus, and
Clement were accorded full Papal authority, none of the original
apostles seem to have figured in comparable echelons of
authority.
> Any thoughts, anyone?
>
>
--- End Quote ---
You should ask CC at your forum.
#Post#: 10211--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: January 24, 2015, 11:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: meshak link ---
>
> You should ask CC at your forum.
>
--- End Quote ---
This is a violation of rule 11. I'm tired of moving things
about. It's time to issue an official warning.
#Post#: 10213--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Mike
Date: January 24, 2015, 11:15 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: meshak link ---
>
> You should ask CC at your forum.
>
--- End Quote ---
There is only so far that you can go with asking a Catholic
about things that seem to shed doubt on their claim to Papal
authority and succession.
I've been looking again at all that seems to have happened to
the Church from the 1st century onwards, but with one committed
Catholic and one sensitive sympathiser I know it would spell
trouble if I aired my thoughts on my own forum.
Kerry and coldwar know more than anyone about the Catholic and
Eastern Orthodox churches and the shenanigans that characterised
the ecumenical Councils so I came here hoping to share without
upsetting anyone.
(I had started typing this before Kerry issued his
admonition......does this violate a rule by mentioning "my own
forum"?.....sorry if it does)
#Post#: 10216--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: January 25, 2015, 12:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It's on the edge, Mike. Since you didn't mention it by name, I
don't see it as a serious enough infraction that demands
attention; but I'd prefer people avoid mentioning other forums
even by inference. It's not germane to the question you posed
here. The "trouble" you may face elsewhere is a distraction
from your question. People may be tempted to discuss that and
not address your question.
As for mentioning members by name we just saw, let me explain my
reasoning. Even mentioning one in a complimentary fashion risks
someone else disagreeing. One thing can lead to another; and
before you know what's happening, someone could be attacking a
member of a forum who isn't here to defend himself. Troubles
brewing elsewhere could spill over here. I say what happens at
other forums can stay at other forums.
Give me time to dig up sources about Clement and Linus.
#Post#: 10217--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Mike
Date: January 25, 2015, 12:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kerry link ---
>
> As for mentioning members by name we just saw, let me explain
my reasoning. Even mentioning one in a complimentary fashion
risks someone else disagreeing.
>
--- End Quote ---
Kerry, surely it's ott to forbid the 'innocent' mention of
another member's name.
I had mentioned that both Brad and me had been viewing the rules
at the same time.
It would be worse that treading on eggshells if I had to ensure
that I avoided doing something like that.
#Post#: 10218--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Mike
Date: January 25, 2015, 12:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Kerry link ---
>
> Give me time to dig up sources about Clement and Linus.
>
--- End Quote ---
Brilliant.
My researching of 1st century onwards also took me back to the
Council of Jerusalem AD50 which seemed to refer to an arrogant
claim of the 'church' that it would accept "Gentiles" (as if
Paul and his 'calling' just didn't exist).
To me there seems to be some sort of vendetta against Paul
(probably because of Catholicism's need to promote Peter with
Papal supremacy over Paul).
Yet Paul rather than Peter is accredited with writing so much
more of Catholicism's New Testament.
We can read that Catholicism's claim to originality also
retrospectively claims all the apostles to be part of their
equally retrospectively established sacred magisterium, and that
on that basis it was Catholicism that literally 'wrote' the New
Testament.
And since they claimed that only their sacred magisterium had
the authority to interpret scripture it would seem that they
didn't realise that there would come an 'age of enlightenment'
when 'intelligent literacy' would reveal the incompatibility
contained within what only they had hitherto been able to keep
to themselves.
Now I get to the point where 'my faith' has to bring God into
the equation, and I ponder that 'Christianity' would never have
persisted through the 'dark ages' other than at the hands of
something as powerfully authoritarian as Catholicism.
So the kindest thing that I can say about them is that they were
an essentiality up to the 15th century, but only an option
thereafter for those who need to worship according to their
tradition.
#Post#: 10219--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: January 25, 2015, 7:04 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mike link ---
>
> Kerry, surely it's ott to forbid the 'innocent' mention of
another member's name.
> I had mentioned that both Brad and me had been viewing the
rules at the same time.
> It would be worse that treading on eggshells if I had to
ensure that I avoided doing something like that.
>
--- End Quote ---
I have been lax in applying this rule, and may be lax again in
the future. In this particular instance, I found the mention
irrelevant and a possible attempt to derail the thread. I'll
send you a more explicit PM about it.
I think people can remember where they are and who is present
and what the possible ramifications might be. I draw a line
between public and private. If you and I want to discuss
"someone from another forum," rest assured I would do it via
PMs or emails so the other person can't see. If I want
"someone from another forum" to know what I say, I'd say it at
the other forum. I'd prefer people post materials here that
are edifying somehow or perhaps amusing even. I don't see how
discussing people from other forums serves a useful purpose
here.
#Post#: 10220--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: January 25, 2015, 8:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Mike link ---
>
> Brilliant.
> My researching of 1st century onwards also took me back to the
Council of Jerusalem AD50 which seemed to refer to an arrogant
claim of the 'church' that it would accept "Gentiles" (as if
Paul and his 'calling' just didn't exist).
--- End Quote ---
I'm not that familiar with that to comment; but the "Apostolic
Canons" may not be authentic.
--- Quote ---
> To me there seems to be some sort of vendetta against Paul
(probably because of Catholicism's need to promote Peter with
Papal supremacy over Paul).
--- End Quote ---
I've never quite figured out the Orthodox views on Paul. I know
they don't celebrate the Feast Day of St. Peter but instead do a
dual honoring of Peter and Paul. I find that very odd. The
Peter-Paul question seems to be a distraction from the fact that
the "Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople" was once a rural
Bishop in a backwater town under the Bishop of Heraclea -- and
Heraclea was founded by St. Andrew. It seems to me they'd
rather discuss Paul than Andrew.
I also recently ran across a claim by an Orthodox priest that
two of the three Petrine Sees were in Orthodox hands. I wouldn't
say that. That's debatable, to say the least.
Then there's the argument that all the Apostles shared equally
with Peter in having the keys.
I think I can find historical sources that show the primacy of
Rome was once accepted universally.
--- Quote ---
> Yet Paul rather than Peter is accredited with writing so much
more of Catholicism's New Testament.
> We can read that Catholicism's claim to originality also
retrospectively claims all the apostles to be part of their
equally retrospectively established sacred magisterium
--- End Quote ---
Well, yes, considering the fact that "magisterium" was not used
for century upon century. That was an innovation.
The matter is made worse by how the Catholic Church now
interprets the keys of Peter. They say it applies to doctrines.
How can that be? Can men on the earth vote and make some
doctrine true? The statement to Peter says he can bind and
loose things on earth -- meaning earthly things -- and Heaven
will back him up by binding and loosing those things in Heaven.
Take the ownership of the Church of the Nativity. Riots break
out there among the various churches over this and that.
There's a ladder left standing about because people are afraid
if someone were to move it, a riot would ensue. Things are in a
sorry shape. In times past, I think all the parties would
agreed to let the Bishop of Rome settle the dispute. That's an
earthly matter. In my opinion, any group needs someone who can
act as final arbiter if other parties can't come to an agreement
themselves. I think the Bishops of Rome used to have that. I
believe the Patriarchs of Constantinople still do exercise that
kind of binding authority over other Orthodox Bishops if there's
an argument they can't settle on their own. Or at least the
Patriarch of Constantinople claims to have that power -- I doubt
the Patriarch of Moscow would agree.
Is it not clear that this binding and loosing of things on the
earth was connected to the dominion over the earth given to
Adam? It seems clear to me; but somewhere along the road, the
Bishops of Rome started increasing their claims and even said
they could pronounce something true and it had to be true.
The Bishops of Rome also began to erode the proper authority of
its own Bishops. They also claimed authority over Bishops
within other Patriarchies in a way that lacked both precedent
and sense.
--- Quote ---
> , and that on that basis it was Catholicism that literally
'wrote' the New Testament.
--- End Quote ---
I am not sure about that. But then again, I'm not sure Paul
wrote all the books attributed to him. Something else could
have been at work. People in Rome may have been fairly
confident about the two Epistles attributed to Peter (although
one may be in doubt) but it might have been easier in the
turbulent East to forge Epistles and pass them off as Paul's.
The East was a hotbed of diversity. There were mystics of all
persuasions. There were the people who castrated themselves
--one was Bishop of Antioch even after the Council of Nicea
forbade it. Some say that "eunuchs" was another word for
homosexuals as well as the word of castrated men. Most of the
dubious writings came from the East.
The adoption of the Apocrypha as "inspired" books still astounds
me. Most of those books were written quite late; and the Jews
say that inspiration of prophets ceased from Israel with Malachi
and the other prophets of that era. For the life of me, I
don't see how anyone would think the book of Judith is inspired
when it starts off informing its readers it's fiction by saying
Nebuchadnezzar ruled in Nineveh.
The claim then was also made that the Jews deliberately altered
the Hebrew versions of the Old Testament in an effort to
discredit Christianity. This claim is still made by some
people. They say the Greek translation is inspired and better
than the original Hebrew. Of course, the Jews never accepted
any of those books as inspired in the least. They did consider
the "Prophets" and the "Writings" inspired but not perfect or
inerrant. They had mistakes in them and the Jews said so; but
the Christians came along and then adopted them as their own but
insisted they were without error. Astonishing!
--- Quote ---
> And since they claimed that only their sacred magisterium had
the authority to interpret scripture it would seem that they
didn't realise that there would come an 'age of enlightenment'
when 'intelligent literacy' would reveal the incompatibility
contained within what only they had hitherto been able to keep
to themselves.
> Now I get to the point where 'my faith' has to bring God into
the equation, and I ponder that 'Christianity' would never have
persisted through the 'dark ages' other than at the hands of
something as powerfully authoritarian as Catholicism.
> So the kindest thing that I can say about them is that they
were an essentiality up to the 15th century, but only an option
thereafter for those who need to worship according to their
tradition.
>
--- End Quote ---
I've mixed feelings about the events of the 15 Century. At the
time, the Catholic Church was becoming more tolerant and
relaxed. When the Protestants came on the scene, the Catholic
Church responded poorly by increasing their claims of inerrancy,
etc. Indeed they had never bothered to issue an official list
of what books were inspired until Luther came and started saying
some books (the ones he didn't like) were not inspired. The
more they were attacked by Protestants, the greater their claims
were to being sole arbiters of all truth. The schism with the
Orthodox also affected them the same way. The more the Orthodox
picked at them, the more reactionary and dogmatic they became.
They've boxed themselves in, if you ask me. The greater the
claims they made, the more they tended alienate people and fuel
the Protestant Reformation. Now they're stuck with all the
claims they made -- although quietly they seem to want to forget
some of them. They seem busy revising history again -- often by
revising the definitions of words. The issue of birth control
seems a major problem; but how can they backtrack on that
without saying, "Oops, we made a mistake. We're not as inerrant
as you thought."
The holding of so-called Ecumenical Councils by the Catholic
Church without any input from Orthodox or Coptic Bishops has
also increased their difficulties. Why would other churches
believe in the dogmas decreed by those councils as inerrant ever
accept them? We have dogmas like the Immaculate Conception of
Mary and the Infallibility of the Pope. The Orthodox and
Coptic Churches will never sign on such ideas; and I doubt the
Catholic Church is going to admit the so-called Ecumenical
Councils were not really ecumenical. Frankly, I think the
whole idea of ecumenical councils was an unfortunate invention
of the Third Century.
The Orthodox Church has its double standards about Ecumenical
Councils. They say if congregations refuse to accept the degrees
of councils that purport to be ecumenical, the degrees are
invalid. Okay, I can see why they might say that; but then I
ask why did they hound the Catholic Church so much over the
dreaded "filioque"? Why did they insist Rome should bend to
them over it just because an Ecumenical Council said so.
So many words here-- and so little about Papal succession. . . .
#Post#: 10221--------------------------------------------------
Re: Catholic claims to Papal succession?
DIR By: Kerry
Date: January 25, 2015, 9:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Another mystery is how the book of Acts ends. As you know,
Mike, I have suspicions about sections of this book; but its
ending truly perplexes me. Who is the person writing? Who is
the "we" -- Paul and who else?
Acts 28:14 Where we found brethren, and were desired to tarry
with them seven days: and so we went toward Rome.
I could be wrong about this; but it seems to me that things
shift in chapter 16 from "they" to "we."
Acts 16:4 And as they went through the cities, they delivered
them the decrees for to keep, that were ordained of the apostles
and elders which were at Jerusalem.
5 And so were the churches established in the faith, and
increased in number daily.
6 Now when they had gone throughout Phrygia and the region of
Galatia, and were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word
in Asia,
7 After they were come to Mysia, they assayed to go into
Bithynia: but the Spirit suffered them not.
8 And they passing by Mysia came down to Troas.
9 And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man
of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia,
and help us.
10 And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavoured
to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had
called us for to preach the gospel unto them.
11 Therefore loosing from Troas, we came with a straight course
to Samothracia, and the next day to Neapolis;
12 And from thence to Philippi, which is the chief city of that
part of Macedonia, and a colony: and we were in that city
abiding certain days.
13 And on the sabbath we went out of the city by a river side,
where prayer was wont to be made; and we sat down, and spake
unto the women which resorted thither.
I have no clue why there is such a shift; but it's as if the
author had been relating things about Paul where the author
wasn't involved with at first so he says "they" and then it
seems he joined the party and then it's "we."
Peter himself isn't mentioned in the final chapter. If Peter and
Paul met in Rome, it's not recorded in Acts. Peter is not
mentioned after this speech:
Acts 15:7 And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up,
and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good
while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my
mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
8 And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving
them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
9 And put no difference between us and them, purifying their
hearts by faith.
10 Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck
of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to
bear?
11 But we believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus
Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then James stands up and delivers the final verdict! Why
James, because he was the leader of the church in Jerusalem? At
any rate, that's the last we hear of Peter in the book of Acts.
Could it have been that Peter was living underground to escape
arrest? Could that be the reason Peter is not mentioned as
being in Rome when Paul arrived? That could be if we accept
the idea that Peter himself referred to Rome as Babylon as a
code word to dodge the agents of the Emperor. We aren't told
the names of any of the Christians in Rome in the book of Acts.
While we're told that Paul was the Apostle of the Gentiles and
Peter and the others of the Jews, chapter 28 has Paul summoning
"the chief of the Jews" to talk to. Did they know nothing
about the Christians? Did they know nothing about Peter? Look
at what they said to Paul:
21 And they said unto him, We neither received letters out of
Judaea concerning thee, neither any of the brethren that came
shewed or spake any harm of thee.
22 But we desire to hear of thee what thou thinkest: for as
concerning this sect, we know that every where it is spoken
against.
I am perplexed.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page