Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. If the Church teaches "Scripture X means Y", then that is final and there is no debate as the Church speaks infallibly and with Divine Authority.
Individuals are promised no such protection. If an individual, even if he is Catholic, states "Scripture X means Z", then there is no divine authority behind his statement. He may be right or he may be wrong.
You have made the Church YOUR God just as the many protestants have made the Bible THEIR God. Sad, very sad, that none of you actually make Jesus Christ your God as intended!!
The Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error. If the Church teaches "Scripture X means Y", then that is final and there is no debate as the Church speaks infallibly and with Divine Authority.
Individuals are promised no such protection. If an individual, even if he is Catholic, states "Scripture X means Z", then there is no divine authority behind his statement. He may be right or he may be wrong.
Seems like an inherently problematic system.
The Church was opposed for example to heliocentrism, to the point that it had Galileo under house arrest toward the end of his life. The church managed a weak-sauce apology for this nearly a half-millennium later (sometime in the 20-aughts I believe) and I'm sure it took so long in part because of the need to protect this notion of infallibility of church tradition / pronouncements.
Yet this is one of the central appeals of Catholicism ... the claimed unbroken line of papal succession clear back to St Peter, the Church making infallible pronouncements on matters of faith and practice which then never have to be re-examined, the unchanging rituals. High church traditions attract people who like that sort of thing. So ... the Church has to protect the "brand" and live with the problems it brings them, I guess.
The Church was opposed for example to heliocentrism, to the point that it had Galileo under house arrest toward the end of his life. The church managed a weak-sauce apology for this nearly a half-millennium later (sometime in the 20-aughts I believe) and I'm sure it took so long in part because of the need to protect this notion of infallibility of church tradition / pronouncements.
Yet this is one of the central appeals of Catholicism ... the claimed unbroken line of papal succession clear back to St Peter, the Church making infallible pronouncements on matters of faith and practice which then never have to be re-examined, the unchanging rituals. High church traditions attract people who like that sort of thing. So ... the Church has to protect the "brand" and live with the problems it brings them, I guess.
Was peter ever once referred to as Pope Peter in the 1st century?
Was peter ever once referred to as Pope Peter in the 1st century?
No. The idea that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome probably comes from a letter by bishop Dionysius of Corinth, written between 165 and 174 AD, when Dionysius misreads a letter by Clement, a 1st century bishop in Rome.
In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul is writing to a church that already existed, and in the list of people mentioned, Peter is never mentioned.
No. The idea that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome probably comes from a letter by bishop Dionysius of Corinth, written between 165 and 174 AD, when Dionysius misreads a letter by Clement, a 1st century bishop in Rome.
In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul is writing to a church that already existed, and in the list of people mentioned, Peter is never mentioned.
It is almost certain that the church in Rome was already functioning by the time Peter got there. Peter became its bishop and was martyred there. That's his connection.
No. The idea that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome probably comes from a letter by bishop Dionysius of Corinth, written between 165 and 174 AD, when Dionysius misreads a letter by Clement, a 1st century bishop in Rome.
In the Epistle to the Romans, Paul is writing to a church that already existed, and in the list of people mentioned, Peter is never mentioned.
Yeah, exactly. Thank you for the history lesson. I always suspected the RCC only used Peter as a tool to their nefarious purposes--mainly to try to build a reputation as the ONLY legitimate church to go back to the apostles. The title, "pope" probably didn't come along until the Dark Ages when the RCC ascended to supremacy. I mean, we have no historical reference at all to a Pope Peter.
Yeah, exactly. Thank you for the history lesson. I always suspected the RCC only used Peter as a tool to their nefarious purposes--mainly to try to build a reputation as the ONLY legitimate church to go back to the apostles. The title, "pope" probably didn't come along until the Dark Ages when the RCC ascended to supremacy. I mean, we have no historical reference at all to a Pope Peter.
Yes, I'm sure Harry is a much more objective and reliable source
Yeah, exactly. Thank you for the history lesson. I always suspected the RCC only used Peter as a tool to their nefarious purposes--mainly to try to build a reputation as the ONLY legitimate church to go back to the apostles. The title, "pope" probably didn't come along until the Dark Ages when the RCC ascended to supremacy. I mean, we have no historical reference at all to a Pope Peter.
The Catholic Church has one purpose - to save souls. There is nothing "nefarious" about that.
We do not claim to be the only church to go back to the Apostles.
The Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Armenian Apostolic churches can also legitimately claim Apostolic succession. There may be one or two others.
It is almost certain that the church in Rome was already functioning by the time Peter got there. Peter became its bishop and was martyred there. That's his connection.
There is no early evidence Peter became the bishop of Rome and was martyred there. That story appears to have evolved from a misreading of Clement's epistle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
