It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.
Lazarus Short
ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.
There was no "Succession of Peter," simply because Peter was not the first Pope or even Bishop of Rome. The title "Pope" was not even used until centuries after Peter became dust, and as for being the first Bishop of Rome, actually the fellow was a Briton, whose name I cannot dig up just now, as most of my books are packed for an upcoming move. In fact, several of the persons mentioned in Paul's letter to the Romans (Paul was certainly in Rome - Peter, maybe not) were natives of Britain.
ghostfacekilah00
The council of Nicea would be irrelevant to history if it was not approved by and considered infallible by the Catholic Church, which has made the official decree on the infallibility of every council that shaped Catholic Church doctrine.
Lazarus Short
ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.
There was no "Succession of Peter," simply because Peter was not the first Pope or even Bishop of Rome. The title "Pope" was not even used until centuries after Peter became dust, and as for being the first Bishop of Rome, actually the fellow was a Briton, whose name I cannot dig up just now, as most of my books are packed for an upcoming move. In fact, several of the persons mentioned in Paul's letter to the Romans (Paul was certainly in Rome - Peter, maybe not) were natives of Britain.
DISRAELI
ghostfacekilah00
The council of Nicea would be irrelevant to history if it was not approved by and considered infallible by the Catholic Church, which has made the official decree on the infallibility of every council that shaped Catholic Church doctrine.
The word "Catholic" has got at least two meanings.
a) It describes the universal church of God (the original meaning)
b) It is a brief nickname for the body whose full name is "Roman Catholic church".
You are making the standard Roman Catholic mistake of treating the two meanings as the same thing.
The truth is that the Nicene Council represented and was endorsed by the "Catholic church" in the first sense.
The Nicene Council COULD NOT be endorsed by the Roman Catholic church, because the "Roman Catholic church" did not exist at the time. The idea of a single body with the Pope at the top was a much later development.
Constantine called the Council because he thought he was the man in charge and did not need anyone else's consent.
ghostfacekilah00
To acknowledge the authority of the Bible is to acknowledge the authority of the Church, even if you take out 5 books like King James did 1200 years later.
DISRAELI
ghostfacekilah00
The council of Nicea would be irrelevant to history if it was not approved by and considered infallible by the Catholic Church, which has made the official decree on the infallibility of every council that shaped Catholic Church doctrine.
The word "Catholic" has got at least two meanings.
a) It describes the universal church of God (the original meaning)
b) It is a brief nickname for the body whose full name is "Roman Catholic church".
You are making the standard Roman Catholic mistake of treating the two meanings as the same thing.
The truth is that the Nicene Council represented and was endorsed by the "Catholic church" in the first sense.
The Nicene Council COULD NOT be endorsed by the Roman Catholic church, because the "Roman Catholic church" did not exist at the time. The idea of a single body with the Pope at the top was a much later development.
Constantine called the Council because he thought he was the man in charge and did not need anyone else's consent.
DISRAELI
ghostfacekilah00
To acknowledge the authority of the Bible is to acknowledge the authority of the Church, even if you take out 5 books like King James did 1200 years later.
Acknowledging the authority of the WHOLE church does not involve ackowledging the authority of that fragment of the church which calls itself the Roman Catholic church, or the man who leads it.
ghostfacekilah00
Yes, it was a later development. And if the Catholic Church, the only existing Church in western society for a thousand years, had denied the infallibility of the council, the decrees made there would be forgotten in history, which would never happen because the Bible was assembled there.
ProfessorChaos
Actually, the Papacy and the "Succession of Peter" is based on a misunderstanding of the scriptures.
Often Matthew 16:18 is pointed to as the scripture that proves Peter was the first Pope. When read in context and when proper translation is applied to the text, the words for "Peter" and "Rock" are actually two different and distinct words.
Peter (translated "Petros") means "a detached stone or boulder, that could be easily moved" while the word that was used for "Rock" (Translated "Petra") in this text refers to "mass of rock" indicating immovability.
The actual rock Christ points to as the foundation of his church was certainly not the Apostle peter, it was the truth that Peter had spoken in the previous verse Matthew 16:16, in which, when asked who he thought Jesus was, he replied "You are the Christ; the son of the living God."
The Catholic church also gives too much literal leaning to the verse in which Christ gives the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter, as though he literally holds a set of keys that control the opening of Heaven's gates. Peter is not the gatekeeper of the Kingdom of Heaven any more than anyone else who shares the gospel to those that do not know Christ.
There is certainly a lot more information regarding this topic, but I'm preparing my son's 1st birthday party at the moment. Hopefully others may be able to shine additional light on this thread.
ghostfacekilah00
How are the two names not the same thing? That's like saying Baptist isn't Protestant. As you said, Catholic means "universal." Just because there is a "Roman" in front of it, signifying that it was based out of Rome, the Catholic no longer means universal?