The Papacy is Based on Fiction and Church History Proves It

ghostfacekilah00

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.

So what did Christ mean when he says I will give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven? Why did he address Peter specifically when he said this although the other apostles were present? The Catholic Church doesn't believe that Peter is literally sitting outside the Gates of Heaven with a set of keys like a hotel front desk person if that's what you're implying. He is certainly in Heaven enjoying the same reward everyone else there is.

www.catholic.com...

edit on 7-12-2013 by ghostfacekilah00 because: (no reason given)

And on top of that, what did Christ mean when he said "Whatever you bind on Earth will be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on Earth will be loosed in Heaven?"

Treespeaker
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I would agree, the big lie starts in Nicea.

I kind of always thought that the roman part of their name gave it away. A few torn and worn gnostic texts canonized by council, and a lot of controversy and hoopla since.


Nice topic.

Cheers

"The big lie starts in Nicea." -So the Bible is part of a "big lie?"

reply to post by Bigwhammy

If it's possible to both agree and disagree with you, I will. On the other hand, it may be that you're not saying anything remarkable after all. I hope you'll clear it up for me.

Nobody that I know of thinks that Peter was intended to be the world wide head of Christianity at the time of Jesus' death. A world wide religion wasn't even thought of. What with their belief that the end of the world might be at hand, Nero using them as party torches and wild animal food, and various other persecutions, they weren't spending much time on organizational charts and pay scales.

The important part was Apostolic authority, which was obtained through Apostolic succession. By the time the Church had become legal and was spreading into other lands, they found that the Church needed a structure. They chose one headed by the Bishop of Rome for at least a couple of reasons.

But to say the Papacy is based on fiction is incorrect. There is a traceable line going through the Popes to Peter, and the Bishop of Rome has been the head of the Church for about 1700 years. That's not fiction.

If you're talking about the "Upon this Rock I will build My Church" business, I know there are two interpretations of it. It seems to me that referring to Peter as the Rock makes more sense as He just mentions "rock" or "stone" a few words before. Also the "Feed My sheep" line works much better if applied to a human rather than to a doctrine. After all, if He's not talking to Peter when he says "Feed My sheep," who is he talking to?

charles1952
But to say the Papacy is based on fiction is incorrect. There is a traceable line going through the Popes to Peter, and the Bishop of Rome has been the head of the Church for about 1700 years. That's not fiction.

I think the OP is using "the Papacy" as shorthand for "the whole nexus of authority claimed on behalf of the Papacy".
And I would dispute that the Pope has ever been recognised by the whole church, as head of the whole church.
He has gained that position gradually through history, partly by the method of re-defining the church as "everybody who accepts me as head".

The Church is an organism, not an organization.

reply to post by Bigwhammy


Well said, it has always been about Kings, Priests, Emperors, Chiefs and us. The Catholic church is no different. I agree completely with what you have said, so on a slightly different note, I presume you know of the other pope, the Egyptian coptic orthodox one? or to go slightly further against the view of all the Abrahamic religions (ie in this case they dont believe in the gods prophet aspect of abraham, moses and jesus) here is some folks I have been trying to find out a bit about just now, the Christians of Saint John en.wikipedia.org...

I think these are 2 very easy ways to show how such utter bollox the whole thing is. If you aint of royal bloodline declare yourself gods messenger and kill all before you in gods name. Hmm

In the present time the Christians of Saint John, linked above, have been all but wiped out, most recently oppressed by Islam, then scattered by the Anglo American led "liberation of Iraq" and we are after Iran now

I do hope these cultures survive, if only to show that there is many a view, as old as they, that has branched from the same misused messages of whomever held the spiritual trump card that day. They are all often similar in many ways but wrong on so many levels. We have seen a dominant Catholic church and it took an empire rallied round a Monarchy (serving as the highest power below god (sound familiar?) to break the spell and free people from the dark, such as being allowed to read, one evil for another though. It was in part i am sure facilitated by a desire for individual profit of course.

PS I personally believe in the "Jesus was of a "Royal" bloodline trying to get his empire back theory" I see the Catholic church much the same way as I see the Anglo American empire today, with the church they were the backup plan (originally until they grew more powerfull and outlived impreial Rome) with the Ang/Amer empire (the crown) the same paradox may be the banks, corporatism etc ie money or even this myth of democracy. We aint seen one since Athenian Rome perhaps and even that may just have been propaganda, I am not too well researched on that for for now

reply to post by DISRAELI

Dear DISRAELI,

I'm beginning to think I shouldn't have posted. It seems I don't know what in the world the OP means.

Let me just ramble for a bit.

Are we, or is the OP saying, that Peter or the Bishop of Rome was never recognized as the head of the Christian Church? I don't think that's true, but I don't know.

When you say "He has gained that position gradually through history." What position do you mean? The head of Christianity? The head of Roman Catholicism?

I'm sure everyone knows that the Catholic Church believes there are other Christian churches besides itself.

I don't know, DISRAELI, what are we talking about? Can you clear it up for me?

With respect,
Charles1952

charles1952
When you say "He has gained that position gradually through history." What position do you mean? The head of Christianity? The head of Roman Catholicism?

I think what I meant was "the position of being able to call himself head of the church", which is something he does on the basis of being head of Roman Catholicism.
I don't believe that he is now, or has ever been, head of Christianity

I'm sure everyone knows that the Catholic Church believes there are other Christian churches besides itself.

And you see, this is the trouble, because it is evident that not every individual in the Roman Catholic church believes anything of the kind.
I've had more than one run-in, as you probably know, with one individual on this site who believes there is only one church and that the Roman Catholic church is it.
That's why I have argued more than once that the word "church" is confusing when applied to these intermediate human organisations, and should be abandoned.

If the Roman Catholic church as a whole would be willing to accept that other Christians are members of the universal church, and that their willingness or otherwise to accept the leadership of the Pope is irrelevant to their status as members of the universal church, the situation would be much healthier.

Treespeaker
reply to post by Bigwhammy

 

I would agree, the big lie starts in Nicea.

What lie? The point is the council of Nicea was not run by the pope, the lie is that the papacy began with Peter. There was no papacy even in AD 325 at Nicea.

DISRAELI

charles1952
When you say "He has gained that position gradually through history." What position do you mean? The head of Christianity? The head of Roman Catholicism?

I think what I meant was "the position of being able to call himself head of the church", which is something he does on the basis of being head of Roman Catholicism.
I don't believe that he is now, or has ever been, head of Christianity

I'm sure everyone knows that the Catholic Church believes there are other Christian churches besides itself.

And you see, this is the trouble, because it is evident that not every individual in the Roman Catholic church believes anything of the kind.
I've had more than one run-in, as you probably know, with one individual on this site who believes there is only one church and that the Roman Catholic church is it.
That's why I have argued more than once that the word "church" is confusing when applied to these intermediate human organisations, and should be abandoned.

If the Roman Catholic church as a whole would be willing to accept that other Christians are members of the universal church, and that their willingness or otherwise to accept the leadership of the Pope is irrelevant to their status as members of the universal church, the situation would be much healthier.

Catholicism is much less virulent toward other denominations than other denominations are toward Catholicism, which makes sense considering other Churches split off from Catholicism. Many denominations believe that Catholics are going to Hell, while Catholics say we are all members of the Body of Christ and some just don't have the fullness of the faith. Where other denominations say Catholics are wrong and we are right, Catholics say we are right and you are only partially right (in most cases). Catholics pray fro the unification of the Body of Christ into one Church just as Jesus did.

ghostfacekilah00
Catholicism is much less virulent toward other denominations than other denominations are toward Catholicism, which makes sense considering other Churches split off from Catholicism. Many denominations believe that Catholics are going to Hell, while Catholics say we are all members of the Body of Christ and some just don't have the fullness of the faith. Where other denominations say Catholics are wrong and we are right, Catholics say we are right and you are only partially right (in most cases). Catholics pray fro the unification of the Body of Christ into one Church just as Jesus did.

At least some of the denominations could argue, historically, that the hostility of the Roman Catholic side towards them came first, and they are only reacting in kind.
Also it isn't entirely true that Protestantism has no concern for unity.
Are you not aware of the century-old history of the Ecumenical Movement and what it has been trying to achieve?

For a viewpoint on the church which tries to escape the denominational controversy altogether, can I refer you to 1 Corinthians; Defining the church, and the succeeding threads in that series?
In a couple of days, I would be able to link you to an Index thread which brings them all together, but that isn't up yet.

ghostfacekilah00


Catholicism is much less virulent toward other denominations than other denominations are toward Catholicism, which makes sense considering other Churches split off from Catholicism. Many denominations believe that Catholics are going to Hell, while Catholics say we are all members of the Body of Christ and some just don't have the fullness of the faith. Where other denominations say Catholics are wrong and we are right, Catholics say we are right and you are only partially right (in most cases). Catholics pray fro the unification of the Body of Christ into one Church just as Jesus did.

Less virulent? Hardly... The Roman Catholics killed more Bible believing Christians in one afternoon than the pagan Roman Empire did in total. Ever heard of the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Roman Catholic mob violence against the Huguenots killed around 30,000 in a few days. How about the Spanish inquisition and the crusades... you are divorced from reality to make such an absurd assertion.

Bigwhammy

ghostfacekilah00


Catholicism is much less virulent toward other denominations than other denominations are toward Catholicism, which makes sense considering other Churches split off from Catholicism. Many denominations believe that Catholics are going to Hell, while Catholics say we are all members of the Body of Christ and some just don't have the fullness of the faith. Where other denominations say Catholics are wrong and we are right, Catholics say we are right and you are only partially right (in most cases). Catholics pray fro the unification of the Body of Christ into one Church just as Jesus did.

Less virulent? Hardly... The Roman Catholics killed more Bible believing Christians in one afternoon than the pagan Roman Empire did in total. Ever heard of the St Bartholomew's Day Massacre? Roman Catholic mob violence against the Huguenots killed around 30,000 in a few days. How about the Spanish inquisition and the crusades... you are divorced from reality to make such an absurd assertion.

There have certainly times where the average Catholics were more hostile toward other denominations, but the Crusades, the Inquisition, the execution of heretics (which are overblown by those trying to defame the Church both statistically and in terms of the Church's role in it - I can provide links if you want), indulgences, etc, were all violations of Catholic Church doctrine and abuses of authority by the Church when it ruled the western world. I should have been more clear in stating that I was referring to the state of the Body of Christ in modern times. Even the Pope is considered a sinner capable of error just like anyone else is, and is only considered infallible when teaching on Church doctrine. It is common knowledge that some of the Popes pretty much paid corrupt people to be elected to the Papacy for wealth, power, and/or to advance some Earthly agenda.

The Catholic Church has apologized for and renounced the actions of Catholics and even the Church itself in the past, but Catholics do not believe that those actions affected the infallibility of Church doctrine and its authority over what it holds is the true faith. The Catholic Reformation attempted to create a system where abuses of authority that violate Church doctrine were weeded out, the Protestant Reformation simply started a new Church saying that theirs' would be perfect. Scripture states that there will be preachers who teach false doctrine, and wolves that come in sheep's clothing, not sparing the flock, so to say that the true Church should be infallible in every aspect actually goes against Scripture. Catholics have also been persecuted throughout history.

To put it simply, the Catholic Church is not considered a museum of saints, but a hospital for sinners. Are you arguing that if 100% of the Earth's population was a member of the true Church of Christ, there would be no sin on Earth? The vast majority of the western world was Catholic during the times that you are referring to.

Also, where did you hear that Catholics killed more in the St. Bart's Massacre than Pagan Rome did and what is their primary source?

reply to post by ghostfacekilah00

The massacre was carefully planned so as to break out at the same hour in various cities and in their suburbs. By some it is supposed that at least 100,000 persons suffered death. The estimate given by Sully at 70,000, has, however, been adopted. It is pretty certain that at least 10,000 were destroyed in Paris alone, and this estimate does not include the 500 who belonged to the higher orders. It is said that "the roads were rendered almost impassable, from the corpses of men, women, and children,—a new and appalling barricade."

source: www.spurgeon.org...

reply to post by ghostfacekilah00

The succession of Pope's is actually traced without a gap all the way back to Peter.

Not by any real historian. According to the director of the Medieval Institute and Professor of history at the University of Notre Dame, Thomas F. X. Noble, the Roman Catholic dates of Peter as bishop of Rome from 42 to 67 are wrong. Noble is certainly a preeminent authority on the papacy and his lecture notes state unequivocally:

“Peter did not found the Roman community, and there is no good evidence that that community had a bishop—an ‘overseer’—in the 1st century.”

Thomas F. X. Noble, “Lecture One: What is Papal History and How Did it Begin?” notes for course, Popes and the Papacy: A History (The Teaching Company, 2006), 3.

Also the oldest church records, show that Peter’s name is conspicuously absent. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John the Apostle), listed all the Roman bishops up to the twelfth, Eleutherius. According to Irenaeus, the first bishop of Rome was not Peter but Linus. The Apostolic Constitution in the year 270 also named Linus as first bishop of Rome, allegedly appointed by the Apostle Paul.

see: Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3.3). Linus was the first bishop on the list, not Peter.

Bigwhammy
Also the oldest church records, show that Peter’s name is conspicuously absent. Irenaeus, the disciple of Polycarp (a disciple of John the Apostle), listed all the Roman bishops up to the twelfth, Eleutherius. According to Irenaeus, the first bishop of Rome was not Peter but Linus. The Apostolic Constitution in the year 270 also named Linus as first bishop of Rome, allegedly appointed by the Apostle Paul.

see: Irenaeus, Against Heresies (Book III, Chapter 3.3). Linus was the first bishop on the list, not Peter.

www.catholic.com...

reply to post by Bigwhammy

Linus was the first name on the list. Iraneus also wrote, which you just missed:

The passage by Irenaeus (Against Heresies III.3.3) reads:

After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

That's why nearly any source you care to google will give you Peter as the first bishop of Rome. Even Iranaeus agrees.

The Pope is simply the Bishop of Rome. There is historical evidence of there being such an office dating back to the Apostolic Age. Tradition is that Peter was Bishop when he was arrested and executed in Rome, personally I've always kind of questioned that -- it seems more likely that he would have stayed in or around Jerusalem, and that the location of the key leadership Bishop moved from Jerusalem to Rome when the former was sacked in 70AD.

But, regardless, because the Bishop of Rome is, obviously, a Bishop of the Roman Catholic church, both the church and that particular office trace their history back to whoever that first Bishop was, whether Peter, Linus, Cletus or Clement, all of whom have their promoters, and all of whom have a case for Apostolic Succession, which is really the matter at hand.

While I have great respect for Disraeli, I differ from him on this count, noting that only the Roman Catholic church, the eastern churches, the Church of England and the Methodist church can lay any claim to the implied authority of Apostolic Succession, and that the Roman Catholic church is the oldest of these.

OP, since you don't seem to understand who the Pope is, I'd suggest that your premise is flawed from the start. No, the Bishop of Rome did not have the level of authority in 70AD that he has today, but the office clearly had a priority position from the start, and the holder of that office has traditionally been a powerful person.

reply to post by adjensen

Dear adjensen,

Thank you, simply, thank you. My eyes are starting to cross and I'm grateful for your intervention.

With respect,
Charles1952

I forget, is the "fiction" that the Papacy is supposedly based on, that there might be some dispute over the order of the first two or three Popes? Is that all this is about? - C -