The Supremacy of the Romish Church

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

Papal claims of supremacy are mostly based on Jesus' statement to Peter, when he says "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church" (Matthew 16:18).

But when you consider other passages, this is clearly something not designated specifically to Peter. For example, at another time, the church is said to be "built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone" (Ephesians 2:20). Furthermore, it is clear enough beyond the 4 Gospels that when seen in the later Acts, Peter was never seen as having any more power over the other apostles, but was simply one of the twelve, not their master.When he writes to pastors, he adresses them as equals (1 Pet v1), in other places, he takes orders from his colleagues, such as when he is sent to Samaria (Acts 8:14). Not to mention the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul clearly describes himself as being the equal of Peter as an apostle (Gal 1:18).

Also, even if it is presumed that Peter had some special authority, he served far longer at Antioch well before he ever went to Rome, so if any sort of special attachment was to be claimed for a particular city, Rome hardly seems appropriate.

So, how is this Romish doctrine justified?

[sirfiggin]

bcause it's really really old. Think that's about it, when you get down to it

[cfmonkey45]

It's not. However, Rome was the only Patriachate in the Latin Rite, and until the Renaissance, there were few, but notable, spurts of intellectual osmosis between the Eastern Greek-speaking Byzantine Empire, and the Western realms. In the East, Latin was dead, and in the West, Greek was lost. The two had to devote substantial effort to bridge the gap, but this was rarely optimal. The West instead drew rather heavily, intellectually speaking, from Toledo, which had one of the largest libraries in the world at that time.

Although, to expound on this further, there are other substantial differences between Eastern and Western theology in Christendom. Eastern Orthodoxy, if I am not mistaken, does not have a history or even a belief in Original Sin, and neither a literal hell. From what I understand, Heaven and Hell, to them, are the same place, just your attitude towards God (love/hate, dictated by sinfulness) determine suffering/pleasure.

[Red_legged_devils]

This thred is an epic fail Romish? and the photo with out even touching the topic make this thred eligible for deleteing The next time you wish to apporch someone about there Church, or Religion learn some manners and leave the nonsense jibs and jabs out of your opening statements

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

This thred is an epic fail Romish? and the photo with out even touching the topic make this thred eligible for deleteing The next time you wish to apporch someone about there Church, or Religion learn some manners and leave the nonsense jibs and jabs out of your opening statements

Nice job of not answering any of the points I made.

Really, if you want to claim superiority for your church over all the Orthodox churches that have just as long a tradition, or all the Protestant churches that broke from your own once they were able to free the Gospel from the chains of Popery, then you could at least try to answer these uncomfortable truths contained in the very scripture itself!

[Monarchist]

Nice job of not answering any of the points I made.

Really, if you want to claim superiority for your church over all the Orthodox churches that have just as long a tradition, or all the Protestant churches that broke from your own once they were able to free the Gospel from the chains of Popery, then you could at least try to answer these uncomfortable truths contained in the very scripture itself!

The chains of Popery... where have I heard such language before?

Oh! April 27, 1679:

"From popery came the notion of a standing army and arbitrary power... Formerly the crown of Spain, and now France, supports this root of popery amongst us; but lay popery flat, and there's an end of arbitrary government and power. It is a mere chimera, or notion, without popery."

I just love those charming Low Church, Presbyterian, and Calvinist types. Everything, to them, is either Popish or non-Popish, and the rest can go rot.

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

The ordinary Catholic has no right to clamour for reform if they truly hold to their faith, since the Pope has been infallible since 1870 (I wonder if he was infallible when he said he was infallible, or if he's not infallible because he couldn't have been infallible before he said he was ).

I just love those charming Low Church, Presbyterian, and Calvinist types. Everything, to them, is either Popish or non-Popish, and the rest can go rot.

I acknowledged the claims of the Orthodox churches before I even mentioned the Protestant side of things. Although it is natural for a Presbyterian to focus on western Christianity, since they are a product of it.

Furthermore, I object to this portrayal of Presbyterianism as being some sort of "low church" (something unique to the Church of England btw), anti-intellectual branch of Christianity - a cursory glance at the writings of some of the Reformed theologians ought to prove otherwise.

[Red_legged_devils]

Nice job of not answering any of the points I made.

Really, if you want to claim superiority for your church over all the Orthodox churches that have just as long a tradition, or all the Protestant churches that broke from your own once they were able to free the Gospel from the chains of Popery, then you could at least try to answer these uncomfortable truths contained in the very scripture itself!

I seen no points worthy of answering, You like the man in your photo are both a bit outdated and behind the times, The catholic church does not feel it self surperior to the orthodox churchs again your falling far behind on times, infact the orthodox churchs and the catholic churchs have reached many agreements the last few years and have been moveing closer togather, as have many church of england church returning to the catholic church among others, so whatever point your trying to make dosent seem to have affected anyone in the topic, infact it appers they are talking about other things rather then YOUR threads topic, Could it be that MOST So called modern protestant churchs no longer care to try and go out of there way distinguish themselfs from catholics?? Hell most non-catholic non orthodox chuchs couldnet careless what the catholic church does there not protesting there not trying to prove anything reform anything they just live there life lol basicly They have Moved ON! They get along well with the catholic churchs in there communities hell even the muslims in most parts of the middle east get along with the catholics So why is it you backwards (Retrobates) Can't seem to let people around you live in peace?

[Caledonian Rhyfelwyr]

I seen no points worthy of answering, You like the man in your photo are both a bit outdated and behind the times, The catholic church does not feel it self surperior to the orthodox churchs again your falling far behind on times,

Behind the times? The dogma of Rome remains much the same, all that has changed is that most Protestants have become more liberal and are more willing to accept the Pope as a spiritual leader. And the Church of Rome does still regard itself as superior, the Pope is supposedly the infallible Vicar of Christ, a title not afforded to any other religious leader. It seems there is a gap between what you (and any ordinary Catholic) believes, and what the official Roman stance actually is.

infact the orthodox churchs and the catholic churchs have reached many agreements the last few years and have been moveing closer togather, as have many church of england church returning to the catholic church among others,

And..... all this shows is more people willing to submit to Rome, such is the ecumenical trend these days. You think just because Rome is willing to merge with other religions means it is giving up its supremacy? Far from it, is is adapting to keep its power (as it has always done), why do you think they are building a palace of all religions in Rome, if it wasn't to keep the cities place as the spiritual centre on earth?

so whatever point your trying to make dosent seem to have affected anyone in the topic, infact it appers they are talking about other things rather then YOUR threads topic, Could it be that MOST So called modern protestant churchs no longer care to try and go out of there way distinguish themselfs from catholics??

What do you mean my point hasn't affected anyone? There seems to have been a concensus with everyone apart from yourself right from the first reply. And my points from the OP still stand btw - if Peter was given the authority which you claim he was, then why does he act as an equal to all the apostles consistently throughout the rest of the scripture?

Hell most non-catholic non orthodox chuchs couldnet careless what the catholic church does there not protesting there not trying to prove anything reform anything they just live there life lol basicly They have Moved ON! They get along well with the catholic churchs in there communities hell even the muslims in most parts of the middle east get along with the catholics So why is it you backwards (Retrobates) Can't seem to let people around you live in peace?

lol at the irony of a Catholic calling others backwards. How long did it take you to say sorry to Galileo?

[removeduser_487563287433]

It's pretty obvious that the pope has no spiritual justification for his authority. It's politics, a power game, the god dimension is used to exploit the stupid.

[Red_legged_devils]

It's pretty obvious that the pope has no spiritual justification for his authority. It's politics, a power game, the god dimension is used to exploit the stupid.

After following your line of thinking for sometime now your posts most Obviously resemble more on the level of hate speech rather then anything imformative or educated. Mostly one liner lashing out or sarcastic rants about what someone repllying to the oringinal post usely off topic makeing one wonder if you even got past the second sentience of most of the threads you post on before you hit the reply tab??

[removeduser_487563287433]

After following your line of thinking for sometime now your posts most Obviously resemble more on the level of hate speech rather then anything imformative or educated. Mostly one liner lashing out or sarcastic rants about what someone repllying to the oringinal post usely off topic makeing one wonder if you even got past the second sentience of most of the threads you post on before you hit the reply tab??

Yeah I'm no fan of the Catholic Church. I wouldn't classify it as hate speech. I'm not saying go out and up Catholics. But I do firmly believe that if you hold Christian beliefs, i.e. love thy neighbour, behave, make plum jam on Sundays and what not - then you shouldn't need to fund an institution that protects and enables paedophiles and lies about the effectiveness of condoms in AIDs ravaged areas in order to practice those beliefs.

I don't think that's unreasonable of me.

One liners? You're not the first to accuse me of this as if it's a bad thing. In fact, I suspect that's the point. You've seen somebody else say it to me and you're repeating it rather than figuring some criticism of your own. But it's going to fall on deaf ears, I simply do not care. Do you know, I dug up my old school reports and found one when I was about seven saying "Tom writes great but he never writes anything longer than necessary?" So this is a pretty ingrained part of my character. If I can put across my point in a single line, well, for me that's the best you can get in terms of debating. If you write an essay, on the other hand, that is neither clear nor insightful - then it's completely worthless.

So yeah, I'm going to write the minimum required to deliver my message. Now, I have no idea who the Hell you are, so I am being patient and explaining this to you nice and slowly. It's not something I will do twice, and if you ever post something as stupid as this again, criticising my writing style while not even attempting to tackle the substance of the post itself - well - I will unleash all the foul Gods of spleen that reside within my soul.

[Red_legged_devils]

Yeah I'm no fan of the Catholic Church. I wouldn't classify it as hate speech. I'm not saying go out and up Catholics. But I do firmly believe that if you hold Christian beliefs, i.e. love thy neighbour, behave, make plum jam on Sundays and what not - then you shouldn't need to fund an institution that protects and enables paedophiles and lies about the effectiveness of condoms in AIDs ravaged areas in order to practice those beliefs.

I don't think that's unreasonable of me.

One liners? You're not the first to accuse me of this as if it's a bad thing. In fact, I suspect that's the point. You've seen somebody else say it to me and you're repeating it rather than figuring some criticism of your own. But it's going to fall on deaf ears, I simply do not care. Do you know, I dug up my old school reports and found one when I was about seven saying "Tom writes great but he never writes anything longer than necessary?" So this is a pretty ingrained part of my character. If I can put across my point in a single line, well, for me that's the best you can get in terms of debating. If you write an essay, on the other hand, that is neither clear nor insightful - then it's completely worthless.

So yeah, I'm going to write the minimum required to deliver my message. Now, I have no idea who the Hell you are, so I am being patient and explaining this to you nice and slowly. It's not something I will do twice, and if you ever post something as stupid as this again, criticising my writing style while not even attempting to tackle the substance of the post itself - well - I will unleash all the foul Gods of spleen that reside within my soul.

(Giggles at the Rage)

[removeduser_487563287433]

(Giggles at the Rage)

Dude, there's people here I've shouted at for six years and they can't inspire rage in me. You barely even register on my emotional horizon.

[Fiyenyaa]

(Giggles at the Rage)

I suppose it's easier to laugh than take a critical look at the organisation to which you belong and clamour for reform?

[Monarchist]

...you shouldn't need to fund an institution that protects and enables paedophiles and lies about the effectiveness of condoms in AIDs ravaged areas in order to practice those beliefs.

Your obsession with constantly highlighting these faults is as intense as SigniferOne's obsession with constantly highlighting Stalin's atheism. Do you not scold the latter for using the same points over and over again? It becomes tiresome after the first few dozen repeats, on either side.

To the O.P.:

I do believe there was a certain gathering of Christians early in the Acts wherein James, not Paul, held sway over a particularly large chorus of Christians. They were likely in Antioch, and James led the meeting admirably. Paul was either not at that meeting or had little to say in the matter. It's a shame I can't find the exact passage right now, but I do remember quite vividly that Peter was not the central figure in this rather large council I am referring to. Anyway, the Bible seems to point to the supremacy of all the Apostles and everyone who listens to them!

Peter was quite aware of the importance of Alexandria, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome in his time. The mere idea of one man informing the doctrine of every other Christian on Earth does sound a little pompous to me, though (and I hate Protestantism).

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

It's pretty obvious that the pope has no spiritual justification for his authority. It's politics, a power game, the god dimension is used to exploit the stupid.

Oh no, positivist logic.

@OP,

Oh no, another seriously deluded anti-Catholic picturesque rant by a British member. At least he's true to his witch burning Protestant roots.

Seriously, are you afraid the pope is going to ritually sacrifice the infant Britannia?

[justicar5]

Oh no, positivist logic.

@OP,

Oh no, another seriously deluded anti-Catholic picturesque rant by a British member. At least he's true to his witch burning Protestant roots.

Seriously, are you afraid the pope is going to ritually sacrifice the infant Britannia?

he tried dozens of times, and the master of the inquisitions cult of hate is the worst of the abrhamic faiths.

[basics]

" the Pope is supposedly the infallible Vicar of Christ,....."

Of all the gifts given to the people of God this just happens not to be one of them. Neither is Holy Father if one considers that Jesus, who is God, said to call no man father except your Father which is in heaven. So is the Pope that Father?

You can see this is what happens whenever people go outside of the Scriptures. They end up in sandy ground which has no foundation, notice I emphasise in sandy ground rather than on. I would dearly love to hear Peter's comments on all that has been attributed to him.

The keys or key supposedly given to the disciples and Peter in particular regarding salvation cannot be in the hands of any man because only God can save, can regenerate or as Jesus said, build His church. So what was the meaning behind the misrepresented verses.

The secret that is no secret was what Peter said of Jesus, that He was the Christ, the Son of the living God. That is what saves. That is what the Father reveals to any recipient when they are brought to Christ. The revealing shows them what Christ Jesus did for them at the cross. Not Peter, not John or anyone else but the Lord Jesus Christ.

So it is the message that is the key, something we now call the Gospel. And the simplest thing is anyone can proclaim it and do, thus bringing many to Christ, Him becoming their Lord and Saviour. It is written that the Gospel is the power of God to save, the very thing that Peter himself strained to do when bishops were introduced into the church.

But we know that this message was abused severely by the early infighting among the bishops when thousands were killed for something that was not of God but the institutions being built by men. The sword was used where God was not and many many people paid with their lives to satisfy the whims of these men. That never was Christianity nor was it meant to be.

[sirfiggin]

Oh no, positivist logic.

@OP,

Oh no, another seriously deluded anti-Catholic picturesque rant by a British member. At least he's true to his witch burning Protestant roots.

Seriously, are you afraid the pope is going to ritually sacrifice the infant Britannia?

His comments mark him out as secular. Bringing Anglicanism into the picture will only make him rofl, and as for witch burning, you'll find that england was not the most witch-burny mad; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch_t...ope#Executions

europe needs to share the blame for those dark days