The pope is really the successor of the apostle Peter?

Discussion in 'Et Cetera, Et Cetera' started by Axcess, Dec 30, 2009.

  1. Axcess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    1,648
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gender:
    Male
    I got a question for Catholics here. The Catholic Church claims that the Popes are Peter succesors . Any evidence exists for this claim?
    I mean history evidence outside the Bible.
     
    #1 Axcess, Dec 30, 2009
    Last edited: Dec 30, 2009
  2. B_cloverboy

    B_cloverboy New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    74
    Likes Received:
    1
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Canada
    Yep, there's definitely evidence, though the evidence can be construed differently depending on what your trying to show. I'm sure you could find a listing of the Papal Succession somewhere online, but not much online is 100% trustworthy information.
     
  3. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,517
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    I'm not sure there is any actual evidence - definitely not in the Bible.

    Plus, the church at Rome changed many of the things the early Church and Apostles held onto, such as the Biblical Holy Days, saturday sabbath, etc, etc - replacing them with Christmas and Easter, and Sunday worship, etc (which were taken from Pagan religions that both the Old and New Testaments warned people away from...).

    Not at all sure Peter would approve...
     
  4. licoddi

    licoddi Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2007
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Londinium
    The whole catholic religion obviously doesn't come all done since its beginning, but it's the result of theories and discussions among philosophers and teologists, so I think it's safe to say that the Pope is St. Peter's successor because that is the interpretation that has historically emerged in the catholic tradition.
    Actually, the bible reference has always been criticised even by the first cristian late-latin writers, like Tertullian.
     
  5. Sergeant_Torpedo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,409
    Likes Received:
    4
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    And Peter acted like some modern day politician in coniving for top dog, silencing criticism. There is no greater authority than the Gospels, why people have needed well fed clerics to interpret a simple teaching is almost laughable if it wasn't so sinister. Tens of thousands of Cathar men, women and children were put to the sword by the hubris of self appointed clerics, whos main concern was weasling estates from the ignorant nobility. So they could provide for the poor? Bollocks!
     
  6. Calboner

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,026
    Albums:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2,465
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    USA
    If there is any "evidence," it is probably about as credible as the genealogy of Saint Joseph. (The Gospels of Matthew and Luke don't even agree on the name of his father, but they both purport to show that he was a descendant of King David.)
     
  7. ryan25yo

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    1,129
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    298
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Florida
    The ignorance displayed here is staggering.
    There is so much evidence in both the sub and post Apostolic Fathers of the Church that it's almost unbelievable that the question could be asked seriously (?) in this day and age!
    Many websites list these men...including pretenders and anti-popes.
    Geez!
     
  8. SpoiledPrincess

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2006
    Messages:
    8,167
    Likes Received:
    29
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    england
    I'm pretty sure (but I'm too lazy to look whereabouts it is) that Jesus himself said that his brother James was to lead his disciples after he was gone.
     
  9. Joll

    Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    Messages:
    14,517
    Albums:
    1
    Likes Received:
    723
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Wales (GB)
    I've read a certain amount about it, and don't know of any concrete evidence - if you have any, perhaps you could share it?

    I agree that there's not much evidence to support papal claims.
    The genealogies tho, are different because one is running through Mary's line - the other Joseph's (I think societal norms stated Mary's line had to be done thru Joseph, as her husband. Weird I know). They do miss out quite a few generations tho, especially in Matthew's version...

    Actually, the Cathars and Albigenses of the 10th - 14th Centuries (roughly, lol) could be partially considered the real descendants of the original church started by Jesus and the Apostles. They clung onto many ideas that had been held by the original church, before it drifted and eventually outlawed many of the traditions and beliefs that had been there at the beginning. People who stuck fast to the ways of the original church were eventually put out of it (which John alludes to, as that had happened to him) - and Paul also mentions similar things, about ministers coming in with different beliefs and a different gospel.

    I think there's very little evidence about what happened between 90 - 150 ad, approximately. The trail kinda goes silent for a while and when the curtain rises again, the church (the one that grew into the Catholic one) was very different from what it had been before.

    They had adopted Sunday worship, and weekly communion (in contradiction to the way the Apostles worshipped - which was to follow the original instructions given in the Old Testament). Also - maybe to distance themselves from Judaism after the sacking of Jerusalem in ad70 - many customs of the early church were eventually outlawed, and ppl persecuted for continuing to do them (much more so, after Christianity became the state religion a couple of centuries later).

    Just after Jesus' death there was a group around (Samaritan mystery religion i think?) led by Simon Magus, who's mentioned in the Bible. He held ancient babylonian beliefs, including celebrations on dec 25th etc. Umm, he held the title 'pater' - as did his successors. Their beliefs are very similar to the ones which later surfaced in Rome, so the 'Pater'/'Peter' confusion could be partly what leads ppl to believe the real Peter was the head of the Rome church.

    There is very little evidence in the Bible to support Peter being in Rome. I believe his letters are apparently written from Babylon - which is nowhere near Rome, lol. He may have visited Rome, sure, but I don't think it says either way.
     
    #9 Joll, Dec 30, 2009
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 30, 2009
Draft saved Draft deleted