Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
That's not exactly true. He did have authority, but it's up to you whether he has authority over you. It's much like an idol having worshippers. If no-one worshipped the carved block of rock, it would cease to be an idol. It's the same with papal authority. The Pope only has authority over those who submit to it. That's it. The choice is ours.
If A seeks to assert ecclesiastical authority over B, but lacks power (be it physically or by persuasion and fear of damnation) to force B's submission, then it is B's choice whether to submit to A's authority. If A doesn't seek to assert such authority over B, then A's power to force submission is irrelevant and it is always B's choice whether to acknowledge A's authority.
Peter's primacy and apostolic succession are different topics, but related. It makes no sense to establish a church only to have the office of the appointed leader disappear with his death.
Your presupposition of "ecclesiastical authority" is false, it violates religious freedom. ecclesiastical authority cannot impose truths. Truths can only be proposed to those who are disposed to receive it. There is no forced submission. Despite the actions of a few power hungry kings, forced conversions have never been recognized as valid by the Church. You sound like Brakelite.
Yes, but on the grounds of reason.
Agreed, but again, forced submission exists only in the minds of radical quasi-Christian cults that popped up <200 years ago.
The CC has never forced starving non-Catholics to eat food.
Jesus said the following to the leaders of the Church He was building:
So, what we gave here is either blatant dishonesty or total ignorance of the Word of God.
your education has a rather strong odor to it . IT cometh of men gone wrong .
That's because you have your “anti-Catholic glasses” on.
You can choose to live in denial and dishonesty – but the facts are clear.
I agree with this as far as the public sinners is concerned. However, a number of recent encyclicals are quite clear that Catholic social policy is that which is promoted as the only direction governments should take into the future. Such policy, the writers of such encyclicals have directed, should have, in Benedict's own words, teeth. In other words, those policies should be enacted in law to enforce them. That sounds to me very much like the Vatican would very much like the world to accept Catholic teachings on various subjects such as climate change, economy, and Sunday sacredness.
Historically, such choices for the common people was a bit thin on the ground. And what if those leaders taught rubbish? Did Jesus still expect people to listen as if it were Him speaking?
No pope taught in the scriptures Therefore its heresy to claim a position of power that God never authorized.
In personal practice – everybody is capable of error.
Historically, leaders who taught rubbish were heretics. They caused much confusion. That's why councils were held. Your sect rejects all councils, leaving you open to fall for the rubbish refuted by the same councils.
Obviously dead popes don't appoint successors, although they could appoint a successor while alive. Peter's successor, if elected or unanimously acclaimed, must have been elected or unanimously acclaimed the Bishop of Rome by some subset of Church leaders. Where is the legitimacy in that? I don't know how many of the original apostles were still alive, nor of those who were, how many participated in this election or acclamation -- or how many even knew much about Linus, who "some say, was second Bishop of the Church of Rome after Peter" (John Chrysostom, Homily 10 on Second Timothy). Clearly this was nothing like the election of Matthias to take Judas's place. By the time Peter died, the living original apostles were spread around the world. With fair seas, word of his death could travel from Rome to, say, Palestine in about two months. Are you suggesting that the call went out from Rome for electing his successor everywhere in the Mediterranean world, and successfully garnered unanimous support of bishops OUTSIDE OF ITALY?
I know of no such precedence.
Where is the legitimacy in drawing straws? Unless all the candidates to replace Judas were qualified. There is no "subset of church leaders" in Acts 1.
Peter was martyred around 64 A.D. in Rome. I don't think the original 11 Apostles travelled the world without planes and helicopters in such a short period of time.
Clement I was the 4rth pope when the Apostle John was still alive. Why wasn't John the pope?
