How do Protestants cope with the fact that all church leaders and teachers in the Bible were either appointed by Christ or the apostles or those appoi...

How do Protestants cope with the fact that all church leaders and teachers in the Bible were either appointed by Christ or the apostles or those appointed by them? In other words there are no examples of unauthorized people being recognized as valid leaders, or of believers electing their own leaders (except for small 9:38-41). All normal leaders and teachers in the Bible emanate from a chain starting with Jesus. How do Protestants cope with that?

Old thread died

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

Rise, Grind, Banana Find Shirt $21.68

Beware Cat Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >small 9:38-41
    Mark 9:38-41

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Considering the earliest transcripts of the New Testament were written decades after the purported crucifixion by second-third hand sources, this argument kind of falls apart. You know the Disciples weren't the ones actually writing the stories down, right?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      My argument is addressed to Bible-believing Christians.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        If you really believed in your religion something tells me you would've studied its history on your own by now and wouldn't have made this thread in the first place. You strike me as more a "Christian in name only" like most of the Christians on IQfy

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Thanks for the input!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're welcome

      • 2 months ago
        Your catechism is just a Roman Talmud, faggot.

        >How do Protestants cope with the fact that all church leaders and teachers in the Bible were either appointed by Christ or the apostles or those appointed by them?
        Don't read the old-testament, and don't question the baseless assertions you've been brainwashed to believe over the years, moron.

        >All normal leaders and teachers in the Bible emanate from a chain starting with Jesus. How do Protestants cope with that?
        How do crypto-israelite catholics cope with the fact that they're morons who think their mental gymnastics and false appeals to so-called authority of man justify their sins while being completely ignorant of Scripture or the fact that they're still dumb subhuman animals who think all Protestants are a single unified cult with a cult leader like their gay israelite pope who's almost definitely raped kids like the rest of the 90%+ of the vatican which are homosexuals/sodomites?

        Your catechism is just a Roman Talmud, homosexual.

        It's hilarious how you cathocultists differentiate yourselves from people who actually believe God's Word.

        The early church tradition is universally that Peter died upside down on a cross in Rome. Rage against this tradition at your own peril.

        The early church is the church of the New Testament, you cathotroony. No mention of that in Scripture. Go put on a dress and have men bow to you and call you "father", homosexual.

        Daily reminder that
        >No evidence exists that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome
        >Peter never exercised his authority as leader of the church through the office of the Bishop of Rome
        >Peter never attached his authority to any particular administrative position, much less a particular regional Bishopric
        >Peter nor Jesus never laid down a mechanism through which the authority granted to Peter could be transferred to another individual.
        >Peter never stated that his position as head of the church was a permanent fixture meant to be replicated.
        >The Bishops of Rome did not claim Peter was the first Bishop of Rome until they conveniently "remembered" it more than two centuries after the fact.
        >The Bishops of Rome somehow "forgot" they were in charge of the church for hundreds of years while being appointed and dismissed by an Emperor they pledged spiritual subservience to, or even following the orders of The Bishop of Milan as a “higher ranking” Bishop.

        Cathoisraelites don't care about the truth. All they care about is MUH TRADITION while they use israeli pilpul and semantics from theory israelite/Roman Talmud/Catcheism.

        Today's Catholics are just pharisees but worse.

        Even Orthodox begrudgingly agree on Roman primacy via Peter. This FUD is weaksauce compared to millennia of evidence.

        [...]
        > Do you think the early church was infallible or something?
        Yes, same as today. The church is indeed infallible.

        >Even Orthodox begrudgingly agree on Roman primacy via Peter. This FUD is weaksauce compared to millennia of evidence.
        Just more appeals to authority.

        Of course a FALSE RELIGIOUS SYSTEM which relies on the SAME FALSE CLAIM TO AUTHORITY will try to reinforce the lies, you dumb naive idiot.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Weird picture. The pope I know is closer to the left image than to the right one. Pic related, doesn't look like a tyrant people bow down to.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      John wrote John you moron

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    UH OH YOU'RE GONNA UPSET THE DIRK OP

    DIRK
    THE MAN WITH A REFORMED SMIRK

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >All normal leaders and teachers in the Bible emanate from a chain starting with Jesus.
    you have failed to make your point, but maybe you are just a troll, like almost every OP on this godforsaken board, and you just want to dodge arguments with "I never said that", in which case you should have a nice day post haste, also burst in the middle etc. if you are genuine, then explain: what the everloving frick does being "authorized in a chain" have to do with the possibility of the church drifting away from the original teaching? do you not believe in the free will of those people to frick up? because that's the protestant position: that the catholic church drifted away from the original teaching over time. so you can now cease with these inane threads, with "how do protestants cope with [aggressive misunderstanding of protestant position]" and all that. or show some respect, first of all by not using the puerile word 'cope', okay?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      > you are genuine, then explain: what does being "authorized in a chain" have to do with the possibility of the church drifting away from the original teaching?
      So you acknowledge the existence of a historically authorized central church. Do you really think God would abandon the historically authorized church even after He said He wouldn’t? Wouldn’t that make Him a liar?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        You might hold the church to be unauthorized due to your personal misapprehension, but it's actually authorized by God in reality.

        >Do you really think God would abandon the historically authorized church even after He said He wouldn’t?
        I'm not that anon, but I don't think this. The historical church was never abandoned. You are just confused and think that a cult which went off the deep end and has been teaching heresy since a long time ago is that church. It's a case of mistaken identity. I'm perfectly glad to keep saying this every single time the question gets asked.
        >Wouldn’t that make Him a liar?
        No, because the historically authorized church is not Catholicism. The church has existed since long before that cult was founded, as it goes back to the apostles and Christ. That is also where we ultimately get our Bible from, as the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > You might hold the church to be unauthorized due to your personal misapprehension, but it's actually authorized by God in reality
          The God of the Bible is not seen conjuring churches out from among the people randomly; the church of the Bible is a Petrine monarchical episcopate that builds on itself and propagates. Whoever authorized your church is not Jesus Christ.
          > That is also where we ultimately get our Bible from, as the church is the pillar and ground of the truth.
          The Catholic Church is the historic Church going back to Christ, purchased with His precious blood. She brought the world the Bible. No one dispute this and no other Church can possibly claim such Petrine heritage or primacy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Catholic Church is the historic Church
            My church is original and historical, while Catholicism came much later, several hundred years later.
            >The God of the Bible is not seen conjuring churches out from among the people randomly
            Churches are started by other churches. Ultimately this goes back to the original church founded by our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

            There are many fakes and "false apostles" as Paul described them that have appeared in the intervening time between then and now. Marcionites are one such fake church, and later Catholicism appeared as yet another false church. Of course, they lie about who they are but their corrupt works expose them for who they really are. As our Lord said, the good tree is known by his fruits. A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree bring forth good.

            "Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
            Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
            A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
            Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
            Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."
            - Matthew 7:16-20

            >the church of the Bible is a Petrine monarchical episcopate that builds on itself and propagates.
            The church does indeed represent the kingdom of God. It says we are ambassadors of Christ. And the king is of course the Lord Jesus Christ.

            The idea that Peter instead of Christ is the king seems to be fanfiction, or something made up for political advantage as the word of God nowhere says that. You won't find the Scripture calling Peter the King. In fact, Peter himself reports that Christ is our head, see 1 Peter 3:2-7. It's shameful in my view that anyone would doubt what the apostles themselves said about Christ being King, and believe the embellishment created by a mere cult instead of the Bible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >no
            >repeat original assertion.
            Reading this thread and I come to the conclusion that this is all that person says.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Catholicism appeared as yet another false church. Of course, they lie about who they are
            Who do Catholics say they are?
            >their corrupt works expose them for who they really are. As our Lord said, the good tree is known by his fruits. A good tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit, nor a corrupt tree bring forth good.
            So Jesus lied when he said God would never abandon the Biblical church?
            > It's shameful in my view that anyone would doubt what the apostles themselves said about Christ being King, and believe the embellishment created by a mere cult instead of the Bible
            You act like it’s some evil plot. It’s just apostolic succession applied rigorously.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >So Jesus lied when he said God would never abandon the Biblical church?
            The Biblical church is still here, anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Biblical church was appointed by Jesus Christ and apostles and appointees of the apostles and it self-propagated in like manner, creating an authorized chain linking to Peter that Jesus Christ promised to Peter’s face would never fail. I cannot make it more explicit!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Do you think the Biblical church is not still here? Otherwise why disagree with my post, anon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I guess I agree with what you wrote. Do you think the Church is going to have all the trappings of something that is 2,000 years old?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Do you think the Church is going to have all the trappings of something that is 2,000 years old?
            Yes, and that's why everything confirms the legacy of the Holy Bible as an authentic and preserved ancient Scripture. This is what we have received from the apostles, handed down from them and miraculously, infallibly preserved.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You think the Bible is the only 2,000 year-old thing in the church? Wouldn’t other elements be equally ancient for such an old group that Christ originally promised to preserve and maintain the unity of? You do agree that the practice of Christianity is a 2,000 year-old tradition don't you?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You do agree that the practice of Christianity is a 2,000 year-old tradition don't you?
            Yes.

            >Wouldn’t other elements be equally ancient
            The deposit of faith is contained in Scripture, and the church is an ancient institution, established by the Lord and going back to the apostles themselves, who keeps God's word in truth. Scripture also contains everything that we believe as absolute truth, and with the help of God, we can have unity around that no matter what day it is. For as Christ said in Matthew 28:20, "and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen."

            Peter taught that the word of God is unique because it is incorruptible. Paul taught that it is able to give us an inheritance among all them that are sanctified. He also says that all Scripture is not only necessary, but also is sufficient for all doctrine. I'll provide quotations below:

            "Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
            For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
            But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
            - 1 Peter 1:23-25

            "And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified."
            - Acts 20:28-32

            "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
            That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
            - 2 Timothy 3:16-17

            Notice especially what it says in verse 17 above. All scripture was given so that the man of God may be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            How do you see church leadership in the Bible as being man-made as opposed to God-appointed (through Christ, the apostles, the disciples of the apostles, and their likewise appointees)? Whether you believe it to be inherently Petrine or not, Jesus clearly sets in motion a structured apostolic machinery that builds on itself and propagates, which He say will always have God leading it.
            > Scripture also contains everything that we believe as absolute truth
            So the incarnation is the Word made flesh, but you worship an abstract Christ who comes to you exclusively in the written word without any 2,000 year-old continuity other than that?
            >And now, brethren, I commend you to God, and to the word of his grace, which is able to build you up, and to give you an inheritance among all them which are sanctified.
            >Acts 20:28-32
            What do you interpret the word of his grace to be? A copy of the New Testament?
            > Notice especially what it says in verse 17 above. All scripture was given so that the man of God may be "perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works."
            Doesn’t exclude the need for church leadership. The Bible strongly emphasizes church leadership actually, and devotes many pages and verses to talking about its fine points and roles, teaching being a very important one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The thing that will never fail is not Peter and his supposed “successors” but the common Christian faith that whoever believes in Jesus is built on this rock (Christ) and will attain salvation even against all the gates of hell. Whoever does not believe in Christ is not built on this rock (Christ) and must be damned with all the gates of hell. Christ is the rock upon which he will build his church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That's right, amen. Seems somebody was reading the Gospel of Matthew.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah, Christ is identified as the rock/stone that destroys all the kingdoms represented by the statue in the dream Daniel interpreted. He was never referring that the church would be established because of Peter, even though he was instrumental in it's development.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The thing that will never fail is not Peter and his supposed “successors” but the common Christian faith
            Yeah sorry. The fact that I very easily see that apostolic succession is in the Bible, it means that at the very least, if I agreed with you that Christianity would live on not in Peter but in a gaggle of common people—as opposed to through the Petrine monarchical episcopate—I would be Orthodox.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is not in the Bible. And it is historically unverifiable.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Simple verifiable claim: the Biblical church has appointed leadership.
            Your only counter-claim is that they all died and left the world without leadership in their death. Even though church leadership eventually systematized and approved the Bible, by grace I might add.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That is not the exact definition of apostalic succession. It is a doctrinal development. Bishops and presbyters were created in the nt. Succession of persons is only helpful as long as those people retain the apostalic teaching. Succession of persons without succession of doctrine is worthless. It’s not even a mark of the church because other groups that aren’t the church can have succession of persons. The mark of the church is the succession of apostle’s doctrine as taught in the New Testament. Part of this teaching is that the whole church has the authority to elect and ordain ministers and the church puts those men into the ministry by those who has already been placed in those ministers meaning bishops and presbyters.

            > The papacy was not founded by Jesus or existed in the early church despite being authoritatively declared to be the “constant belief of every age,” by the 19th century Pope Leo XIII. It began as an abuse of its pre-eminent honor that was declared by others in the early church. It began with Pope Leo the great not Jesus or Peter.
            Church leadership did start with Jesus and Peter. That leadership continued on. It’s been interpreted in different ways throughout the ages. Many rebuked the Pope and criticized him in the Great Church. Many rebuke and criticize the Pope in Catholicism today. Many traditions such as Eastern Orthodoxy basically exist entirely just to hold the Pope to standards the Papacy itself set as the example in the first millennium starting with Peter. You agree that Rome has always had pre-eminent honour, but you want to abandon it because of this honour’s abuse. I wouldn’t say that is a good reason to abandon the church that God sealed with singularity in the New Testament. Speaking honestly.

            The papacy is not church leadership in the Bible and the early church. It began in the 5th century with Pope Leo the great. You’re changing words.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Succession of persons is only helpful as long as those people retain the apostalic teaching
            Helpful why?
            > It’s not even a mark of the church because other groups that aren’t the church can have succession of persons
            Not that are in common union with the Great Church/Peter.
            > Part of this teaching is that the whole church has the authority to elect and ordain ministers
            This is where you got unBiblical.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >helpful why
            Why don’t you address this post here and you get your answer

            https://i.imgur.com/0lzlSl2.jpg

            >Yes, same as today. The church is indeed infallible.
            Wow! I guess that means gay marriage is accepted then. Let’s Go!

            >this is where you got unbiblical
            Acts 6:3.
            They seek the peoples consent and suffrage in the election of the deacons. Timothy is the example that presbyters can ordain. 1 Timothy 4:14.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Acts 6:3
            The apostles maintain the authority to lay hands on and ordain the selected men, aligning with Catholic understanding of apostolic authority. (For the record, involvement of the wider community in selecting candidates is a principle that’s still relevant in the Church today.)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Presbyters can ordain because scripturally there is no distinction between bishop and presbyter. The distinction is by human right not divine right. Just as the custom that bishops are the ones who ordain suitable men to ministry is by human arrangement not divine right.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It’s still appointed leaders appointing more appointed leaders, whether the people get consultation or not.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That’s not apostalic succession then just the divine call and ordination.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            In Catholic Christianity, ordination is viewed as a sacrament, which means it is considered both a divine act and a calling, rather than merely a human action. And it links the priest to the apostles and Peter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Why don’t you address this post here and you get your answer
            Plenty of apologetics out there for that just do a quick Google. That’s an easy one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You’re avoiding what that means in rafts to apostalic succession and apostalic teaching. Bishops with supposed apostalic succession are going against apostolic teaching in fiducia supplicans.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Sure. State why you said successions of persons is “helpful”?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The papacy is not church leadership in the Bible and the early church. It began in the 5th century with Pope Leo the great. You’re changing words.
            Something like the Papacy can’t just “emerge”. It only can exist if there has always been someone seen as the leader who passed that status down. Being the centralizing force in Christ’s church is not a position that arises chaotically or something you can just stumble into by accident.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Didn’t exist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Patristics
            - Irenaeus (2nd century) wrote about the authority of the Bishop of Rome in "Against Heresies."
            - Tertullian (late 2nd to early 3rd century) also referenced the Roman bishop's authority.
            >Historical Lists of Bishops
            - These lists, such as the one by Irenaeus, date from the 2nd century and thereafter.
            >Papal Claims and Actions
            - Pope Clement I’s letter to the Corinthian church, one of the earliest examples of a Roman bishop acting with authority, dates from the late 1st century.
            >Council Involvement
            - Bishops of Rome were involved in early church councils and disputes from the 2nd century onwards.
            >Martyrdom of Peter in Rome
            - Tradition holds that Peter was martyred in Rome in the mid-to-late 1st century, under Emperor Nero.

            Not at all hard to find this info, all of which wider Christendom generally agrees with.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes the apostle Paul was in Rome and there was a church there. It doesn't legitimate a cult leader who invents a concept of succession that isn't Biblical, fabricating history along the way to connect himself to the historical churches in Rome.

            Also, that fabrication of history doesn't even help them. According to the book of Revelation, it is possible for some churches to be in the faith, but at some point a church at a particular place might fall and begin teaching heresy, at which point they no longer are a church. But the other churches remain true to the deposit of faith, which is God's word, and the succession of congregational church polity always continues as it did in the New Testament.

            What this means is that: if your church has institutional continuity to a faithful church, but then at some future point everyone in that local church body apostasizes and starts teaching false doctrine, like denying that Christ is God for example, then the people who do that have lost their validity as a church. This is true, despite being institutionally connected to an originally faithful Trinitarian church, and maybe using the same building that the believers once used. So, even supposing that this was the first or second century, and you could show a real institutional connection of your church to the first church or to a church literally started by an apostle, if your church later began teaching false doctrine at some point then you would not be a valid church anymore. However, others would still be carrying the torch. And there will always be true churches somewhere even to this day, which would have the authority of Christ their founder.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > According to the book of Revelation, it is possible for some churches to be in the faith, but at some point a church at a particular place might fall and begin teaching heresy, at which point they no longer are a church
            That’s the whole point of Rome, to ensure orthodoxy and ensure that never ever happens. No other church/see can guarantee that scripturally, and using catholic Christian tradition.
            > But the other churches remain true to the deposit of faith, which is God's word, and the succession of congregational church polity always continues as it did in the New Testament
            Orthodox ecclesiology has some merit, but friendship/union with Peter is an important element of orthodox (ie RC) Christianity, and always has been.
            > What this means is that: if your church has institutional continuity to a faithful church, but then at some future point everyone in that local church body apostasizes and starts teaching false doctrine, like denying that Christ is God for example, then the people who do that have lost their validity as a church. This is true, despite being institutionally connected to an originally faithful Trinitarian church, and maybe using the same building that the believers once used. So, even supposing that this was the first or second century, and you could show a real institutional connection of your church to the first church or to a church literally started by an apostle, if your church later began teaching false doctrine at some point then you would not be a valid church anymore
            This generally doesn’t happen if the church was founded by another apostle with a share in the Petrine keys.
            > there will always be true churches somewhere even to this day, which would have the authority of Christ their founder
            Amen, honestly. That’s wholesome.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >This generally doesn’t happen if the church was founded by another apostle with a share in the Petrine keys.
            Well at least some of their churches are still here, since one church can be moved by God to create several more. That's how congregational polity works, it's self-replicating.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All they have to do is fabricate a connection from their earliest historical (cult) leader to Peter, which is exactly what happened here. The earliest part is entirely fabricated, in addition to the obvious factor that is visible to anyone of running afoul of the entire Bible and what it actually teaches.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lol the resurrection is true, but papal claims are where you draw the line for plausibility. Haha

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >the catholic church drifted away from the original teaching over time.
      Pretty much since it's inception and adoption by Rome.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Pretty much since it's inception and adoption by Rome
        1 Peter 5:13
        13 She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen, sends you greetings

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Your point?

  5. 2 months ago
    Dirk

    Protestant church officers, just like catholic, are ordinaries appointed by their churches.
    The other kinds of officers are extraordinary, like apostle and prophet. Independent of the church. The only people still claiming to have apostles in this sense are cults like Mormons and certain pentecostals.

    Protestants are just better about aligning our officers to the new testament model and requirements than Roman catholics are.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      What? How does that quote make sense? How do Protestant church officers have the same historical connection to Jesus Christ that Catholic one’s do?

      • 2 months ago
        Dirk

        For one thing the evangelical churches were only anathematized by Rome in the 16th century, meaning there's an exactly identical lineage prior to that moment. More fundamentally you misunderstand what the catholic priesthood claims to be, which is not a continuation of the apostolic office.

        Catholics have long conceded the point that their view of the offices is a development after the new testament period

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          > For one thing the evangelical churches were only anathematized by Rome in the 16th century, meaning there's an exactly identical lineage prior to that moment.
          So you admit that Roman heritage is necessary for a church’s leadership to have a historical connection to Christ?
          > Catholics have long conceded the point that their view of the offices is a development after the new testament period
          I am not very well catechized but I understand that, while the expression of the hierarchy was fleshed out and expanded upon, the existence of the leadership office originates with Peter.

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            >So you admit that Roman heritage is necessary for a church’s leadership to have a historical connection to Christ?
            No, neither does the Roman church allege that.
            The church in Jerusalem predates the church in Rome. Read the book of Acts.
            >I am not very well catechized but I understand that, while the expression of the hierarchy was fleshed out and expanded upon, the existence of the leadership office originates with Peter.
            What office?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > No, neither does the Roman church allege that.
            > The church in Jerusalem predates the church in Rome. Read the book of Acts.
            The church in Jerusalem doesn’t predate Catholicism. So let me rephrase. You admit that having a Catholic heritage is what is necessary for a church’s leadership to have a historical connection to Christ?
            > What office?
            Leadership.

            Your point?

            The church at Rome was chosen from the start.

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            >The church in Jerusalem doesn’t predate Catholicism.
            You don't realize what you just admitted

            >So let me rephrase. You admit that having a Catholic heritage is what is necessary for a church’s leadership to have a historical connection to Christ?
            Obviously not

            > What office?
            >Leadership.
            Not an office

            >The church at Rome was chosen from the start.
            The start is Pentecost. Your church teaches this.
            The church in Rome didn't exist yet.

            Why don't you go figure out what you believe before you assert that what Protestants believe is wrong

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > You don't realize what you just admitted
            Catholicism existed before Peter and Paul went to Rome, you know.
            > Obviously not
            Why do you say “the evangelical churches were only anathematized by Rome in the 16th century, meaning there's an exactly identical lineage prior to that moment” then?
            > Not an office
            How is church leader of the apostolic age less of an office than whatever offices your church leadership has?
            > The start is Pentecost
            Roman Catholicism started at Pentecost, yes.

            >The church at Rome was chosen from the start.
            The verse you posted doesn't say that at all, though.

            Yes it does Anon

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes it does Anon
            No, it doesn't. Peter is greeting the churches in Asian Minor. Nowhere does it say anything about the Catholic Church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen

            You don't have a basic grasp of what you're talking about and you're not paying me to tutor you
            Show this conversation to your RCIA teacher

            If you could point out how I was wrong, you would do it. 🙂

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            I did

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You justified why your church leadership office should be more enduring than Peter’s? You proved that all church leaders and teachers in the Bible were not in fact appointed by Christ or the apostles or those appointed by them?

            Your response to that was “Protestant church officers, just like catholic, are ordinaries appointed by their churches”. My point is, this is Biblically impossible, because there are no Biblical instances of people appointing their own leaders. Everything stems from Jesus, and Peter, and the other apostles, and those appointed by them. I think you understand why someone would be skeptical of church leadership that didn’t have this apostolic heritage.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen
            This is in reference to the "sister" church in the provinces of Asia Minor.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Babylon means Rome, “she who is at Babylon” means the church at Rome. 1 Peter is written from Rome.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, Babylon means Babylon. The cryptograph of Babylon for Rome would probably not be understood; even if we assume the earliest date assigned to the Apocalypse, that book could scarcely be known very generally in Asia Minor when this Epistle was written. St. Peter at Babylon, like St. Paul at Athens, may have met with little success; the infant Church may have been quickly crushed. There may have been a second settlement of israelites at Babylon between A.D. and the date of this Epistle. But it is quite possible that St. Peter may have been working as a missionary among the Babylonian Gentiles, for we cannot believe that he confined his ministrations to the israelites. On the whole, it seems much more probable that St. Peter was writing at the famous city on the Euphrates, though no traces of his work there remain, than that he should have used this one word in a mystical sense at the end of an Epistle where all else is plain and simple.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you kidding? It was known that Peter was in Rome when he wrote that. And Babylon is a recognizable biblical typology. Everyone would have known what he meant when he wrote that. Peter is saying: Rome is the new Babylon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It was known that Peter was in Rome when he wrote that.
            Prove it.
            >And Babylon is a recognizable biblical typology.
            After Revelation was written later.
            >Rome is the new Babylon.
            Jerusalem and the israelites were the "prostitute of Babylon", too, as well as spiritual Sodom and Egypt. These terms can be thrown around, but specifically Peter was writing from the church in Babylon or Iraq, not Rome. There is no proof Peter ever went to Rome outside Catholic tradition.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Tertullian speaks of the Roman Church’s foundations by Peter. Eusebius also discusses Peter’s presence in Rome. 1 Peter also resonates with the experiences of Christians in Rome during the first century. That Peter wrote it from there is the universal early church tradition - to deny it is schizo. Plus, there is no historical evidence of a Christian community in Babylon during Peter’s time.
            > After Revelation was written later
            Oh…you think Babylon originates in the Bible with Revelation?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Tertullian
            >Eusebius
            >early church tradition
            Ah, so no actual Biblical example, huh?
            >there is no historical evidence of a Christian community in Babylon during Peter’s time.
            As there is no Biblical or historical evidence for Peter ever going to Rome.
            >you think Babylon originates in the Bible with Revelation?
            No, I'm saying the idea that Rome was Babylon is an idea that came about through misinterpretations of that book.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Acts 28:14 says the apostles’ journey ends in Rome. The existence of an entire Biblical book called “Romans” attests to a major community being there. (If you find a book of the Bible called ‘Babylon’ let me know) No other cities that books of the Bible are named after even still exist, other than Rome. Finally, pagan Rome and the Roman Empire being Babylon and drinking the blood of the saints makes perfect sense from a historical perspective. Any schizo theory that denies any of this is anti-Catholic cope.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Acts 28:14 says the apostles’ journey ends in Rome.
            Paul went to Rome and wrote Romans, that much we know. It says nothing that Peter went and was crucified there. That is Catholic folklore.
            >pagan Rome and the Roman Empire being Babylon and drinking the blood of the saints makes perfect sense from a historical perspective.
            Rome did persecute Christians, but at who's behest? Oh, right, the ones who crucified Christ, the Pharisees in Jerusalem, the "prostitute of Babylon". According to Titus, the israelites were wealthier than the Romans.
            >Till at length you became richer than we were ourselves, even when you were our enemies: and you made preparations for war against us with our own money.
            The israeli Wars, Book VI, Chapter 6, Section 2

            The Pharisees were the ones hunting down and killing people who had the testimony of Jesus and they used the Romans to help them do it. Rome eventually got tired of being used by the israelites and like it says, threw the prostitute off its back and devoured it, and we know that Rome destroyed Judea in 70 AD.

            Peter was most likely writing from Babylon and from a church that no longer exists today, not from Rome.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Antisemite. Thete is no patristic evidence that contradicts the traditional view of Peter's martyrdom in Rome or the Roman origin of 1 Peter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Thete is no patristic evidence that contradicts the traditional view of Peter's martyrdom in Rome
            Other than there is no evidence Peter was ever in Rome, nor does it say he was in the Bible. Paul went to Rome, therefor shouldn't Paul be the first Pope and have a Church named after him? The Peter thing is again Catholic folklore.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not even Orthodox deny this stuff. You are free to deny the universal traditional Christian faith if you wish. The fact that you are so averse to Peter’s Roman destiny says all you need to know.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what if the Orthodox don't deny it? It's not in the Bible no matter how you misinterpret or change the meaning of passages in it. There is no historic evidence for Peter ever being in Rome and dying there. Just because there is a church named after him and they claim his body is in a tomb there doesn't mean anything. It's as valid as the Shroud of Turin. Roman Church folklore and nothing more.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > It's not in the Bible no matter how you misinterpret or change the meaning of passages in it
            Biblically there is no way to interpret Rome as not being Babylon (seven hills, the fact that Babylon wasn’t mentioned as being part of the apostolic mission, etc.) so Peter saying “She who is at Babylon, who is likewise chosen” is Biblical proof he was at Rome.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >seven hills,
            Jerusalem is also on seven hills.
            >Babylon wasn’t mentioned as being part of the apostolic mission,
            Not everything was recorded in the Bible, ya know. And it makes more sense for Peter to go to a now non-existent church in Babylon with fellow israelites than go to Rome. It makes total sense for Paul to have gone, though.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The early church tradition is universally that Peter died upside down on a cross in Rome. Rage against this tradition at your own peril.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The early church tradition
            And does that mean it should unquestionably agreed upon? Do you think the early church was infallible or something? Very unBiblical.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Also, Biblically it makes more sense that Jerusalem be the spiritually Sodom and Egypt than Rome, and it's where Christ was crucified afterall, not Rome.

          • 2 months ago
            Dirk

            You don't have a basic grasp of what you're talking about and you're not paying me to tutor you
            Show this conversation to your RCIA teacher

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The church at Rome was chosen from the start.
            The verse you posted doesn't say that at all, though.

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Daily reminder that
    >No evidence exists that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome
    >Peter never exercised his authority as leader of the church through the office of the Bishop of Rome
    >Peter never attached his authority to any particular administrative position, much less a particular regional Bishopric
    >Peter nor Jesus never laid down a mechanism through which the authority granted to Peter could be transferred to another individual.
    >Peter never stated that his position as head of the church was a permanent fixture meant to be replicated.
    >The Bishops of Rome did not claim Peter was the first Bishop of Rome until they conveniently "remembered" it more than two centuries after the fact.
    >The Bishops of Rome somehow "forgot" they were in charge of the church for hundreds of years while being appointed and dismissed by an Emperor they pledged spiritual subservience to, or even following the orders of The Bishop of Milan as a “higher ranking” Bishop.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Even Orthodox begrudgingly agree on Roman primacy via Peter. This FUD is weaksauce compared to millennia of evidence.

      >The early church tradition
      And does that mean it should unquestionably agreed upon? Do you think the early church was infallible or something? Very unBiblical.

      > Do you think the early church was infallible or something?
      Yes, same as today. The church is indeed infallible.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes, same as today.
        Then I would say you have turned something man-made into an object of worship. We're only suppose to worship God, not man made traditions and folklore. You're no different than a Pharisee.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          If the church wasn’t infallible then Jesus wouldn’t have given judgment to her (Matt 18:16) and the keys to forgive sins to her leaders. Duh. So that’s not man-made.
          > You're no different than a Pharisee
          From my perspective, you are acting as the unrepentant one.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Matt 18:16
            This is about having witness to verify something, and he did not "give the keys to forgive sins" to church leaders, only God can forgive sins, which is why Jesus taught us how to pray to him. Church traditions that have no basis in the Bible nor secular history are very much man-made, sorry.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Matthew 16:19
            “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.”
            >John 20:23
            “If you forgive anyone’s sins, their sins are forgiven; if you do not forgive them, they are not forgiven.”
            > Church traditions that have no basis in the Bible nor secular history are very much man-made, sorry.
            Church tradition itself is found in the Bible, the church is in the Bible. I’m glad your faith is determined in part by secular principles, though, that sounds totally not man-made.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Matthew 16:19
            Not about starting a church in Rome.
            >John 20:23
            This is talking about trespasses made against each other, not sins against God. Again, part of the prayer Jesus taught us.
            >And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors.
            Matthew 6:12
            >Church tradition itself is found in the Bible
            Then point out where it says Peter went to Rome, died there, or started the church there? All you have are misinterpretations and no proof. You don't even have secular proof outside church folklore. This is not Biblical, I'm afraid. My principles are determined by what Christ said, not what early church fathers told us to believe.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You can pretend it magically disappeared or was overcome by death, sin, etc., but Jesus makes an authoritative church in the New Testament, by appointing authorized leaders to lead the body of believers, and to appoint others, and by saying this church would be guided into all truth forever, and has the power to forgive sins. In Luke 22:31-32 Jesus prays for Peter alone in order to be strong in the faith and strengthen his brethren the other apostles.
            > Then point out where it says Peter went to Rome
            I might be more skeptical if this claim if it wasn’t non-Catholic tradition as well or if there were rival claimants to Peter’s line of succession, but there aren’t. But by asking me to prove this, it shows you that the truth of it would threaten your position.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus makes an authoritative church in the New Testament,
            Point out where then. The "on this rock I build my church" bit? Yeah, Peter was chosen to spread the gospels, as was Paul and others. Nothing indicates he was the first Pope or went to Rome, set up a church, and died there. This is folklore.
            >But by asking me to prove this, it shows you that the truth of it would threaten your position.
            So prove that is it true, either with the Bible or secular historical evidence and not just "church tradition".

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Point out where then
            The Gospels and the Book of Acts and the Epistles. You can pretend it magically disappeared or was overcome by death, sin, etc. but it’s right there in the Bible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Gospels and the Book of Acts and the Epistles.
            You're going to have to post some verses, by all means. Kinda hoping you can prove where Jesus or Paul said to elect Popes and said Peter went to Rome and died there.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The entire book of Acts is authorized church leaders appointed by Jesus going around and preaching and appointing other people to continue the work. If you deny that we can’t have a conversation. As for Popes, the Bible clearly makes Peter the sole head of the apostles, and a source of strength and unity for the other apostles (Luke 22:31-32). Such leadership is clearly a grace given to the church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you deny that we can’t have a conversation.
            I don't deny it talks about how a church operates and that it was addressed to Romans. But nowhere in it does it talk about electing Popes, or say that Peter went there.
            >Luke 22:31-32
            This doesn't say Peter is the first Pope, nor anything about him going to Rome or dying there.

            So, so far, we've established you can't name a single verse that says Peter was the first Pope, went to Rome and died there, only that churches were started in Rome, which I never disputed.

            Rome adopted Christianity as a political solution to united the pagans. Christians paid their taxes, didn't revolt, sacrifice animals, throw lavish festivals, and were generally much more well behaved than pagans societies.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > I don't deny it talks about how a church
            “A” church not “the” church…Telling. If there is one body, one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, and one God, then there is probably one church, no? And it is the one made in the Bible. As I asked before, you think this centralized structure (with a system for authorizing teachers) just magically disappeared?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Telling.
            Yeah, because it was only one of many that was set up. Nowhere does it give authority to the one in Rome alone. It was just one franchise that dominated the others when Rome officially adopted it.
            >then there is probably one church, no?
            Yes, the body universally is made up of Christians no matter who or where they are.
            >you think this centralized structure (with a system for authorizing teachers) just magically disappeared?
            No, I think as Rome adopted it as a political solution one church became more powerful than the others overtime, especially with a government as large as Romes, not really surprising.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You think Jesus establishes more than one church? In the Bible, "the church" refers to the collective body of believers in Jesus Christ which Jesus Christ established. The Bible does not state that Jesus will establish more than one church. In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says, "I will build my church," using the term in the singular, which means a single, universal community of Christians. The Bible describes the church as comprising various local communities such as those in Corinth, Ephesus, Thessalonica, etc. which are all considered part of the one Church. Paul often speaks of "the church" in both local and universal terms, but always within the framework of a unified body of Christ. The emergence of various denominations and interpretations of Christianity is a historical development that occurred due to people rebelling against this one church. This is all common sense/knowledge.
            > Nowhere does it give authority to the one in Rome alone
            It gives authority to Peter. Rome is the only bishop that could possible inherit Peter’s place. Great Church tradition (Catholic & Orthodox) continually affirms Rome’s unique primacy again and again.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You think Jesus establishes more than one church?
            The apostles went all around and set up churches, not just in Rome.
            >In Matthew 16:18 Jesus says, "I will build my church," using the term in the singular, which means a single, universal community of Christians.
            Yes, I said this and it doesn't pertain to a singular church in Rome.
            >It gives authority to Peter.
            Peter had authority because he was spreading the gospel.
            >Rome is the only bishop that could possible inherit Peter’s place. Great Church tradition
            >tradition
            Again, man-made stuff and not Biblical.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The apostles went all around and set up churches, not just in Rome.
            They were all united in a common faith and they were all led either by apostles or those appointed by the apostles or those appointed by those appointed by the apostles. No one is able to start a church independently of this one central church.
            > Yes, I said this and it doesn't pertain to a singular church in Rome.
            There are churches all over the world, the important thing is communion with Rome because Rome has the chair of Peter, the leader of the apostles.
            > Peter had authority because he was spreading the gospel.
            Dumb.
            > Again, man-made stuff and not Biblical. I am explaining to you why the church is biblical, if the church is the biblical church then its traditions are from God as well.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No one is able to start a church independently of this one central church.
            The churches in Asia Minor and Greece weren't dependent on the one in Rome, though.
            >the leader of the apostles.
            And he's the leader because of man-made church tradition.
            >Dumb.
            No, that's literally why, he was an apostle.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The churches in Asia Minor and Greece weren't dependent on the one in Rome, though.
            Define dependent. They were started by apostles in communion with Peter/Rome.
            > And he's the leader because of man-made church tradition.
            Jesus prays for Peter alone among the apostles so that he can strengthen them all in their faith. This proves that the Biblical church not only has a priesthood but a supreme bishop. You think the Bible is man-made?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >in communion with Peter/Rome.
            Can you post up some verses other than 1 Peter 5:13 to back this up?
            >This proves that the Biblical church not only has a priesthood but a supreme bishop.
            The whole point of Jesus was to get us to return to the faith of Abraham, who was saved for his faith when there was no priesthood, sacrifices, or temple. No, him praying for Peter doesn't mean he made him Pope.
            >You think the Bible is man-made?
            I think the tradition of saying Peter went to Rome, was the first Pope, and died there is a man-made tradition that has no basis in scripture or secular history outside the early church being told it's true.

            >Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.
            Colossians 2:8

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Peter is mentioned about 155 times and Paul is mentioned about 161 times in the New Testament. The next most mentioned after these is John at about 48 mentions iirc. Peter is clearly the leader of the Biblical church, and Peter and Paul both died in Rome. The ensuing corpus of early literature continues to affirm and build the case for Roman primacy. You can continue to cope about this all you like.
            > Colossians 2:8
            I’m not giving you traditions of men, I’m giving you the traditions of the historic and church that Jesus made in the Bible, which includes Bible verses and universally-acknowledged early church truths.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No mentions of him being Pope in the Bible or that Rome was suppose to be the centralized church, huh?
            >which includes Bible verses
            So, post the ones that say Peter was the first Pope or that he went to Rome and died there.

            All you have is early church traditions that Jesus never spoke about. You can continue to cope about this all you like. The Catholic Church has been doing this for the past thousand years.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > No mentions of him being Pope in the Bible
            > post the ones that say Peter was the first Pope
            Christ-appointed leader of the church = Pope
            > or that he went to Rome and died there
            Why do you care about it not being true that Peter died in Rome?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christ-appointed leader of the church = Pope
            Chapter and verse?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The word “Pope” doesn’t matter, what’s in the Bible is the functional role of the Pope, with Peter as sole leader keeping together the faith of the other apostles.

            >Christ-appointed leader of the church = Pope
            Praying for someone =/= appointing them Pope
            >Why do you care about it not being true that Peter died in Rome?
            Because apart from there being no Biblical basis for it, there's nothing to say he even went there in the first place.

            > Praying for someone =/= appointing them Pope
            Sigh. He prays for Peter to be able to strengthen all the other apostles, this makes him the chief apostle. He’s also mentioned 100 times more frequently than the next most mentioned member of the 12, and Jesus gives the keys to him alone, two chapters before he gives the other apostles similar (but lesser) authority. So here we have the structure of the Biblical church made evident.
            > apart from there being no Biblical basis for it, there's nothing to say he even went there in the first place
            Why would it matter to you if there was?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The word “Pope” doesn’t matter, what’s in the Bible is the functional role of the Pope, with Peter as sole leader keeping together the faith of the other apostles.
            where is Peter showing the papal traits of universal jurisdiction, papal supremacy, and papal infallibility?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Rock-solid doctrinal leadership entails these traits.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >avoiding the question.
            Embarrassing

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I’m not going to spoon feed you. Ask yourself why infallibility and universal jurisdiction would be entailed by being made the global head of the church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You haven’t even tried. Come on if Peter was the Pope he should be displaying these traits in the Bible. They are what define the papacy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            All you need is that he was the prime leader, and apostolic succession. Believing infallibility logically follows.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Where is that exegetically or historically?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Where is that exegetically
            Christ ascended to heaven, so he is not around to personally lead the church. Before the ascension he
            -singled out Peter
            -called Peter the rock
            -gave him the keys
            -prayed for him alone to strengthen all the other apostles
            -and told him to feed his sheep in his absence
            > or historically?
            The entirety of Great Church tradition, including first millennium Great Church tradition, repeatedly affirms the singularity and primacy of the Roman See.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >singled out Peter. Peter many times in scripture is the representative of the apostles.
            >called Peter the rock
            Nope. Christ is the rock. The Greek makes that clear. He called Peter Petras not Petra.
            >gave him the keys.
            The keys were given to all the apostles.
            >feed my sheep.
            He was restoring Peter’s role as apostle. All the apostles and church have that duty.
            >historically
            In the Apostolic Fathers of the late 1st and early 2nd century, the fathers support a mere twofold distinction and only a pre-eminence of honor for Peter. Clement of Rome (35-99), an early bishop of Rome, wrote a letter in which he spoke on behalf of the Roman Church rather than from his own authority, addressing its recipients as brothers rather than subordinates. Clement also speaks, like Paul, of only two ranks, bishops/presbyters and deacons. St. Ignatius of Antioch of the early 2nd century shows monepiscopacy had not yet developed in Rome and makes no hierarchical distinction of bishops but does offer a pre-eminency of only honor to Rome. Irenæus, a 2nd century bishop of Lugdunum of Gaul, now Lyon in France, demonstrates denial for papal supremacy. Irenæus famously wrote a list of successors to the Roman bishopric which is used to give explanation to his reverence for Rome as the “greatest and most ancient Church” which was also founded by the “two most glorious apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul.” However, he seems elsewhere to praise Rome for its pre-eminence, not because of its apostolic succession of bishops, but because of its apostolic teaching, which he seems to argue came through the apostolic succession. More importantly than his generally-accepted record of the Roman bishops is his admonition to Victor, who was Bishop of Rome from 189 to 199, demonstrating further denial of papal supremacy along with universal jurisdiction.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >historically cont.
            In the 3rd century, Tertullian, a Christian author of Carthage (160-240), speaks of Eleutherius, Bishop of Rome from either 171-85 or 177-93, as having acknowledged the spiritual gifts of the Montanists in Phrygia and Asia. The problem is that the Montanists were a heretical sect which causes concern, if Tertullian is correct, for the doctrine of papal infallibility as claimed in the First Vatican Council. Origen (185-253), another early Christian writer from Alexandria, admonishes those who would contend that the Church was built upon only Peter and not the other apostles, thus denying papal supremacy. Cyprian, the beloved-by-all Bishop of Carthage in the mid-3rd century, whom was first called “pope,” which means “father,” ironically by the Romans of all people, believed similar to Origen whilst abandoning Origen’s language. Cyprian instead called Peter equal with the other apostles in both “honor and power,” and stated that from Peter “all unity should spring,” citing this unity’s origin in Peter, whom Christ “built His Church upon.” Nevertheless, Cyprian also writes that Peter, when opposed by Paul as recorded in Galatians 2, did not “arrogantly assume anything; so as to say that he held the primacy.” Furthermore, Cyprian writes of the “chair of Peter,” the first recorded instance of the phrase, yet also cites “apostolic teaching,” whilst writing to schismatics in his own jurisdiction, not even Rome, as the rock which Christ built the Church. Cyprian also writes that the episcopate is one and each clergyman holds it “for the whole.” Thus, Cyprian denies papal supremacy, or even papal primacy in his words.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cyprian, however, does believe in a higher honor for the Roman Church, saying that “from her greatness plainly ought to take precedence of Carthage.” However, “precedence,” and even “primacy” which Cyprian rejected of Peter, is still different than “supremacy,” which would not be mere pre-eminence in honor but also power, authority, and jurisdiction. Cyprian rather famously did not get along with the Roman Bishop at his time, Pope Stephen, whose episcopate was from 254 to 257. Cyprian claimed that many, including Stephen and the “schismatics” of his own jurisdiction, permitted the lapsed, those who denied Christ under threat of or existent persecution, to return to the Church too easily. Cyprian shows that higher honor for Rome for its greatness does not contradict denial of papal supremacy.
            Cyprian not only defied Stephen’s decision, whom Cyprian believed to have acted ignorantly from deception by the two lapsed bishops, but also called the fourth Council of Carthage which contradicted Stephen’s decision and upheld Cyprian’s. Cyprian, whilst writing to Stephen, affirms that each bishop has free will in his own jurisdiction and also reminds Stephen that all bishops will give an account to God for their conduct. Cyprian also writes many times to Stephen as an equal. Finally, the seventh Council of Carthage, with Cyprian at its head, upheld its position again against Stephen, but also stated that there is no “bishop of bishops.” Thus, Cyprian denied universal jurisdiction as well.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Firmillian, the bishop of Caesarea highly respected by famous saints after and during his time, wrote a letter to Cyprian mocking Stephen, sarcastically calling Stephen careful and meek, scornfully citing Stephen’s combative and divisive divergence from “so many bishops throughout the whole world.” Firmillian rails Stephen for the “strifes and dissensions” that he has “stirred up,” and states that in all of Stephen’s acts of cutting off other people, he has only cut off himself and “made himself an apostate.” Firmillian not only denied papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction, but also calls Stephen “an apostate” for exercising power that even slightly resembles it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The Shepherd of Hermas, an early Christian writing, affirms the twofold distinction of bishop/presbyter and deacon and Ignatius’s observations about the lack of Roman monepiscopacy. In one recorded vision in the early Christian writing, The Shepherd of Hermas, a woman instructs Hermas, its author, to deliver two books, one to “Gratian” and one to a “Clemens,” or “Clement” depending on the translation, who “will send his [book] to foreign countries.” Whilst The Shepherd is set in Rome, there is “considerable chronological difficulty to identify [Clement of Rome] with the Clement mentioned,” one of which is the lack of reference to any of the apostles in Rome. The woman also speaks of a plurality of presbyters who “preside over the Church,” which closely indicates bishops/overseers rather than presbyters, despite being called presbyters.
            Constantine called another council, provoked by the semi-Arian Eusebius, which was composed mostly of semi-Arians, called Eusebians, which condemned and deposed Athanasius, the Nicene bishop of Alexandria. After Constantine’s death, however, Constantine II, the Western emperor, restored Athanasius which the Eusebians began slandering, provoking Emperor Constantius to send a Eusebian to Alexandria to be an archbishop instead. The Pope at the time, Pope Julius, was invited by the Eusebians to call a council to confirm their condemnation of Athanasius, and when he did, they refused to attend the council. When Pope Julius upheld Athanasius, he appealed not to his authority as Roman Bishop, but rather to the unanimity of the Western Bishops, indicating an absence of papal supremacy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Eventually, Constantius, the Eastern emperor, was won over by the Eusebians and, after Pope Julius died and Pope Liberius was elected in 252, he convoked a synod at Arles (353) which condemned Athanasius again, and also the Synod of Milan (355) which coerced more than 300 Western bishops into signing an Arian declaration. Pope Liberius, as well as five Western bishops, stood firm and were exiled for it. Pope Liberius eventually, under threat of death and persecution, signed an Arian declaration, posing problems for the modern doctrine of papal infallibility. Pope Liberius was allowed to return to Rome and share rule with the antipope Felix II.
            Meletius, the rightful bishop of Antioch from his appointment of 360 to his death in 381, was out of communion with Rome who recognized a falsely ordained bishop, Paulinus instead, yet two great Christian saints, Basil the Great and Chrysostom, both believed Meletius to have also been a saint despite lacking communion with Rome. Basil the Great, the bishop of Caesarea during the later 4th century, states, concerning Rome’s excommunication of Meletius, that he would never give in, even if the letter had come from heaven from a heavenly person, if it was apart from the “sound doctrine of the faith.” Basil also calls the Pope at the time, Damasus, “proud and exalted,” thus unable to “hear those who preach to him.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Milan became a very prominent see because of Milan’s secular growth and its bishop, Ambrose (339-397), became jointly appealed to with Rome in case of disputes. Ambrose sometimes saw the “rock” that Christ built His Church on as either Peter, the faith he confessed, or Christ Himself. Chrysostom, an archbishop of Constantinople famous for his homilies, is an example that appealed to Rome and Milan jointly. He, in contrast, regularly took the “rock” as the faith which Peter confessed. St. Jerome (342-420), a presbyter, spoke of Rome as the “light of the world” while the East tore itself apart. However, Jerome believed Christ was the “rock” and also believed ecclesiastical hierarchy, specifically the bishop/presbyter distinction, was human-ordered.
            St. Augustine (354-430), a Christian theologian and bishop of Hippo, first taught that the “rock” was the bishopric of Peter with its succession of bishops, but later changed his view to Christ being the rock. Augustine also spoke of Peter as the figurehead of the Church. Augustine taught that the apostleship, something not unique to Rome, is to be preferred over any episcopate, yet heavily implied that Cyprian was correct in defying Stephen despite Carthage not being founded by an apostle, even quoting Cyprian that nobody sets themselves up as a “bishop of bishops.” Finally, Augustine puts general councils above the Roman Bishop. In conclusion, many 4th century fathers claimed increased honor for Peter, but do not speak of Rome.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Cyril, the bishop of Alexandria (376-444), changes the narrative by speaking of Peter as equal in honor with all the apostles with no mention of authority, diverging from the other fathers who spoke of an equality of authority with differences in honor or pre-eminence. Cyril also speaks of the Pope during his time, Pope Celestine (376-432), as the “archbishop of the whole inhabited earth.” However, Cyril, when writing to Pope Celestine concerning a council, cited Church tradition rather than the papal authority. Cyril was, nonetheless, a paving stone for the consolidation of papal supremacy by Pope Leo the Great.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Pope Leo the Great (400-461). Leo “consolidated the primacy of his see,” who was “less a primate as a spiritual sovereign with temporal armament.” The popes before him had already made movement towards this consolidation, especially Pope Celestine’s “dominating influence over the Council of Ephesus,” a general council (431), and the emphasis by numerous popes, notably Pope Sixtus III (390-440), of Peter passing on what he received from Christ to his successors. Leo personified his see as Peter himself, stressing the lack of any discrepancy between Peter and his successors such as himself. Leo, diverging from earlier fathers, refers to Rome as the Apostolic See, remarking that any separation from this see is a separation from the “divine mystery.” Furthermore, Leo states that bishops are equal in dignity but not rank, claiming that among the apostles they were equal in honor but not power, and that “nothing should ever be at odds with this head,” that is, the Bishop of Rome, who has Peter’s authority also. Leo also claims universal jurisdiction, calling Peter not only the “patron of this See” but also the “primate of all bishops.” Furthermore, Leo mentions a certain “well-ordered love of the whole Church which ever finds Peter in Peter’s see,” Peter to be the “chief” and “head” of the apostles, claiming this also by divine right from Christ Himself, and that the rest of Christianity must acknowledge this head. Lastly, Leo claims that other bishops’ legitimacy derives from this “head,” which is Rome. These claims by Leo were widely accepted in the West with many even referring to him as Peter, although Leo was not audacious enough to claim these things in the East.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            St. Hilary of Arles (403-449), a beloved bishop of Arles, France, protested an instance of Roman interference in his jurisdiction and paid the price. Hilary marched to Rome in the dead of winter and gave Leo a piece of his mind which resulted in his arrest and deposition, as the Supreme Pontiff, a title for the Pope from the 15th century, had secular power at his disposal. Hilary died four years later, left in his own see only as an “act of grace,” whereafter Leo spoke of him as a “man of holy memory,” despite having cut him off from communion. Despite his excommunication and rebellion against the Supreme Pontiff, he is regarded as a saint even in Roman Catholicism. Whilst Pope Leo had not yet consolidated the papacy’s power in the East, it is clear that it had developed not only its authority, but also its jurisdiction over the centuries from being simply an honored bishopric in Rome in memory of its “two most glorious apostles” who were its founders, pre-eminent in its orthodoxy and charity to other Churches, to being a See in Rome overlooking the Western Church as its jurisdiction, governing it with secular rule and having authority derived from its chief apostle—founder, Peter, to settle matters of faith and impose its will on dissenting parties.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Its structure and growth are mirrored to the secular empire that governed the lives of Christians, or at least the place of birth for Christianity. It is obvious that Roman supremacy was not recognized universally, neither by East nor West, in any quick succession, but it is almost equally clear that Rome developed a pre-eminence in honor, far beyond other “ecclesiastical dignitaries.” Not only is it efficient to have a hierarchy for settling disputes, but Rome was pre-eminent in its orthodoxy and illustrious with its bishop deriving much influence and honor from its secular station, as was normal for all bishops. It is also clear that the governmental protection and encouragement given to Rome, such as the command of Theodosius the Great to receive the faith “as propounded by St. Peter to the Romans,” or the requirement given by Valentinian for bishops seeking to change custom to first receive permission from the Roman bishop, persuades history towards papal supremacy if indeed it did not simply establish it itself.
            In the same way that the Roman republic became an empire because of internal conflicts, the Catholic Church became the Roman Catholic Church because of internal disputes. Whether the substance of the papacy is in Christianity’s sacred text and papal supremacy a natural development from it, or papal supremacy to be a man-made oppression onto Christian consciences is irrelevant, for its development nonetheless cannot be denied.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >end
            The papacy was not founded by Jesus or existed in the early church despite being authoritatively declared to be the “constant belief of every age,” by the 19th century Pope Leo XIII. It began as an abuse of its pre-eminent honor that was declared by others in the early church. It began with Pope Leo the great not Jesus or Peter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            That was really interesting. I'd make a screen cap, but I'm too lazy.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The papacy was not founded by Jesus or existed in the early church despite being authoritatively declared to be the “constant belief of every age,” by the 19th century Pope Leo XIII. It began as an abuse of its pre-eminent honor that was declared by others in the early church. It began with Pope Leo the great not Jesus or Peter.
            Church leadership did start with Jesus and Peter. That leadership continued on. It’s been interpreted in different ways throughout the ages. Many rebuked the Pope and criticized him in the Great Church. Many rebuke and criticize the Pope in Catholicism today. Many traditions such as Eastern Orthodoxy basically exist entirely just to hold the Pope to standards the Papacy itself set as the example in the first millennium starting with Peter. You agree that Rome has always had pre-eminent honour, but you want to abandon it because of this honour’s abuse. I wouldn’t say that is a good reason to abandon the church that God sealed with singularity in the New Testament. Speaking honestly.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >However, “precedence,” and even “primacy” which Cyprian rejected of Peter, is still different than “supremacy,” which would not be mere pre-eminence in honor but also power, authority, and jurisdiction
            This is the Eastern Orthodox argument and it’s a cope. If Rome is Peter’s church and the prime and honourable church then when she speaks on dogma all churches must listen.
            >Cyprian Cyprian Cyprian
            He is the most-cited anti-papacy father yet he still assigns Rome greatest honour and first place. Really makes you think.

            Firmillian, the bishop of Caesarea highly respected by famous saints after and during his time, wrote a letter to Cyprian mocking Stephen, sarcastically calling Stephen careful and meek, scornfully citing Stephen’s combative and divisive divergence from “so many bishops throughout the whole world.” Firmillian rails Stephen for the “strifes and dissensions” that he has “stirred up,” and states that in all of Stephen’s acts of cutting off other people, he has only cut off himself and “made himself an apostate.” Firmillian not only denied papal supremacy and universal jurisdiction, but also calls Stephen “an apostate” for exercising power that even slightly resembles it.

            >someone denied the Pope
            Who cares?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >not an argument
            Embarrassing.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I noticed you conveniently left out the one where Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen all the other apostles. The idea that all apostles were equal is indefensible from the text.

            Your patristic analysis is unconvincing. Seriously, if you are curious, you can look into Petrine primacy in the patristic writings for yourself because it is a deep rabbit hole. It’s obviously not a small thing if it ended up being the defining issue for both sides in the Great Schism. The priority of Rome is even enshrined in an ecumenical council (Chalcedon Canon 28).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >I noticed you conveniently left out the one where Jesus prayed for Peter alone to strengthen all the other apostles. The idea that all apostles were equal is indefensible from the text.
            That can be tied in the what I said about Peter being restored as an apostle in John. He is predicting it when he prays for him. That does not prove Petrine primacy in the papalist view. There are many times when Peter is the representative of the apostles in scripture. So Jesus ask the twelve not just Peter. “Who do you say I am. “ you is plural. And Peter answered on behalf of the 12 apostles. Just as he does in John 6:68 when he confesses for them. “Lord to whom shall we go you have the words of eternal life. Peter is representative of the twelve but also as all of the church in Matthew 18:18 and as an individual representing one church in Matthew 16:18-19.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The event where Christ restores Peter as an apostle is not in the gospel of Luke. This restoration is narrated in the Gospel of John.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Are you Muslim? The gospel is 4 accounts of one story. Muslims usually struggle with this. What you said doesn’t refute anything.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Every gospel was written with a different intention and purpose. You can’t chop and rearrange them to suit your needs.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ok? I am not doing that. Luke 22 is clearly predicting Peter’s denial and his repentance and restoration in John 21. I am using the overall teaching of the gospel and using verses that touch the related topic.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            “When you have returned to Me, strengthen your brethren”
            Does Jesus tell any of the other apostles that they need to strengthen Peter?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >He called Peter Petras not Petra.
            So why did he call Simon that, and then proceed to talk about another rock, if Simon being a rock was an unrelated thing?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus calls Peter (petras) man of rock because he has confessed the true rock of his salvation. He is named after the rock not the other way around.
            Saint Augustine says in a sermon
            > for before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given to him by the Lord and in a figure that he should signify the church. For seeing that Christ is the rock Petra. Peter is the Christian people. For the rock Petra is the original name. Therefore Peter is so called from the rock not the rock from Peter as Christ is not called Christ from the Christian but the Christian from Christ. Therefore, he sayeth thou art Peter and upon this rock which thou hast confessed. Upon this rock which thou hast acknowledged. Saying thou art the Christ the son of the living God will I build my church.
            That is upon myself the son of the the living God will I build my church. I will build thee upon myself. Not myself upon thee.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            1) There is still the word play you must content with 2) The fathers are divided on this 3) Augustine believes in apostolic succession, so if he says Peter signifies the church it means he believes the Pope of Rome signifies the church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >1
            No
            >2
            Doesn’t matter the Greek is clear.
            >3
            Peter is not the Pope.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > No
            Everything in the Bible has a reason, if God didn’t want Peter associated with the rock he wouldn’t have done this.
            > Doesn’t matter the Greek is clear
            What? A diversity of patristic views does matter actually. A patristic consensus bears more weight.
            > Peter is not the Pope
            The Pope is modern Peter. Church leadership doesn’t fade out. Apostolic succession is a thing. Jesus established a Biblical church centralized around Himself and Peter; furthermore, everyone in it is appointed either by Jesus or by people that are already in it; meaning Christian leadership not a democracy (it’s a monarchy).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything in the Bible has a reason, if God didn’t want Peter associated with the rock he wouldn’t have done this.
            Categorically false
            >What? A diversity of patristic views does matter actually. A patristic consensus bears more weight.
            Catholic "theology" consists of diddling little kids and hosting lesbian nun orgies in convents
            >The Pope is modern Peter. Church leadership doesn’t fade out. Apostolic succession is a thing. Jesus established a Biblical church centralized around Himself and Peter; furthermore, everyone in it is appointed either by Jesus or by people that are already in it; meaning Christian leadership not a democracy (it’s a monarchy).
            According to Catholics Peter gave his full approval to the degeneracy of the medieval and early modern papacy. Also, it is no coincidence that the reformation began approximately 1500 years after the crucifixion of Christ.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >According to Catholics Peter gave his full approval to the degeneracy of the medieval and early modern papacy
            We would have to check in with the modern edition of the Petrine office because doctrine evils. The church has repented for things in the last; indeed, she exists in a posture of repentance.
            > Also, it is no coincidence that the reformation began approximately 1500 years after the crucifixion of Christ.
            Wdym?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Everything in the Bible has a reason, if God didn’t want Peter associated with the rock he wouldn’t have done this.
            Matthew 16 is nothing more than the common Christian faith that whoever believes in Jesus is built on this rock and will attain salvation even against all the gates of hell. Whoever does not believe in Christ is not built on this rock and must be damned with all the gates of hell. Christ is the rock upon which he will build his church. Christ calls Peter Petras because Peter confessed the true rock of his salvation. That is the reasoning.
            >What? A diversity of patristic views does matter actually. A patristic consensus bears more weight.
            You don’t have to listen to Church fathers that contradict scripture. They are fallible.

            Assertions are not refutations. You have not substantiated your repeated claim. They are nonexistent exegetically and historically which has been pointed out to you multiple times.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Which claim do you want me to biblically substantiate? That church leadership doesn’t fade out? That it’s a monarchy? Are these facts not obvious?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Jesus established a Biblical church centralized around Himself and Peter
            >The Pope is modern Peter

            https://i.imgur.com/KlWkpnY.jpg

            I don’t see the word “keys” there.

            That is the definition of keys. The binding and loosing of sins. The apostles get the keys along with Peter. It is the exact same definition. Christ gave the apostles the same ability as he first gave Peter. Ergo all the apostles got the keys.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Ergo all the apostles got the keys
            You are forced to use the Latin word “ergo” because it’s not actually in the text, you have to make a leap of logic and you know it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No. It is not cope. It is the exact same definition. Where is the keys given a different meaning for Peter alone. There isn’t any.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The keys are symbolic. This is why Catholics can make art like this

            https://i.imgur.com/KlWkpnY.jpg

            I don’t see the word “keys” there.

            but Orthodox can’t.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >this makes him the chief apostle.
            How does Peter being a good example to other apostles equate to him being Pope? Another misinterpretation of a simple verse because of early church tradition.
            >Jesus gives the keys to him alone
            Complete exaggeration of a simple verse. Christ is honoring Peter because of his work spreading the gospel and nowhere does it indicate he's suppose to be leader of all Christians as Pope.
            >Why would it matter to you if there was?
            How is he suppose to be Pope of a church in a place he was never recorded to have gone to, again? Why is there a church dedicated to him there and supposedly his remains if he was never there? Again, to back up early church TRADITION. Pure folklore.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            You know early church tradition is how the earliest Christian’s worshipped God right?
            You are also ignoring the Bible if you don’t think you would rally behind Peter after the Ascension.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You know early church tradition is how the earliest Christian’s worshipped God right?
            Yeah, because they were infiltrated by Gnostics pushing ideas that Christ never talked about.
            >You are also ignoring the Bible if you don’t think you would rally behind Peter after the Ascension.
            Rallying behind Peter as an apostle doesn't mean was the first Pope or that he went to Rome, which isn't in the Bible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >>You are also ignoring the Bible if you don’t think you would rally behind Peter after the Ascension
            This is also just blatant speculation that’s not even worth addressing. There is no evidence pointing that he is no more than first among equals in the church. He wasn’t even the leader at the council of Jerusalem.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            First among equals is a contradiction and isn’t mentioned in church tradition until the Eastern Orthodox started talking about it in a seething way after the schism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Augustine is not an Eastern Orthodox.
            Augustine cites in his 124th tractate on John:
            >and this Church symbolized in its generality, was personified in the Apostle Peter, on account of the primacy of his apostleship. For, as regards his proper personality, he was by nature one man, by grace one Christian, by still more abounding grace one, and yet also, the first apostle; but when it was said to him, I will give unto you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatsoever you shall bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven, he represented the universal Church, which in this world is shaken by various temptations, that come upon it like torrents of rain, floods and tempests, and falls not, because it is founded upon a rock (petra), from which Peter received his name.
            Augustine cites Peter as the first apostle which is another way of saying first among equals. And that Peter represents the apostles and Luther will say the entire church. Christ says he will build his rock upon the one whom Peter has just confessed. Which is Christ.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Augustine cites Peter as the first apostle which is another way of saying first among equals
            Augustine was a big Roman primacy advocate. Not heard of “Roma locuta, causa finita est”?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Augustine retracted those views and wrote that Petrine primacy simply means first among equals which is what I cited.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Not according to my research. There is no indication that Augustine retracted this view or equated Petrine primacy with being merely ‘first among equals’. Your quote says nowhere close to that, it calls Peter the first apostle and says he personified the entire church. To the best of my knowledge, “first among equals” is not a phrase found in patristics. It’s also a contradiction in terms because to be first is by definition to not be equal to the second!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Augustine is well known for his retractions and one of them is where he is writing that Christ is the rock.
            The first apostle and personified the church is in other words first among equals.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Rallying behind Peter as an apostle doesn't mean was the first Pope or that he went to Rome, which isn't in the Bible.
            So you believe early Christians had the grace of having God-appointed church leaders to rally behind but late Christians don’t. Got it. Are you Mormon too?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Just because they were Christs' apostles and spread his message, doesn't mean they were superior Christians to anyone else for all time. I appreciate what they did, just not how people practically deified them. No, I'm not a Mormon because I don't believe in their man-made folklore about about Joseph Smith, either.

            >So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen.
            Matthew 20:16

            You haven't been able to provide a single verse outside ones you've blatantly misinterpreted to prove Peter was the first Pope or went to Rome. Because he never did and wasn't called to be Pope. Christ is our only singular authority and high priest, not the Pope.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > I'm not a Mormon because I don't believe in their man-made folklore about about Joseph Smith, either
            You believe their narrative that the leadership structure put in place by Jesus in the biblical church magically disappeared. Where did it go do you reckon?
            > Christ is our only singular authority and high priest, not the Pope
            Christ ascended to heaven, so he is not around to personally lead the church. Before the ascension he singled out Peter, called him rock, gave him the keys, prayed for him alone to strengthen all the other apostles, and told him to feed his sheep in his absence. You have to be willfully blind.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You believe their narrative that the leadership structure put in place by Jesus in the biblical church magically disappeared.
            No, I believe like I said they adopted Gnostic ideas about Christ and what he said and made up this folklore about Peter being the first Pope.
            >he is not around to personally lead the church
            His kingdom is not of this world. He never told us to set up churches like franchises, build armies, and forcibly convert people.
            >he singled out Peter, called him rock, gave him the keys, prayed for him alone to strengthen all the other apostles, and told him to feed his sheep in his absence.
            Jesus used one form of the word "rock" (petra) for the rock on which he would build his church, and another (petros) for Peter. The "keys" he gave him was in regards to who was coming into the church then such as converted israelites and Gentiles, it is not in reference to being supreme leader of Christians, which only Christ is. And yes, Peter took care of the church body when Christ was gone. Nowhere did he state Peter was the Pope and head of the church, when that is Christ's position alone.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > No, I believe like I said they adopted Gnostic ideas about Christ and what he said and made up this folklore about Peter being the first Pope
            That’s nice, you still believe the leadership structure put in place by Jesus in the biblical church magically disappeared.
            > His kingdom is not of this world
            Not relevant to the Biblical data about him establishing the church to have leadership.
            > yes, Peter took care of the church body when Christ was gone
            Who is taking care of the church body today? Or you think this stewardship given to us as a grace by God magically disappeared?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >magically disappeared
            No, I believe people adopted false ideas about Peter and named him Pope.
            >Not relevant to the Biblical data about him establishing the church to have leadership.
            Actually it is, because it means the physical Earthly church you place so much importance on is not the end goal.
            >Who is taking care of the church body today?
            The church as an establishment Jesus gave Peter authority over is long gone and was replaced by the corrupt Catholic Church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > the physical Earthly church you place so much importance on is not the end goal
            If God’s Word is the source of unity, and Jesus is the Word made flesh, then the Church should have a flesh-wise unity and be centralized.
            > The church as an establishment Jesus gave Peter authority over is long gone and was replaced by the corrupt Catholic Church
            You think Christ gave us the church only to have sin and death end up destroying it? Considering the church is body of Christ and the physical continuation of the resurrection, it seems counter-Christian to say that.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >then the Church should have a flesh-wise unity and be centralized.
            I agree which is why churches were established, but nowhere was Peter given sole power to be Pope.
            >You think Christ gave us the church only to have sin and death end up destroying it?
            The church as a spiritual thing can never be destroyed, but Jesus warned us people would creep into the physical church and pervert it from within, which is exactly what happened with the Catholic Church and why Martin Luther had to expose it. What is counter Christian is you misinterpreting scripture to fit man-made traditions Jesus never talked about.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Christ
            >singled out Peter
            >called Peter the rock
            >gave him the keys
            >prayed for him alone to strengthen all the other apostles
            >and told him to feed his sheep in his absence
            He’s mentioned 100 times more frequently than the next most mentioned member of the twelve. There is no one else who is even a starting candidate to lead other than Peter.
            > The church as a spiritual thing can never be destroyed, but Jesus warned us people would creep into the physical church and pervert it from within, which is exactly what happened with the Catholic Church
            Since the Word was made flesh, spiritual things are physical things now. It doesn’t make any sense to say “the spiritual church can be destroyed but the physical church can”. I assume you pulled that out of thin air and it’s not rooted in any theology?
            > What is counter Christian is you misinterpreting scripture to fit man-made traditions Jesus never talked about
            You literally are saying sin took down the original church established by Jesus.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no one else who is even a starting candidate to lead other than Peter.
            No one is debating whether or not Peter was a leader in the earliest church's foundations but whether he was a Pope or not, as in supreme leader over all other churches and was centered in Rome, a place he is never recorded to have gone to.
            >spiritual things are physical things now
            No, because I believe Christ when he said his kingdom is not of this world, as in not physical.
            >“the spiritual church can be destroyed but the physical church can”
            What I said was "The church as a spiritual thing can never be destroyed".
            >You literally are saying sin took down the original church established by Jesus.
            No, I'm saying the church the apostles started was taken down which is what lead to Martin Luther calling out its corruption hundred of years later.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > No one is debating whether or not Peter was a leader in the earliest church's foundations
            Instead of “in the earliest church’s foundations” you can just say in the Biblical church, because that is what we are talking about. And of course, truths that apply to the Biblical church should apply today, if we are faithful.
            but whether he was a Pope or not, as in supreme leader over all other churches and was centered in Rome, a place he is never recorded to have gone to.
            > No one is debating whether or not Peter was a leader
            “The” leader…the Bible says he was “the” church leader not “a” church leader. The definite article changes the meaning entirely.
            > Rome, a place he is never recorded to have gone to
            Universal Great Church tradition records him going there, and the historically well-versed reader of 1 Peter 5:13 can see that Peter is writing from Rome.
            > I believe Christ when he said his kingdom is not of this world, as in not physical
            You seriously think church unity is not supposed to be physical unity?
            > What I said was "The church as a spiritual thing can never be destroyed".
            Is the Biblical church physical or just spiritual? Do you really maintain that the Biblical church was destroyed, at least it’s physical elements?
            > I'm saying the church the apostles started was taken down
            Not possible. The apostles didn’t start it, Jesus established it. Can’t be taken down.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the Bible says he was “the” church leader
            Over a specific church, sure, not all of them and not centered in Rome.
            >Universal Great Church tradition records him going there,
            Don't care, not in the Bible.
            >You seriously think church unity is not supposed to be physical unity?
            Not under an authority he never established such as the Papacy, yes.
            >Do you really maintain that the Biblical church was destroyed, at least it’s physical elements?
            I maintain what Jesus warned what would happen which is that corrupting influences would sneak their way into the church.
            >The apostles didn’t start it, Jesus established it.
            No, Jesus established his apostles, and they started the churches and spread his message.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Over a specific church
            The Bible says he was the global church leader.
            > Don't care, not in the Bible.
            Nice. 1 Peter 5:13
            > Not under an authority he never established such as the Papacy, yes
            Didn’t answer the question.
            > I maintain what Jesus warned what would happen which is that corrupting influences would sneak their way into the church
            Yes that happens. Still didn’t answer the question, do you really maintain that the Biblical church was physically destroyed by heresies?
            > No, Jesus established his apostles, and they started the churches and spread his message
            Jesus started His church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >open Bible
            >ctrl + f "global church leader"
            >0 results
            Peter was not a Pope, you homosexual child rapist.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >nooo if english language synonyms denoting a well-supported biblical concept and typology aren’t found in the text then that concept and typology must not be there!!

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The Bible says he was the global church leader.
            No, it doesn't, it says he was a leader.
            >1 Peter 5:13
            Already debunked this here

            No, Babylon means Babylon. The cryptograph of Babylon for Rome would probably not be understood; even if we assume the earliest date assigned to the Apocalypse, that book could scarcely be known very generally in Asia Minor when this Epistle was written. St. Peter at Babylon, like St. Paul at Athens, may have met with little success; the infant Church may have been quickly crushed. There may have been a second settlement of israelites at Babylon between A.D. and the date of this Epistle. But it is quite possible that St. Peter may have been working as a missionary among the Babylonian Gentiles, for we cannot believe that he confined his ministrations to the israelites. On the whole, it seems much more probable that St. Peter was writing at the famous city on the Euphrates, though no traces of his work there remain, than that he should have used this one word in a mystical sense at the end of an Epistle where all else is plain and simple.

            .
            >Didn’t answer the question.
            No, I did. The papacy is a man-made invention and should not unify the church, only Christ should do that as the supreme leader.
            >do you really maintain that the Biblical church was physically destroyed by heresies?
            Destroyed physically as in corrupted from the inside like Christ predicted happened? Yes.
            >Jesus started His church.
            No, Jesus started preaching and his apostles took his message to people.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Already debunked this here
            https://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-Peter-the-Apostle/Tradition-of-Peter-in-Rome
            You should believe this on the basis of the Eastern Orthodox (anti-Catholic) maintaining this tradition, but here are some secular sources to convince you.
            > Destroyed physically as in corrupted from the inside like Christ predicted happened? Yes.
            That’s absurd. Christ never predicted the complete destruction of His church. He predicted it would be infiltrated at various times and in various ways but that it as a whole would last until the end.
            > No, Jesus started preaching and his apostles took his message to people.
            Matthew 16:18: “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
            Do you not know about Pentecost?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You should believe this on the basis of the Eastern Orthodox (anti-Catholic) maintaining this tradition
            The tradition is bogus no matter who maintains it.
            >Christ never predicted the complete destruction of His church.
            I never said he did, I said the church was corrupted from the inside. The church has lasted and is still around, spread out across the world and in various sects. There are good and bad Christians inside every denomination.
            >Matthew 16:18
            I already debunked this here

            >You believe their narrative that the leadership structure put in place by Jesus in the biblical church magically disappeared.
            No, I believe like I said they adopted Gnostic ideas about Christ and what he said and made up this folklore about Peter being the first Pope.
            >he is not around to personally lead the church
            His kingdom is not of this world. He never told us to set up churches like franchises, build armies, and forcibly convert people.
            >he singled out Peter, called him rock, gave him the keys, prayed for him alone to strengthen all the other apostles, and told him to feed his sheep in his absence.
            Jesus used one form of the word "rock" (petra) for the rock on which he would build his church, and another (petros) for Peter. The "keys" he gave him was in regards to who was coming into the church then such as converted israelites and Gentiles, it is not in reference to being supreme leader of Christians, which only Christ is. And yes, Peter took care of the church body when Christ was gone. Nowhere did he state Peter was the Pope and head of the church, when that is Christ's position alone.

            .
            >Do you not know about Pentecost?
            What about it?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The tradition is bogus no matter who maintains it.
            If you think historic Christianity is worthless then you disrespect the Biblical church as well, because it’s the same, the Biblical church didn’t go anywhere.
            > I never said he did, I said the church was corrupted from the inside.
            An implicit admission that the church founded by Jesus Christ is still around today.
            >The church has lasted and is still around, spread out across the world and in various sects.
            If you say the leadership fell, and it’s no longer centralized, the way it was, and now it’s in tatters and a scattered mess, then you are saying the Church fell.
            >There are good and bad Christians inside every denomination.
            True. The important thing is who is proclaiming true doctrine.
            > I already debunked Matthew 16:18
            Let’s see.
            >Jesus used one form of the word "rock" (petra) for the rock on which he would build his church, and another (petros) for Peter
            Cope
            >The "keys" he gave him was in regards to who was coming into the church then such as converted israelites and Gentiles, it is not in reference to being supreme leader of Christians, which only Christ is
            You are making this up. Peter was the leader of the Biblical church which Christ established Himself.
            >yes, Peter took care of the church body when Christ was gone. Nowhere did he state Peter was the Pope and head of the church, when that is Christ's position alone.
            If Peter js taking care of things in the Biblical church that means he’s the chief pastor and shepherd of all.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If you think historic Christianity is worthless
            I don't think it's worthless, I think the papacy isn't in Bible, because it isn't.
            >An implicit admission that the church founded by Jesus Christ is still around today.
            So the Catholics say because of their traditions.
            >then you are saying the Church fell
            The Catholic Church did fall, that's why Protestantism exists. But the church as a body of Christians it still intact.
            >The important thing is who is proclaiming true doctrine.
            No, the important thing is judging them by their fruits.
            >Cope
            Rope.
            >You are making this up.
            No, that's what happened. They were converting israelites and non-israelites and Peter was the leader concerning the israelites because he argued with Paul over what israeli laws to keep and toss out like circumcision.
            >If Peter js taking care of things in the Biblical church
            Peter was taking care of a specific church at a specific time, not that he is the Pope of all Christendom.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Petrine primacy is in the Bible if you read about Peter, and Petrine primacy is papal primacy if you have faith that whatever leadership Christ gave the Biblical church is present with us today (in other words if you have faith)
            > The Catholic Church did fall, that's why Protestantism exists
            And Eastern Orthodoxy is also proof of Catholicism’s fall? Non sequitur.
            > the important thing is judging them by their fruits
            Fruits of the Catholic Church: invention of hospitals, endless saints and miracles, 2,000 years of unity
            > They were converting israelites and non-israelites and Peter was the leader concerning the israelites because he argued with Paul over what israeli laws to keep and toss out like circumcision
            It really amazes me the lengths people will go to justify not entertaining Catholicism. This is a beauty.
            > Peter was taking care of a specific church at a specific time
            Indefensible, absurd claim. Nothing in the Bible would indicate particularism.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Petrine primacy is in the Bible
            This is a Catholic tradition based on misinterpretations of scripture. Peter was indeed an important unifying figure but nowhere is he called to be the leader of all Christians.
            >And Eastern Orthodoxy is also proof of Catholicism’s fall?
            Absolutely, the trinity is not a Biblical concept, either.
            >Fruits of the Catholic Church
            Wars and the blood spilled of hundred of thousands of Christians, maybe more.
            >This is a beauty.
            Not an argument. Peter was held dominance over the israeli factions because he was a israelite and argued for things like circumcision whereas Paul was more keen to how Gentiles operated and said it wasn't necessary to get them to follow israeli customs like that.
            >Nothing in the Bible would indicate particularism.
            The fact that it was thousands of years ago, and Peter never stepped foot in Rome is a clear indicator for me.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > This is a Catholic tradition based on misinterpretations of scripture
            Every Protestant and Orthodox FUD hinges on “the other apostles were given the keys too” but they weren’t and even if they were, it’s unspoken, happens two chapters later, and Peter gets them first. Peter was the sole apostle Jesus prayed for in order for him to strengthen the other apostles’ faith. Petrine specialness is textual.
            > Peter was indeed an important unifying figure
            Look at what you just in fact wrote. You used an indefinite article. There is no such thing as “a unifying figure”; unity demands a single one. Therefore you must say Peter was “the” unifying figure. Has a different ring to it doesn’t it?
            > Absolutely
            Both Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are fallings away on either side of Catholicism. Catholicism is in the centre of each and is unfallen.
            > Not an argument
            Consider the symbolic meaning of the text.
            > The fact that it was thousands of years ago
            Unless you believe that the biblical church which Jesus established is the same as the church today, monarchically governed, you’ve lost the plot.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >other apostles were given the keys too” but they weren’t
            John 20:23:>If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you withhold forgiveness from any, it is withheld.
            -ACK

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I don’t see the word “keys” there.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Petrine specialness is textual.
            Peter being a unifier doesn't have anything to do with him being Pope. This is just a made up doctrine based on misinterpretations of scripture.
            >There is no such thing as “a unifying figure”; unity demands a single one.
            Paul proselytized way more than Peter, so while Peter was important, he wasn't the sole unifying figure. It took Paul's journeys and Peter's influence to bring the church to its fullest potential.
            >Both Protestantism and Eastern Orthodoxy are fallings away on either side of Catholicism.
            No, they aren't. Protestantism exposed the corruption in the Catholic Church and Orthodox was the result of doctrine squabbling based on an unBiblical principle.
            >Jesus established
            I forgot the part where Jesus went around to Greece, Rome, and Turkey and preached the gospel and started various churches.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Peter being a unifier doesn't have anything to do with him being Pope. This is just a made up doctrine based on misinterpretations of scripture.
            Peter being THE unifier in the church has to do with him being Peter. The Pope is Peter, he is the living continuation of the unifying power of Peter.
            > Paul proselytized way more than Peter, so while Peter was important, he wasn't the sole unifying figure
            Of course not the sole one, as everyone has a part to play, but the most significant and central.
            > I forgot the part where Jesus went around to Greece, Rome, and Turkey and preached the gospel and started various churches
            Jesus established His church and sent the apostles out in His own name to faraway lands. He established the entire church from scratch and bought her with His precious blood.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Peter being THE unifier in the church has to do with him being Peter.
            >the most significant and central.
            The problem is you're placing all this emphasis on Peter even though Paul is the one who traveled and started the churches. They were both important, and neither one of them were called to be Pope no matter what Catholic doctrine says, it's not in the Bible.
            >Jesus established His church
            No, he didn't. He preached up and down Judea, and his apostles went out and started churches and converted Gentiles as well as many other israelites.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > They were both important, and neither one of them were called to be Pope no matter what Catholic doctrine says, it's not in the Bible
            It’s in the Bible that both Peter and Paul died in Rome, and it’s in the early tradition that Peter died in Rome, and it’s first millennium Great Church tradition that Rome is “the Apostolic See” (universal).

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >It’s in the Bible that both Peter and Paul died in Rome,
            Post up the verses.
            >it’s in the early tradition that Peter died in Rome,
            Correct, this is their TRADITION, it's not in the Bible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Correct, this is their TRADITION, it's not in the Bible
            Not just Catholic tradition thou, it’s verified and safe kept knowledge by the Eastern Orthodox, who will begrudgingly admit all of it if really pressed (before getting angry)

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >it’s verified and safe kept knowledge by the Eastern Orthodox
            So, it's Orthodox tradition, too, so what? Still not in the Bible.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            1 Peter 5:13 also a good proof.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No, Babylon means Babylon. The cryptograph of Babylon for Rome would probably not be understood; even if we assume the earliest date assigned to the Apocalypse, that book could scarcely be known very generally in Asia Minor when this Epistle was written. St. Peter at Babylon, like St. Paul at Athens, may have met with little success; the infant Church may have been quickly crushed. There may have been a second settlement of israelites at Babylon between A.D. and the date of this Epistle. But it is quite possible that St. Peter may have been working as a missionary among the Babylonian Gentiles, for we cannot believe that he confined his ministrations to the israelites. On the whole, it seems much more probable that St. Peter was writing at the famous city on the Euphrates, though no traces of his work there remain, than that he should have used this one word in a mystical sense at the end of an Epistle where all else is plain and simple.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            I just say what I said before which is that Tertullian speaks of the Roman Church’s foundations by Peter; Eusebius discusses Peter’s presence in Rome; 1 Peter resonates with the experiences of Christians in Rome during the first century; that Peter wrote it from there is the universal early church tradition; there is no historical evidence of a Christian community in Babylon during Peter’s time, but the church in Rome was well-known, and situated in the nerve centre of the empire, so it would make sense for Peter to go there, despite the persecution which I guess were very bad. Babylon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Tertullian
            Gnostic.
            >Eusebius
            This is decades after Peter's death and when the Gnostic infiltration had happened.
            >early church tradition
            Correct, not Biblical, though.
            >there is no historical evidence of a Christian community in Babylon during Peter’s time
            Because most likely the church was destroyed after the israelites left.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Because most likely the church was destroyed after the israelites left.
            Pure speculation. Whereas, Babylon truly represents pagan Rome, the capital of the global pagan empire that crucified Jesus, where they were feeding Christians to lions in the colosseum… there is much glory to be won there I heard, very befitting of the lead apostle.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >the capital of the global pagan empire that crucified Jesus
            But Rome didn't crucify Christ, the israelites, more specifically, the Pharisees in Jerusalem did which is why it was called spiritual Sodom and Egypt and why it was identified as the prostitute of BABYLON. The 1st Peter verse isn't referring to Rome and only Catholics and israelites identify it as Babylon.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Catholics and israelites are the two smartest religious groups when it comes to scripture and narrative.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No they aren't lol.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Yes they are, they both speak parseltongue which is essential for all astute insight into Yahweh

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Catholics and israelites identify it as Babylon.
            Same thing at this point, jesuits were all originally converso israelites.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Christ-appointed leader of the church = Pope
            Praying for someone =/= appointing them Pope
            >Why do you care about it not being true that Peter died in Rome?
            Because apart from there being no Biblical basis for it, there's nothing to say he even went there in the first place.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Even if Peter was the foundation the church was built on, that doesn't make the pope a a special priest-king who rules over the other bishops. The pope isn't Peter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > The pope isn't Peter.
            Not how apostolic succession works, also not how Christianity works. If you think the early church would be graced with a leader that the late-church wouldn’t have, then you are claiming that sin and death have destroyed the leadership of the biblical church established by Christ.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >apostolic succession
            Not even a biblical doctrine as cathoisraelites interpret it, but since you cultists refuse to read or seek understanding from God, rather only your gay pedo child rapist cult, you're incapable of ever learning.

            >muh gates of hell won't prevail
            >ignore that our cult is full of child rapists and idolatry and queen of heaven worship1!!1!
            Subhuman npc religion. Those subhuman trash have kissed this idol so much they had to repair the foot multiple times, and these NPC idiots will say "That's not idolatry" just because their cult told them so.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Ironic since Christ is our high priest not the Pope, and that's the thing he got us away from corrupt man-made priesthoods like the israelites had. But again Catholicism is just paganism with a Christian coat of paint, and they love their priests positions men can use to abuse and corrupt.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Yes, same as today. The church is indeed infallible.
        Wow! I guess that means gay marriage is accepted then. Let’s Go!

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >How do Protestants cope with the fact that all church leaders and teachers in the Bible were either appointed by Christ or the apostles or those appointed by them?
    By being Anglicans and Lutherans in a church governed by bishops appointed via apostolic succession
    So this argument only applies against a subsection of Protestants.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Fair - they have no credible claim to being the one true church, though. The only reason they believe their priests are valid is because they were ex-Roman Catholic priests that changed sides.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They didn’t change any sides.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          xD
          Do they actually believe that?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            It is objectively true.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lutherans are the true Catholics? Who is their Peter then?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus Christ

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Jesus isn’t Peter. And if you believed in apostolic succession then you would have a living Peter.

            >church was doing things in a certain way for a long time
            >Luther comes a long and starts changing stuff
            >but he actually was the one who can claim continuity with the church, it's the other guys who changed sides despite behaving in basically the same ways they were before Luther was born
            insanity

            I actually think apostolic Protestants larping as the one true church is quietly one of the most insane mainstream beliefs out there, almost on par with sedevacantism.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >church was doing things in a certain way for a long time
          >Luther comes a long and starts changing stuff
          >but he actually was the one who can claim continuity with the church, it's the other guys who changed sides despite behaving in basically the same ways they were before Luther was born
          insanity

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            https://x.com/potamopotos/status/1736457206659158369?s=20

            Jesus isn’t Peter. And if you believed in apostolic succession then you would have a living Peter.

            [...]
            I actually think apostolic Protestants larping as the one true church is quietly one of the most insane mainstream beliefs out there, almost on par with sedevacantism.

            Anons over here worshipping Peter. Lmao

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Anons over here worshipping Peter. Lmao
            If you claim to be apostolic you need Peter.

            John 10:1-11
            1 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that entereth not by the door into the sheepfold, but climbeth up some other way, the same is a thief and a robber.
            2 But he that entereth in by the door is the shepherd of the sheep.
            3 To him the porter openeth; and the sheep hear his voice: and he calleth his own sheep by name, and leadeth them out.
            4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
            5 And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.
            6 This parable spake Jesus unto them: but they understood not what things they were which he spake unto them.
            7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.
            8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.
            9 I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture.
            10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.
            11 I am the good shepherd: the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep.

            John 21:15-17
            15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
            16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
            17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Peter represents the twelve and the church in these verses. What point do you think you’re making.

            Your link doesn't say anything about the Catholic church being the one who changed after Luther disagreed with them. Which is what the picture claims, that the church was doing everything according to Luther until at some point the Council of Trent made the Catholic church go it's own way while Lutherans continued doing whatever they were already doing before Luther.

            The council of Trent anathematized the gospel. That is where they split off from the church. The papist church doubled down on medieval errors that crept into the church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > What point do you think you’re making
            Jesus leaves Peter in charge of his sheep so you can’t go around Peter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            No it doesn’t. He is told to feed my sheep. Not putting him in charge. The whole church has that duty. He was restoring Peter’s role as apostle.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Lumen Gentium Denys the Athanasian creed. I wouldn’t be appealing to that document.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Meant for

            That is a totally arbitrary view of ecclesiology. Lumen Gentium teaches that the one Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside its visible structure.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Different emphases within the same overarching doctrine of salvation in Christ

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Your link doesn't say anything about the Catholic church being the one who changed after Luther disagreed with them. Which is what the picture claims, that the church was doing everything according to Luther until at some point the Council of Trent made the Catholic church go it's own way while Lutherans continued doing whatever they were already doing before Luther.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        The one true church is the invisible church of all believers, which includes many Anglicans, Lutherans and Catholics

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          That is a totally arbitrary view of ecclesiology. Lumen Gentium teaches that the one Church of Christ “subsists in” the Catholic Church, governed by the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him, although many elements of sanctification and truth can be found outside its visible structure.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >That is a totally arbitrary view of ecclesiology
            >Lumen Gentium teaches
            Yes, scripture is arbitrary but the pronouncements of Vatican II are infallible

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Scripture never talks about Canterbury but I think it mentions something about Rome.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            What is relevant is not which places are named in scripture, but which bodies follow the doctrine scripture teaches.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Scripture teaches Petrine primacy and apostolic succession.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            1) wrong, and even Petrine primacy you can argue from Scripture is a million miles away from Roman universal jurisdiction and post Vatican I literal Papal infallibility; 2) is not an issue for hundreds of millions of Protestants, as I pointed out at the start of this reply chain

            >How do Protestants cope with the fact that all church leaders and teachers in the Bible were either appointed by Christ or the apostles or those appointed by them?
            By being Anglicans and Lutherans in a church governed by bishops appointed via apostolic succession
            So this argument only applies against a subsection of Protestants.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Petrine primacy you can argue from Scripture is a million miles away from Roman universal jurisdiction and post Vatican I literal Papal infallibility
            How so? If Rome is “the Apostolic See”, which primacy establishes, then it means they are reliable on doctrine.
            > not an issue for hundreds of millions of Protestants
            No Protestants claiming apostolic succession have Peter.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >If Rome is “the Apostolic See”, which primacy establishes, then it means they are reliable on doctrine.
            Rome is not "the Apostolic See". There are dozens of apostolic sees. That's a moronicly grandiose title Rome invented for itself in the late first millennium because there were no other apostolically founded churches competing with Rome in the West.
            >which primacy establishes, then it means they are reliable on doctrine.
            Reliability is not infallibility, which Rome claims. The rule of doctrine is conformity to Scripture. If a Petrine see teaches doctrine that is heretical, they are in error regardless of their apostolic succession.
            >No Protestants claiming apostolic succession have Peter.
            Yes we do, via the invisible church.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Rome is not "the Apostolic See". There are dozens of apostolic sees.
            Yes, it is. The significance of Rome as the Apostolic See is very evident and has been consistently affirmed throughout Great Church history, reflected in both patristics and ecumenical councils.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            An apostolic see is a see founded by an apostle. There are dozens of those sees in multiple denominations. Roman claims to be the only one are fairly embarrassing.
            >and has been consistently affirmed throughout Great Church history, reflected in both patristics and ecumenical councils
            Show me where this is the case, and where this in conformity with Scripture.

            Btw Acts has the Bishop of Jerusalem in James preside over the ecumenical council, not Rome.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Irenaeus
            “For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority.”
            >Tertullian
            “How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s…”
            >Cyprian
            “After all these [schismatic bishops], there is yet another greater and graver crime... they dare to set sail and carry letters from schismatic and profane persons to the chair of Peter and to the principal church, in which sacerdotal unity has its source.”
            >Bible
            1 Peter 5:13

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    He appointed his apostles. Your church leaders aren't his apostles. Your church was created by a Roman politician in the mid-fourth century, then shaped by a gnostic. It has nothing to do with the original church.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The Bible details more appointments than just Jesus calling the apostles. It has apostles appointing other church leaders to appoint other church leaders. This means a centralized ecclesiology around Peter & Jesus. And this leadership is given as a grace.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, the apostles appointed people. But the apostles weren't Jesus. You're just inserting this idea that there needs to be some line back to Jesus in such a manner. Nothing of the sort is ever described. Besides, your church wouldn't fit the bill since it was created in the mid-fourth century.

        The Bible even explains what the prerequisites for bishops (assembly overseers), elders and deacons are. Nothing in there says such people must be appointed by previous bishops.

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Jesus didn't exist.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Paul was actually the first in Rome. And Peter took orders from Paul. Doesn't sound like much of a pope.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Roman Catholicism is for NPCs, there's no point trying to argue with these subhuman trash.

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >trust the religion experts, chud!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >trust the religion experts, chud!

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >trust the religion experts, chud!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          >trust the religion experts, chud!

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/vWmWmtV.png

      >trust the religion experts, chud!

      https://i.imgur.com/zphI7ef.jpg

      >trust the religion experts, chud!

      https://i.imgur.com/p3xcYzI.jpg

      >trust the religion experts, chud!

      it's ok if the expert is Luther/Calvin though

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    i think the holy trinity should be replaced with the holy quadrinity with mary mother of god, pbuh, becoming the fourth member of the grouping.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    ITT:
    >Where is the word "pope"?
    >Well, where it the word "key"?
    >You see, the fathers agreed with me
    >No, they changed their minds and said something else another time
    >But what they said there can be interpreted as agreeing with me!
    From an outside perspective it's clear that neither the text, neither the ancients are agreeing with any of you all the time. In fact, the whole thing looks like it is inconsistent and impossible to reconcile as it some times points in one direction, and then another.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Why would Jesus establish a new priesthood when his whole mission was to return us to the faith of Abraham when there was no priesthood or temple that could get corrupted? Which is exactly what happened with the Catholic Church.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        > Which is exactly what happened with the Catholic Church
        Honestly it’s just sad, why would you say that?

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oh, I don't know, maybe because of indulgences? Catholics became Pharisees and were using religion to enslave the people. This is purely antichrist.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      The entire thing points in the Catholic direction, and everything that doesn’t is explained away as explicitly anti-papal (and lacking grace). Only Rome can do this kind of thing of course, through its historic primacy of honour.

  15. 2 months ago
    Radiochan

    the priests themselves lost the respect of the people by acting the way they did and so did the pope

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Christ is King.
    Repeat and be baptized in Christ's one true Church, the Roman Catholic Church.
    Christ saves.

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    I’m familiar with the mixed history of the Papacy because I used to be Eastern Orthodox. As someone with an apostolic mind, I don’t question whether the line between early first millennium Popes and Peter is real. Record keeping was robust and highly scrutinized, not just in Rome but in all the apostolic sees, because people had to justify their authority. E.g. We know that the Coptic Church was founded in a continuous line with Mark as well. With that in mind, this is my response:

    > The papacy was not founded by Jesus or existed in the early church despite being authoritatively declared to be the “constant belief of every age,” by the 19th century Pope Leo XIII. It began as an abuse of its pre-eminent honor that was declared by others in the early church. It began with Pope Leo the great not Jesus or Peter.
    Church leadership did start with Jesus and Peter. That leadership continued on. It’s been interpreted in different ways throughout the ages. Many rebuked the Pope and criticized him in the Great Church. Many rebuke and criticize the Pope in Catholicism today. Many traditions such as Eastern Orthodoxy basically exist entirely just to hold the Pope to standards the Papacy itself set as the example in the first millennium starting with Peter. You agree that Rome has always had pre-eminent honour, but you want to abandon it because of this honour’s abuse. I wouldn’t say that is a good reason to abandon the church that God sealed with singularity in the New Testament. Speaking honestly.

Comments are closed.