Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Why are the Popes his direct descendants? The majority were in no Apostolic or holy, and they came way after the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, meaning they had much less claim to be descending from the beginning church because the first churches were in the East, not West.
She said successors not descendants. It's pretty obvious the popes are not from the same family line but each follows another successively as pope.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
When you want to prove something with a later translation, you go back to Greek not Latin. In Greek, it's actually pretty different from Latin.
>>Then go back to Aramaic, if you so please. The point is, Peter's name literally translates to rock, and the latin (which happens to be a closer translation to the original aramaic) exemplifies this.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Why are the Popes his direct descendants? The majority were in no Apostolic or holy, and they came way after the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church, meaning they had much less claim to be descending from the beginning church because the first churches were in the East, not West.
The popes are Peters descendants because Peter went around to Jews and Gentiles and made them bishops and priests in the Church. From there, those bishops went on to consecrate other bishops and priests etc. So, in effect, all Catholic clergymen can trace their ordination to Peter, the popes no exception.
Also, I find it hilarious, yet somewhat sad that you believe that the patriarchs of the Eastern Church came before the popes. Let me refresh your history. The pope of the Church that directly followed St. Peter , St. Linus reigned from 67-76 AD (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm). At that time THERE WAS NO PATRIARCH. And even after the patriarch came into existence after the conversion of Rome, the entire Church was unified under the Pope. When the Eastern Church schismed , they followed the patriarch and consecrated orthodox bishops, thusly breaking apostolic succession.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And yet, not one of those words is use to describe the Church in the Bible. Hm.
The Catholic Church was only changed in name to differentiate itself from the heretical schismatics that were polluting the name of Christ by calling themselves "Christian". Also, Christ's Church is indeed holy, as well as apostolic, for the true Church gained its authority directly from Christ.
Remember, Christ repeatedly in the Bible asks the people to come into His flock; His Church. Sola Scriptura; more like Sorta Scriptura!
Originally posted by Transfinitum
>>Then go back to Aramaic, if you so please. The point is, Peter's name literally translates to rock, and the latin (which happens to be a closer translation to the original aramaic) exemplifies this.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
The popes are Peters descendants because Peter went around to Jews and Gentiles and made them bishops and priests in the Church. From there, those bishops went on to consecrate other bishops and priests etc. So, in effect, all Catholic clergymen can trace their ordination to Peter, the popes no exception.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
Also, I find it hilarious, yet somewhat sad that you believe that the patriarchs of the Eastern Church came before the popes. Let me refresh your history. The pope of the Church that directly followed St. Peter , St. Linus reigned from 67-76 AD (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm). At that time THERE WAS NO PATRIARCH. And even after the patriarch came into existence after the conversion of Rome, the entire Church was unified under the Pope. When the Eastern Church schismed , they followed the patriarch and consecrated orthodox bishops, thusly breaking apostolic succession.
Originally posted by Transfinitum
The Catholic Church was only changed in name to differentiate itself from the heretical schismatics that were polluting the name of Christ by calling themselves "Christian". Also, Christ's Church is indeed holy, as well as apostolic, for the true Church gained its authority directly from Christ.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
What I heard must be wrong then. From what I was told, it was mistranslated and did not literally mean rock.
You might have heard it meant pebble but it doesn't. Do you wish for me to go into that in more detail or is my word enough?
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
And Orthodox clergy can trace their ordination to the other Apostles, of which there are more than just Peter.
Indeed, I believe the Church does recognise some of the Eastern Orthodox as valid but illicitly ordained as Bishops.
Yes, there were no patriarchs. There were the Bishops and dioceses that were established well before St. Linus set up a real diocese or church in Rome. These Bishops were the predecessors of the patriarchs, and were well before Popes were fully established in Rome.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
But the Catholic Church is not biblical, so I'm sorry, but it is not the biblical church. None of the sects around after the Apostles were the biblical church. They were their own denominations.
How is it not Biblical?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
You might have heard it meant pebble but it doesn't. Do you wish for me to go into that in more detail or is my word enough?
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
Indeed, I believe the Church does recognize some of the Eastern Orthodox as valid but illicitly ordained as Bishops.
Originally posted by Grand_Moff_Gav
How is it not Biblical?
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
I don't see why. The Bishops that were established (Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc.) were taught by the Apostles and in all likeliness ordained.
Originally posted by RocasAtoll
The idea of tradition taking over scripture significantly, the Pope, Cardinals, etc. Too much extra.
Sacred Tradition did not take over scriptures...indeed Tradition created the Scripture.
The Bible is quite clear, Peter you are the foundation of my Church. Peter feed my sheep. Peter I give to you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. In the Bible Christ creates the Papacy...the Papacy is the living Church...thus is cannot be extra-biblical...indeed to be Catholic is to be purely biblical.