Misguided people? Or am I wrong?


#1

Found this passage on the net from a neutral site, was mulling over it for a while.

Is it historically correct?

Any answer to their claims? (if any are needed?)

Roman Catholicism traces its history to the apostles, especially the Apostle Peter. St. Peter is considered the first pope, and every pope since him is regarded as his spiritual successor. This gives the leader of the church spiritual authority and provides a means for resolving disputes that could divide the church. Through trials like persecution, heresy, and the Reformation, the notion that the church leadership represents the continuation of an unbroken line from the apostles and their teachings (“apostolic succession”) has contributed to the survival of Christianity.

However, the idea of the “pope” did not exist from the beginning of the church. It was not until several centuries after Christ that the church began to develop into the “Roman Catholic Church” as we think of it today, with its particular doctrines, practices, and hierarchical system of authority. Thus Catholics and non-Catholics alike are able to claim they are most faithful to the message of the apostles and the early church. From the Catholic perspective, the early church is faithfully continued in the developments of later centuries, while non-Catholics tend to regard the church as having corrupted the original message of Christianity.

Very appreciative of any direction towards similar threads or tracts on catholic.com about the subject, i cant seem to find any.

Or just your take on it.

Thanks.

In Christ.

Andre.


#2

[quote=Magicsilence]Found this passage on the net from a neutral site, was mulling over it for a while.

Is it historically correct?

Any answer to their claims? (if any are needed?)

Very appreciative of any direction towards similar threads or tracts on catholic.com about the subject, i cant seem to find any.

Or just your take on it.

Thanks.

In Christ.

Andre.
[/quote]

It’s a fair account: it may seem dodgy to us, but that’s because our faith interprets the historical details in a particular way, and depends on the validity of the interpretation - even it can also find room for others.

As it stands, I can’t see any problems with it - after all, we can’t expect non-Catholics to interpret the facts in the way that we do :slight_smile: ##


#3

[quote=Magicsilence]Found this passage on the net from a neutral site, was mulling over it for a while.

Is it historically correct?

Any answer to their claims? (if any are needed?)

Very appreciative of any direction towards similar threads or tracts on catholic.com about the subject, i cant seem to find any.

Or just your take on it.

Thanks.

In Christ.

Andre.
[/quote]

That is about as correct as saying that you are not real sure that a 747 is really an airplane, It just does not look exactly like that real airplane those bicycle guys were messing with on the beach. It doesn’t even have a propeller!

Did the Catholic Church develop over time? Of course! Christ did not leave a blue print with specific instructions complete with titles for various positions. He left the Apostles in charge and left it up to them and their successors to form what today is known as the Catholic Church.


#4

Hi, please check-out,en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholicism


#5

The Church was entirely Catholic from the time of the Apostles onward to the present. Read this book:
amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0898708478/102-2911300-4028902?v=glance


#6

I don’t see any facts to refute.

The writer should have the guts to specify names, dates, and events that can be either confirmed or refuted.

I notice this a lot with “reformers.” They’re pretty vague with facts because they know they fail when the discussion zeroes in on the real world as opposed to their marketing pitch.


#7

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.