[Paracelsus]

(09-01-2015 12:21 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

It's funny that this is the same method hardcore Islam uses to maintain it's fundamentalism, but it's more or less backfired on maintaining control among Christians for a long time.

The Catholic argument that I've heard among Catholics and those that have converted to Catholicism to be more traditional is "The Catholic church is the most orthodox because it's the one Jesus founded". I don't know the validity of that argument, but I thought it was an interesting take that I'd like to know more about.

Giving a very brief and from-memory summary of it, it basically comes from something Jesus said to Peter.

The Catholic Church believes that Jesus founded it when Peter first realised "You are the Christ, the Holy One of God". To this Jesus responds (paraphrasing it) "Blessed be you, Simon son of Jonah, because it is not man or reason that has revealed this to you, but God. You were named Simon, but I say you are Peter (khaifa -- we'll get to this), and on this rock I will build my church, and all the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

Peter had been named Simon before this point, but Christ gives him the name Peter, or rock. The original text is thought by Catholicism to have been khaifa in Aramaic, which means both "rock", but also had a meaning in Aramaic as "the foundation of a community" -- I think they assert that Jacob is referred to in the same way. Thus we have those words: "You were named Simon, but I say you are rock, and on this rock I will build my church." -- that church being the Catholic Church. From that day forward, Peter is referred to as Simon Peter, Simon rock, Simon Khaifa.

It's put out there explicitly in the Catholic Catechism -- sort of the definitive set of beliefs for Catholics -- that the Catholic Church teaches only what has been given to it, and it considers it has been given not only the text of the Bible itself, but also the traditions and teachings of the early patriarchs of the church in its infancy, which may not be in the Bible itself but which are deemed significant enough for Catholicism to order its affairs by them. That tradition -- handed down first by the very early St. Iraenaeus, in the old text Adversus Haeresies, that is, "Against Heresies" -- is that Peter was the head of the church, its highest authority, and that his successors were similarly invested with his pre-eminence as first among the disciples. That is, the Pope. The Catholic Church, thus, is the church founded by Jesus. And it should be noted that the word catholic means universal. You will find any number of explicit rulings in catechism saying that those brought up in alternate Christian sects -- Protestant, etc. -- are still considered Christians and should be considered brothers by Catholics. It's part of the Catholic (i.e. the Nicene) creed that Catholics only acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins -- i.e. that within the Catholic Church -- because it's the only rite of baptism the Catholic Church has been given by tradition and the patriarchs.

You can probably see where Protestant thought would have differed heavily on this. Part of the Protestant line of thought/belief was that (a) the Bible alone was sufficient for Christians to know, i.e. that the traditions had no particular significance and (b) Jesus was not giving Peter any special significance above the other disciples when he spoke the above words.

On top of that, there is the Pope's own authority among other bishops. This is a big difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern or Russian Orthodox Churches. In essence, the Catholic Church holds that the Bishop of Rome -- i.e. the Pope -- being the successor to Peter is paramount above all the other bishops in the various churches across the world. The orthodox churches don't accept this point of view and hold that the Pope is only one of other equally-ranked speakers for the churches. And to be fair, history does tell us that it took the better part of a few hundred years for the belief/tradition/idea to take hold that the bishop of Rome was the head of the church. This belief was at the heart of what's called the Great Schism of, oh, 1064 or so if I remember right, which was as big a split in the church as the Reformation that took place four hundred years down the line. It's a schism that's still being healed, though as I understand it all the Christian churches have at least cordial relationships these days under the banner of ecumenicism -- something John XXIII was keen to push back in the 1960s or so.