St. Peter and Rome

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 11-15-04 | Amy Barragree

[annalex]

I don't "attack" the Church

Wonderful. Wise decision.

I simply trust His promises

Welcome home to the Catholic Church.

[William Terrell]

Here is where you err. You look at the scriptures in terms of the inception of an all powerful corporation, and artificial entity, instead of in terms of individuals, each with the full Kingdom of God within, able to be saved, translated and become a son of God with or without the benefit of any church of any kind.

The connection to God and His Christ lies within each individual human being, and Christ died in the way He did for the sin of each individual, without benefit of any church.

Any mention of any church is a simple reference to the custom of likeminded people to come together and worship.

The "church", not being an individual with a soul, cannot be the recipient of anything of the spirit, no attributes, no gifts nor authority other than those people who compose choose to award it of the bounty they get from the Holy Spirit.

From my observation, the church is in great error, and it is the error of arrogance and usurpation. It becomes your error when you invest yourself in its sin.

[annalex]

From my observation, the church is in great error, and it is the error of arrogance

This is comical. You make a personal observation while I cite scripture, but somehow the arrogance is mine?

[stfassisi]

And remember Simon Magus didn't want to be a lowly disciple but a Master or Magister of this Christianity that he saw. When he was denied it by Peter, he started a counterfeit Christianity of which he became the Magister right there on his sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years from which the magisterial Papacy grew. The magisterium there in Rome does trace its roots to that person sitting on that magisterial sacerdotal chair in Rome for 25 years under Claudius and Nero, doesn't it?

I guess that what have to invalidate your Bible then, since your Bible came out of your so-called Counterfeit Christianity.

You set yourself a very nice trap!

The atheists would love to have a guy like you on their team!

[William Terrell]

No, the arrogance is the church's. The church has no clear scriptures, only that which requires interpretation that no ordinary man, reading them without first being conditioned by church propaganda, would make.

An organization has, and can have, no receiving of the Holy Spirit, and the gifts and salvation thereof, only individuals.

There is the error.

[Uncle Chip]

And which counterfeit Bible would that be? the Vaticanus B or Jerome's Latin Vulgate or the Rheims-Douay?

[annalex]

requires interpretation that no ordinary man, reading them without first being conditioned by church propaganda, would make

Propaganda?

It is a rule in reading any text that it is read in the linguistic and cultural context of the writer. The fathers of the Church knew the intent of the inspired writers, shared their culture and spoke their language. This is how the Church teaches to interpret the scripture, through the patristic lense. You, on the other hand, do not even read Greek, but you profess to be able to subvert 2000 years of work done by people who gave their lives to the task.

An organization has, and can have, no receiving of the Holy Spirit, and the gifts and salvation thereof, only individuals.

True, but irrelevant. Naturally, the authority of the Church resides with her bishops.

[William Terrell]

Yes. propaganda.

But then the "fathers of the Church" didn't make any clear, unambiguous scripture to leave no doubt that the RCC was the Mother and Father and Big Brother of all spiritual being, did they.

True, but irrelevant. Naturally, the authority of the Church resides with her bishops.

The running of the church resides with individuals, who can be corrupt or holy, by their individual choice. All individual souls can make covenant with God directly, with or without any church, because the Kingdom of God is within each individual. This script is clear and unambiguous.

A RCC bishop may or may not be saved, according to his relationship with God and the condition of the integrity of his soul. He is no better, worse, closer to or further from God and Christ than any other human being on Earth, according to their individual, sovereign election.

He can be saved or not saved according to his own personal choice, faith and works, regardless of being any official in any church.

[annalex]

I gave you the foundational scripture in #580.

While the bishops answer to Christ individually, the Church they build is givern infallibility institutionally. See Mt 16:18.

[stfassisi]

Are you an atheist?
Do you believe Jesus is God?

[William Terrell]

Your foundational scripture is built on the presumption that Christ came to pass some sort of royalty to a vast artificial entity to oversee the spiritual condition of men and judge who should come to Him, and who should not.

The rock upon which Christ's church was founded is the individual link with the Father and His guidance, inspiration and motivation. And Jesus lauded Peter for using that relationship to receive the revelation the Jesus was the Son of God.

For, that is a rock.

You can take millions of atoms out of a rock and it still is the foundation of a rock, because all the others bear up the whole weight equally.

If you build salvation of all on a one atom rock, like one all powerful church with exclusive keys to the Kingdom, when that one atom is taken out so does what it holds up crash down.

Of the two rocks, it is the former that the gates of hell shall not prevail against.

Individuals, not corporate entities, please.

[annalex]

Christ came to pass some sort of royalty to a vast artificial entity to oversee the spiritual condition of men and judge who should come to Him, and who should not.

Exactly so. Christ is king and the pope is His vicar on earth. But why is it "artificial"? Few things are more natural that royalty. As to judging, the commandment is to "preach the gospel to all creation"; however, the key to the kindgom is indeed, the scripture tells us in the hand of the successor of St. Peter.

The rock upon which Christ's church was founded is the individual link with the Father and His guidance, inspiration and motivation

I recognize this as a Protestant spin, but where is this in the Scripture? There is one Peter, one set of keys and one body of Christ His Church. There is nothing in that passage to indicate that the other apostles standing nearby receive their keys, or are also rocks.

[Uncle Chip]

Are you an atheist? Do you believe Jesus is God?

Perhaps you should ask those questions of those master interpreters of words that you call a Magisterium, and they can consult their oracles and those wizards that peep and mutter, and they will give you an answer that you will be satisfied with, like everything else they tell you that you just accept without question.

[Uncle Chip]

Interesting word....Pater. Peter, Pator, Patre, Padre, Patora,Preter was the name given to many ancient heathen Gods. The term always meaning "inter"preters" of sacred knowledge.

Interesting indeed!! Could this simple play on words give us a clue as to the origin of the heresy of Preterism, which according to Irenaeus came from the Father [Pater, Peter, Preter] of all heresies, Father Simon Magus himself. Listen to this from Irenaeus on this matter and see if you can discern from him what other heresies are coming from the pens and mouths of Father Simon Magus's disciples.

"But if any one, 'doting about questions', do imagine that what the apostles have declared about God should be allegorized, let him consider my previous statements, in which I set forth one God as the Founder and Maker of all things and laid bare the allegations . . . both the Mosaic Law and the grace of the new covenant, as being fitted for the time [at which they were given], were bestowed by one and the same God for the benefit of the human race.[Verse 11]

"For all those who are of a perverse mind, having been set against the Mosaic legislation, judging it to be dissimilar and contrary to the doctrine of the Gospel, have not applied themselves to investigate the causes of the differences of each covenant. Since, therefore, they have been deserted by the paternal love, and puffed up by Satan, being brought over to the doctrine of Simon Magus, they have apostatized in their opinions of Him who is God, and imagined that they have themselves discovered more than the apostles, by finding out another god; an [maintained] that the apostles preached the Gospel still somewhat under the influence of Jewish opinions, but that they themselves are purer [in doctrine], and more intelligent than the apostles. Wherefore also, Marcion and his followers have betaken themselves to mutilating the Scriptures, not acknowledging some books at all, and curtailing the Gospel according to Luke, and the Epistles of Paul, they assert that these alone are authentic, which they themselves have shortened." [Irenaeus: Against Heresies: Book III: Chapter 12: Verses 11,12]

How many things discerned from Irenaeus's writings here are taught in the churches of Christendom today. We can start with 1]Preterism, then 2] the Allegorization of the Scriptures, then 3] Replacement Theology, then 4] an irrational disdain for and mischaracterization of Dispensational Theology, then 5] that what the prophets of the Jewish side of the Book wrote are not for today, then 6] the use of those versions of the Bible that are based upon the corrupted manuscripts that came from the hands of the disciples of Father Simon the Magician.

This is a wake up call, not just to Catholics but to all those who "call themselves Christians" and are "called Christians". Where, oh where, do those things that everyone spends so much of their time torturing Bible passages to make them try to say really come from?

Irenaeus identifies these 6 above and more as originating, not from the apostles or the Scriptures, but from the disciples of Simon the Magician, the founder of that magisterial counterfeit Roman religion that still sits there today. Think about it. Think long and hard about it.

[stfassisi]

The late Father John Hardon did a wonderful job on this.

From...
http://www.therealpresence.org/archives/Church_Dogma/Church_Dogma_024.htm
St. Peter in Rome
St. Peter’s stay in Rome and his martyrdom in that city are closely tied in with the origins of the papacy. They serve as a link to unite the original communities in Asia Minor where “the disciples were first called Christians,” with the Roman Catholic Church whose sovereign pontiffs claim direct succession from the Prince of the Apostles. When the Vatican Council declared that “Blessed Peter even to this time governs and exercises judgment in his successor, the bishops of the holy Roman See, which he established and consecrated with his blood,” it was only repeating an ancient tradition that goes back to the first century of the Christian era. [9] Those who question the historical fact are afraid of its doctrinal implications. And although the opposition is weakening in the light of recent excavations which confirm the written tradition, the issue is still controverted by certain critics of the Roman Primacy.

First Epistle of St. Peter. The earliest text which indicates the presence of Peter in Rome occurs at the end of his first epistle, written in the latter part of 63 or the beginning of 64 A.D. He concludes with the salutation, “The Church which is at Babylon, chosen together with you, greets you; and so does my son Mark.” [10] All the evidence available identifies Babylon as Rome. Babylon was already in ruins, and there was no suggestion for five centuries that Peter had ever been there, whereas the tradition connecting him with Rome is one of the strongest in the Church. From the Apocalypse, the Jewish writings and the Sibylline books of the first century, we know that this name was a cryptic designation for the city of Rome. This is confirmed by Papias, a disciple of John the Evangelist, writing about the year 130 A.D., as found in the fourth century historian Eusebius of Caesarea. Speaking of Papias and Clement of Alexandria (died 215 A.D.), Eusebius reports “they say that Peter makes mention of Mark in his first epistle, which, they say, he wrote also in Rome, as he indicated when he calls the city figuratively Babylon.” [11]

Clement of Rome to the Corinthians. Before the end of the first century we have another authentic witness to Peter’s stay and martyrdom in Rome from the pen of his successor in the papacy, Clement I, writing to the Corinthians about the year 96 A.D. This most famous document of Christian antiquity outside the Scriptures was occasioned by the envy and jealousy among the faithful in Corinth which threatened to destroy the Church in that city. In order to compose the strife, Clement wrote an urgent letter to the contestants and pointed out the tragic results that can follow from an envious spirit. “Through envy and malice,” he said, “the greatest and most righteous pillars of the Church were persecuted and contended even unto death. Let us set before our eyes the good Apostles. There was Peter, who by reason of malicious envy endured not one nor two but many trials, and so, having been martyred, he passed to his appointed place of glory. Amid envy and strife, Paul pointed out the way to the prize of patient endurance.” Then he continued, “Unto these men of holy lives was gathered a vast multitude of the elect, who through many indignities and tortures endured the envy and set a noble example in the midst of us. Through envy women were persecuted as Danaides and Dirces, suffering cruel and unholy insults; they steadfastly finished the course of faith and received a noble price.” [12] Clement therefore represents Peter and Paul and the rest as one group (sunethroisthe), who together gave to the Romans and in their midst (en hemin), a noble example of courage.

Gaius the Presbyter on the Tombs of the Apostles. An outstanding witness to Peter’s living and dying in Rome is the presbyter Gaius, a contemporary of Pope Zephyrinus, towards the end of the second century. Gauis was opposing the Montanist heretic Proclus, who appealed to the fact that the church of Hierapolis in Asia Minor possesses the graves of the Apostle Philip and his daughters. In reply, Gaius retorted, “But I can point out the trophies of the Apostles. For if you go to the Vatican Hill or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who have founded this church.” Eusebius, who quotes Gaius, further explains that Peter’s crucifixion and Paul’s beheading in Rome are “confirmed by the fact that the names of Peter and Paul are preserved in the cemeteries there to this day.” Consequently he interprets Gaius as identifying “the places where the bodies of the aforesaid Apostles are laid.” [13] The trophies (trophaia) to which Gaius refers are taken by Eusebius to mean nothing less than the tombs of Peter and Paul. St. Ireneus, Bishop of Lyons around 180 A.D., is equally explicit when describing the authorship of the Gospels. “Matthew issued a Gospel among the Hebrews in their tongue,” he wrote, “while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and establishing the Church. After their death, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, transmitted to us in writing the things that Peter had preached.” [14]

Confirmatory evidence to the unanimous literary tradition was discovered in 1915 on the Appian Way in the catacombs under the Basilica of St. Sebastian, formerly called the Basilica of the Apostles. Numerous inscriptions have been cut into the walls of the catacomb by the Christian faithful, invoking the intercession of Sts. Peter and Paul and recalling the sacred rite of Refrigerium of Libation in honor of the Apostles. 191 inscriptions (graffiti) have been discovered, 33 of them in Greek and the rest in low Latin. Typical petitions read, “Peter and Paul, keep us in mind….Peter and Paul, pray for a great sinner….Peter and Paul save Vincent….I, Tomius Coelius, offered a libation to Peter and Paul.” [15] The funerary character of the etchings is clear from the frequent occurrence of the words refrigerium and votum, both of which at the is period imply definite connection with a rite offered especially at the actual tomb, and act of petition on behalf of the offerer as well as of honor for the dead. Supporting archeological data indicates that the bodies of the two Apostles were temporarily removed from the Vatican (for Peter) and the Via Ostia (for Paul) to this out of the way cemetery on the Appian Way, most probably in 258 A.D., the year of the general desecration of Christian burial places during the persecution of Valerian. They remained there until the early fourth century when peace was given to the Church by the Emperor Constantine, who had the bodies restored to their original tombs and built two great basilicas on the hallowed sites.

Tomb of St. Peter at the Vatican. The testimony in favor of Peter’s sojourn and martyrdom in Rome is so conclusive that practically no one denies it. “All the early sources,” says a Protestant scholar, “about the year 100 become clear and easily understandable, agree with their historic context, and with each other, if we accept what they clearly suggest to us, namely, that Peter stayed in Rome and died a martyr there. Any other hypothesis on Peter’s death heaps difficulty on difficulty, and cannot be supported by a single document.” [16] A further question, however, is whether the present St. Peter’s Basilica can be scientifically established as the burial place of the first Apostle. Excavations at the Vatican begun in 1939 and continued to the present day give full credence to the traditional belief that under the columns of Bernini and the Confessio Petri lies the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles.

Besides the definitive report published by the Vatican, at least a dozen volumes have come out on the subject in the last decade. [17] On examining the evidence we find that it falls into two classes, literary and archeological, which are mutually dependent. The literary evidence covers three items in particular: that by the year 200 there was a shrine on the Vatican Hill which people venerated as the burial place of St. Peter; that eleven of the first fourteen successors of the first pope were buried “next to the body of the Blessed Peter in the Vatican”; and that around 335 A.D. the Emperor Constantine built a gigantic church on the Vatican in honor of the Prince of the Apostles. [18] The recent excavations under the Basilica of St. Peter have unearthed a large cemetery, both pagan and Christian, together with a monumental shrine that was certainly dedicated to the first Apostle. A brief catalog of these findings will help to estimate their value on a purely scientific basis.

The first discovery was an unusually thick wall of considerable size, whose purpose was to make level the sloping hillside and furnish a substructure for the Basilica of Constantine. Why choose this particular spot on the side of a hill, which is the worst possible site for a large building, and go to the trouble of leveling it off with tons of earth, unless it was believed to be the very place where St. Peter was entombed?

Near the wall and immediately below the present high altar of St. Peter’s was found a sizeable monument with a shallow niche about ten feet square, which is traditionally associated with funerary shrines. Built into a red wall of its own, the monument can be dated to 160 A.D., from the stamp of Marcus Aurelius on some of the bricks in the pavement. Under the monument and directly below the niche were found reburied bones which the excavators identified as human. A preliminary examination showed them to be those of a person of advanced age and powerful physique. Significantly, the red wall at this very spot, and only here, does not go so deep into the ground, as though to avoid disturbing, to be astride, a grave. Buried in a recess in front of the monument were found innumerable coins, probably votive offerings, including six that were minted before the shrine was constructed and seventy-seven ranging from 80 to 300 A.D. Scores of Chi-Rho monograms on the walls and one invocation of St. Peter right next to the monument confirm that fact that this was a place of Christian worship and prayer.

Neighboring on the monument is a series of graves of varying antiquity, from the first and second centuries, including one that bears the stamp of Vespasian who died in 79 A.D. Their location suggests they were deliberately aligned with the monument in subordinate relation to a central tomb which lay underneath. Moreover since they are all inhumations, they should be considered Christian and not pagan, because at this early date the pagans generally cremated their dead. A reasonable conclusion, therefore is that already in the first century Christians had themselves buried around the grave of the first Apostle. Whether any of these include the eleven popes said to have been interred “next to the body of St. Peter” is still an open question.

The significance of the Vatican excavations is more than academic. It is bound up, according to Pope Pius XII, with the development of the Church as a historical fact. “Although the monumental proof of Peter’s residence and death in Rome is not essential to the Catholic faith, we had widely-known excavations carried out under the Basilica. Their result—the discovery of Peter’s tomb under the cupola, just beneath the present Papal altar—is admitted by the great majority of critics.” [19] Even the most skeptical, whose theological bias is all to the contrary, are willing to admit that “the excavations speak in favor of the report that the execution of Peter took place in the Vatican district.” [20]

[Uncle Chip]

I think that we can narrow down any possible visit by Peter to Paul in Rome [per Ignatius, Irenaeus, and a few others] to between 62AD when Paul was released from his first imprisonment and 64AD when Nero set fire to Rome.

While Paul had to remain in Rome, Peter would not have had to and no doubt would have left there at that time, seeing the trouble that was coming.

He would have left Italy, gone back to Asia Minor, then on to Parthian Babylon where he would then write his first epistle in 65 AD, and probably his second in 66AD, probably dying there shortly thereafter.

The apostles were missionaries, not settlers or bishops, and Peter and the other apostles lived by the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew 10:23: "But when they persecute you in this city, flee into another", until, of course, their end had come.

[Lil Flower]

I suspect from yur response you don't have a personal testimony...

You are a very prideful and arrogant person, Iscool. How do you deduce from my reply that I have no personal relationship with Christ? Again playing God.

[Lil Flower]

Uncle Chip is not going to answer that question. He's to busy calling everyone else's faith into question to answer any about his own. My advice would be not to address him any more.

[Uncle Chip]

The pagan God, Artemis is pictured standing by a stone pillar....a phallic symbol which became known as Petras....or simply a "Peter". Yes, there was a Peter in Rome.....early in the first century.....for about 25 years. It was not the Apostle Peter....it was Simon "Pator" Magus.

Now that makes sense and that explains that phallic symbol sitting in the center of the Vatican circle --- an image to that particular "Peter" of Rome himself, Simon Magus. Is it not within the character of this magician who mystified a flock of people "called Christians" to also allow and invite them to call him "Peter". That counterfeit Christian cult there in Rome had a bishop over them named "Simon Magus" but called "Simon Peter" or just "Peter". This would explain all the insistence of those mythmakers that someone called "Peter" was the Bishop of Rome for 25 years. It was Simon the magician called "Peter".

In addition, as we learned from Irenaeus, that Roman Bishop Simon Magus was called "the Father", which in Latin is spelled "Pater", but easily misspelled to appear as "Peter". And , of course, we know how good magicians are at "casting spells" on people and "mis-spells" on words as the need arises.

And finally, Simon Magus was looked upon as the Interpreter [Latin: Interpretari] or Interpeter of the gods and their words. Once again, when casting misspells, what's a few more letters, especially when your disciples are building a magisterium of "interpeters" who will one day lay claim, by way of the authority passed down to them by their magister of pretense, to be the sole interpeters of the Scriptures

[William Terrell]

If you'll read the scripture, you'll see that Jesus preached to the people, and each individual one.

Note the passages below:

Matthew 6:25 Therefore I say unto you, Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on. Is not the life more than meat, and the body than raiment?

Matthew 6:26 Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

Matthew 6:27 Which of you by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature?

Matthew 6:28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

Matthew 6:29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.

Matthew 6:30 Wherefore, if God so clothe the grass of the field, which to day is, and to morrow is cast into the oven, [shall he] not much more [clothe] you, O ye of little faith?

Matthew 6:31 Therefore take no thought, saying, What shall we eat? or, What shall we drink? or, Wherewithal shall we be clothed?

Matthew 6:32 (For after all these things do the Gentiles seek:) for your heavenly Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

These passages are just about as anti-central authority as you can get, neigh unto spiritual anarchy, from the viewpoint of an artificial entity, a corporation, like the Roman Catholic church.

They show no need for any authority at all but God to the individual soul.

Nowhere in these passages is there to intervene any church or organization at all, nor any hint of working through any church or organization at all.

The Protestant "spin", as you call it, comes directly from the scriptures and needs no interpretation, for they are clear as crystal.

All through the Gospels and new testament is Jesus and the apostles telling individual people what to do and how they should act. Nowhere is there mention that they must rely on a church to reach God through Christ. Any reference to any church is to individual groups of believers, called churches in the original definition of that word.

Jesus said clearly that when two or more are gathered in His name, He would be amongst them. That is to say, two or more individuals, not churches, or a central church and an individual.

Jesus preached no organization necessary to the communion of Christ and God with the individual. Read these passages. Jesus said "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you."

He did not say seek ye first a church to add these things unto you.

The Catholic church seeks power and dominion over the spiritual life of the peoples of the Earth. Like any human tyrannt. Believe in it at your own risk; believe in the teaching of Jesus and the individual way to God through Christ to the salvation of your soul.