Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

St. Peter and Rome
Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 11-15-04 | Amy Barragree

Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-855 next last
To: Quix

The Church’s one foundation
Is Jesus Christ her Lord,
She is His new creation
By water and the Word.
From heaven He came and sought her
To be His holy bride;
With His own blood He bought her
And for her life He died.

She is from every nation,
Yet one o’er all the earth;
Her charter of salvation,
One Lord, one faith, one birth;
One holy Name she blesses,
Partakes one holy food,
And to one hope she presses,
With every grace endued.

The Church shall never perish!
Her dear Lord to defend,
To guide, sustain, and cherish,
Is with her to the end:
Though there be those who hate her,
And false sons in her pale,
Against both foe or traitor
She ever shall prevail.

Though with a scornful wonder
Men see her sore oppressed,
By schisms rent asunder,
By heresies distressed:
Yet saints their watch are keeping,
Their cry goes up, “How long?”
And soon the night of weeping
Shall be the morn of song!

’Mid toil and tribulation,
And tumult of her war,
She waits the consummation
Of peace forevermore;
Till, with the vision glorious,
Her longing eyes are blest,
And the great Church victorious
Shall be the Church at rest.

Yet she on earth hath union
With God the Three in One,
And mystic sweet communion
With those whose rest is won,
With all her sons and daughters
Who, by the Master’s hand
Led through the deathly waters,
Repose in Eden land.

O happy ones and holy!
Lord, give us grace that we
Like them, the meek and lowly,
On high may dwell with Thee:
There, past the border mountains,
Where in sweet vales the Bride
With Thee by living fountains
Forever shall abide!

http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/h/chofound.htm


101 posted on 10/28/2006 1:16:43 PM PDT by JockoManning (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/h/chofound.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Quix

“No one can lay any foundation other than the one that has been laid; that foundation is Jesus Christ.” 1 Corinthians 3:11


102 posted on 10/28/2006 1:18:57 PM PDT by JockoManning (http://www.cyberhymnal.org/htm/c/h/chofound.htm)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
Peter was a great Apostle, but his mission field was among the Israelites

He was commanded by God himself directly in the Scriptures to receive the very first Gentile convert intom the Church.

His mission field was allotted to him by Christ directly at the end of the Gospel of Matthew when he was commanded by Jesus to go forth and preach to all nations.

103 posted on 10/28/2006 1:22:07 PM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Aliska
That is not to say he couldn't have been the first pope, but I'm not fully convinced he was

St. Peter did consecrate the Antiochean bishop, and he did come, serve, and was martyred in Rome, like you said. He also had consecrated a bishop in Armenia. We read of his travels and extensive missionary work in the Acts, so none of this is surprising, or contradictory to the traditional view of him.

It is indeed likely that by the time St. Peter established himself in Rome, there had been a Christian community there.

We have scriptural evidence of St. Peter's primacy among the apostles and we have the evidence of the early Fathers that they considered him the first bishop of Rome.

If there had been a leader of the Roman community prior to St. Peter, it is strange no never have his name mentioned.

104 posted on 10/28/2006 1:26:24 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Salvation
A quote for all to ponder:

You speaking to me??? I'm one of the Saints...

105 posted on 10/28/2006 1:30:04 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
I can see where it was probably given to Peter 'first', but not alone

Peter is adressed three times by name, and is told to feed the sheep (with variations in proper name and in the verb used and the gender of the sheep) in John 21. Peter was not alone when Jesus spoke, but the speech is addressed to Peter alone. Which gospel do you read where a similar charge was given someone else?

I would say the food is the word of God

It is a valid interpretation, however the Eucharist is also described as "food indeed".

I can't imagine where you got that opinion [that Peter and James authorised Paul]

There is NOTHING in [Gal 2:9) you refer to that puts James, John and Peter above Paul

"18 Then, after three years, I went to Jerusalem, to see Peter, and I tarried with him fifteen days. 19 But other of the apostles I saw none, saving James the brother of the Lord" (Gal 1)

"9 And when they had known the grace that was given to me, James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship: that we should go unto the Gentiles, and they unto the circumcision" (Gal 2:9).

The reference to "pillars", and the imperative "that we should" shows that it was a decision taken by Peter and James. We also know that the decision "to go into Gentiles" originated with Peter alone: "in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh justice, is acceptable to him." (Acts 10).

We are the Gentile church

We owe our conversion to the Father who coverted us to Christ, to Peter who decided to prozelytize among the Gentiles, to Paul who did most of that work, and to the Catholic Church which maintained the deposit of faith for us for centuries and fought off heresies.

if the three would have disapproved that Paul would have halted his ministry to the Gentiles, which God commanded him to do???

They wouldn't have disapproved, -- this is an impossible hypothetical that three apostles of Christ would disapprove of the work done for Christ. However, Paul felt it necessary to establish his credentials as an adoptive apostle as one sent by the natural apostles. It was indeed important for him, because "how shall they preach unless they be sent?" (Rom 10:14).

106 posted on 10/28/2006 1:52:03 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: saradippity
Can you cite the passages in any of the Four Gospels wherein Jesus told anyone but Peter specifically to "feed the flock,sheep,lambs",I am sure it must be there but I have vision problems and often miss a lot. I just don't find it.

Does the bible end (for you) after Jesus was crucified???

107 posted on 10/28/2006 1:53:27 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Paul was in Arabia learning first hand from God about the mystery of the adoption of the Gentiles, grace thru faith without works, eternal security, etc..

Ah. So grace through faith without works, eternal security and the rest of Luther's heresies are from the Arabs?

108 posted on 10/28/2006 1:55:30 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Paul never states that he was ordained by Peter. Instead he states that God called him.

We don't know who consecrated (priests are ordained; bishops are consecrated) St. Paul. His apostleship is directly from Christ, so he was an apostle rahter than bishop, and required no consecration. The scripture however does tell us that his work among the Gentiles was authorized by St. Peter according to his vision (Acts 10 and following; Gal 2).

109 posted on 10/28/2006 1:59:16 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
I said that we don’t hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we don’t.

And I say this statement betrays ignorance of the scripture even by the enfeebled Protestant standard, and I gave you where to read in #18.

110 posted on 10/28/2006 2:01:39 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: annalex
The reference to "pillars", and the imperative "that we should" shows that it was a decision taken by Peter and James.

As you likely know, the we should was found in no manuscripts and was inserted by faith from the translaters...

Paul's commission to go to the Gentiles was already established by God...

111 posted on 10/28/2006 2:13:09 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Ah. So grace through faith without works, eternal security and the rest of Luther's heresies are from the Arabs?

Sure...Paul went to Mecca searching for God while Peter jumped on a Lear to Rome...

112 posted on 10/28/2006 2:20:13 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; InterestedQuestioner; adiaireton8
We have examined the copy of the Writings of Ignatius all afternoon at the monastery, and we think that we got everything out of it that it knows about Peter in Rome. It was quite forthcoming and confessed all it knew. The words are posted below.

There are other copies at the university. We will now examine those as well to see if they will tell us any more.

I trust that this will be acceptable as evidence in our treatise, though it doesn't say that the commandments Peter and Paul gave were to the Romans. But perhaps in the hands of your rhetorical wizards they can be tortured to confess and tell you what you want them to say.

I trust you are well Adiaireton8. Keep the faith. I hope they let you read this.

THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO

Part I] Evidence From the Holy Scriptures: There is no evidence at all.

Part II] Evidence From the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: (a work in progress by Uncle Chip on Adiaireton8's behalf)

A. Clement of Rome [1st Century] --- No Evidence

B. Justin Martur of Rome [100-165 AD] --- No Evidence

C. Ignatius of Antioch [35-110 AD] --- (still under examination)

"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were Apostles" [Epistle to the Romans 110 AD]

D. Irenaeus of Lyons [130-200 AD] --- (questionable)

E. Dionysius at Corinth [2nd Century]--- (pending)

F. Tertullian of Carthage [160-230 AD]--- (pending)

G. Hippolytus of Rome [170-236 AD] --- (pending)

H.

I.

J.

K.

113 posted on 10/28/2006 3:02:27 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: annalex
"Peter is adressed three times by name..."

What name? Was St. Simon the first Pope?
114 posted on 10/28/2006 3:19:16 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip; Salvation; InterestedQuestioner; adiaireton8
THE EVIDENCE for THE TWENTY-FIVE YEAR BISHOPRIC of SAINT PETER in ROME and His UPSIDEDOWN CRUCIFIXION under NERO..."

As to the question of whether Peter was ever at Rome, the Roman claim is that he suffered martyrdom there with Paul, after a pontificate of twenty five years. This would have to be in the period from A.D. 41 to 66. But let us note the evidence from the Scriptures:-

1. In A.D. 44 he was imprisoned in Jerusalem (Acts 12).
2. In A.D. 52 he was at the council of Jerusalem (Acts 15).
3. In A.D. 53 Paul joined him at Antioch (Galatians 2).
4. In A.D. 58 Paul wrote to the Romans, but he does not mention Peter. In Romans 1:11, Paul wants to impart special gifts to the believers in Rome; and in 1:15 he is ready to preach there. In this Roman letter he sends greetings to twenty seven persons, but none to Peter. It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.
5. In A.D. 61 Paul is conveyed a prisoner to Rome, and certain brethren go to meet him, but not Peter.
6. When Paul writes to the Galatians, he mentions Peter, but not as having been in Rome, or as having been Pontiff there for twenty years. Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).
7. The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome; but while others are mentioned as being his associates, or sending greetings, Peter is never once mentioned.
8. From Rome also Paul's last letter is written (2nd Timothy). He says, "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me" ((2 Tim. 4:16). So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul, and is guilty of having forsaken the Great Apostle.
9. And finally, in this very epistle, written from Rome immediately before his martyrdom, Paul says, "Only Luke is with me" (2 Tim. 4:11). This is conclusive.
Paul had written to Rome: the last years of his life were spent in Rome: and his last letters are all written from Rome. Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me." Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.

Published by "Grace and Truth," 28 Burlington Rd., Sherwood, Nottingham England NG5 2GS Tel. 0115 -962 6346

115 posted on 10/28/2006 3:33:06 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am most likely a Biblical Unitarian? Let me be perfectly clear. I know nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Published by "Grace and Truth,"

They should change their name to "Tommyrot and Foolishness".

It is inconceivable that Paul would not have referred to the presence of one who was one of the foremost apostles.

It is not "inconceivable" at all. If you were a member of a tiny group persecuted by both Jews and Romans, would you put down on paper, which might fall into the hands of the authorities, the whereabouts of your critical leaders? I mean, come on, Paul wasn't stupid.

Indeed, the circumstances in Antioch were such that Peter was sternly rebuked by Paul, whose authority was much greater than Peter's. (Galatians 2:11).

Nothing in Gal 2 says that Paul's authority was "much greater than Peter's," or greater at all, in fact. Paul makes a big deal out of rebuking Peter for his bad conduct precisely because Peter's authority was recognized and important.

The Epistles to the Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon were all written from Rome

Maybe they were, and maybe they weren't. Ephesians and Collossians refer to "fetters" and being an "ambassador in chains," and Philemon refers to imprisonment, but Paul was imprisoned in the Holy Land before going to Rome, so that proves nothing. Nor do we know that they were written before Peter's death, so that again proves nothing.

So if Peter was in Rome he enjoyed a immunity which was not accorded to Paul

Says who? He was a hunted criminal!

Not only does he never once mention Peter, but emphatically, at the last moment declares "Only Luke is with me."

And for all you or they know, Peter was already dead by then.

Peter, therefore, was never Bishop of Rome.

A non-conclusion based on a non-argument fraught with wishful thinking. Mildly persuasive, except for the evidence. Except for the writings of the fathers, in particular, Ignatius, who knew both Peter and Paul, and who mentions them as commanding the church in Rome in his letter to the Romans. Except for the writings of Eusebius, who is the most authoritative historian of the early church, far more authoritative than a bunch of Protestant pampleteers in London. And except for that troublesome tomb on Vatican Hill, and the words on it: Petros eni ... "Peter is here".

116 posted on 10/28/2006 3:55:29 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
The word inserted in Byzantine Majority Text is men; it is indeed missing in Stephanus Textus Receptus and others.

kai gnontes ten charin ten dotheisan moi Iakovos kai Kefas kai Ioannes oi dokountes styloi einai dexias edokan emou kai barnaba koinonias ina emeis [men] eis ta ethne autoi de eis ten peritomen
word by word, hyphenating what is a single word in the original:
and knowing the grace the given me Jacob and Kephas and Iohann the esteemed pillars are right-hand gave me and Barnabas fellowship so-that we [on-one-hand] to the gentiles they on-the-other-hand into the circumsized

"Men" is a mere particle: "men folld. by de in the correlative clause or clauses, on the one hand, on the other hand" (see at Lidell, Scott link above, part II). The text without "men" is incomplete grammatically (the proper grammar is "men ... de"), but the meaning is not altered: the natural apostles establish "koinonia", communion or fellowship, with Peter and go on their missions.

The modality "should" is not the missing "men" anyway. It is expressed by "ina". Compare the same word used 6 times in Galatians 2, starting with "that they might bring us into bondage" in verse 4.

Thank you for the opportunity to research this. So, who teaches that "should" in its imperative modal sense was inserted? The original, and Lidell-Scott show that a particle is missing, but the modality is present. Another thing that is missing in all Greek versions is the verb "go", and that indeed is extrapolated by all translators.

Paul's commission to go to the Gentiles was already established by God

What the scripture tells (Gal. 2, Acts 10f) us is that it was established by St. Peter and possibly in congress with James and John, who, of course, were all lead by the Holy ghost in all they did. The impetus to go to the Gentiles originated from Jesus at the parable of the guests at the wedding and the workers at the vinyard; it was given the natural apostles as the Great Commission, but St. Paul had to be adopted into the apostolic college and be given the mission at that later time.

117 posted on 10/28/2006 4:11:13 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

What you are doing is baiting another poster who has already indicated he wants nothing to do with you. Keep it up and you'll be watching from the sidelines


118 posted on 10/28/2006 4:12:55 PM PDT by Admin Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
What name?

St. Peter is addressed as "Simon Peter: Simon son of John", then as "Simon, son of John" two more times in John 21. You are not implying that Christ was talking to someone other than St. Peter, are you? These are all Peter's names.

119 posted on 10/28/2006 4:14:15 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Simple logical common sense should tell you that for over 1400 years of Christianity-Christians believed Peter was Bishop of Rome
If Peter was NOT in Rome there would have been plenty of EARLY Christian writings saying he was not.

Therefor the burden of TRUTH is on you to produce Historical writings from reliable sources to PROVE Peter was NOT in Rome.

I,ll save you the trouble-There is NO reliable sources!

Quoting the Bible is also illogical in regards to this topic!

The Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension.
120 posted on 10/28/2006 4:19:13 PM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: JockoManning

AMEN.

Thanks for your kind posts.


121 posted on 10/28/2006 4:32:06 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: annalex

to the Catholic Church which maintained the deposit of faith for us for centuries and fought off heresies.

= = =

Not sure how the balance sheet will look vis a vis the Roman group.

Glad I don't have to calculate it. God had His remnants in lots of places unsupervised by Rome.

Am reminded of God noting to the prophet that God had still 20,000 who had not bowed the knee to baal that the prophet didn't know anything about. Getting puffed up about one's own importance leads to lots of different kinds of blindness.


122 posted on 10/28/2006 4:35:11 PM PDT by Quix (LET GOD ARISE AND HIS ENEMIES BE SCATTERED. LET ISRAEL CALL ON GOD AS THEIRS! & ISLAM FLUSH ITSELF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Quix

If you look at the timeline map of Christianity today, you'll see in order of appearance

- Several particular Churches in communion with the Pope, starting of course with the largest Latin Church;

- Several pre-Chalcedon Churches such as the Arminian Church;

- Several Orthodox Churches that share with us the fundamentals of the faith and agree on primacy (not inallibility) of the Pope;

These are the three branches that were there from the beginning, formed the scripture and heard the apostles.

- The Protestant communities of faith that departed from the Latin rite of the Catholic Church , and continue fracturing themselves. Whatever their accomplishments are, their existence is wholly secondary to the Latin Church of Rome, of whom they received everything they continue to keep.

This is all I meant: that genetically the Protestant communities are children of Rome.


123 posted on 10/28/2006 4:54:28 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: annalex
We have scriptural evidence of St. Peter's primacy among the apostles and we have the evidence of the early Fathers that they considered him the first bishop of Rome.

By no means do I want to get into an argument about it; I've just been trying to sort it out for myself. There are still some things that don't add up, probably never will.

Like you say, there is ample evidence in the scriptures that he had some sort of special status rather than going into supremacy and all that, but all the apostles were given the same powers as he had, binding and loosing. What Jesus' intent was as to passing them down to generations yet to come, isn't clear in scriptures. My assumption would be that he did intend a structural organization(s) after the apostles died, but scripture is silent about that.

The part I don't get is that James was the presider over the first council in Jerusalem and spoke with authority there, not Peter.

Then there is the mystery of John. I haven't plowed through the scriptures for awhile, but I don't know what his relationship was to Peter and the rest of the church. For all I know, he never died. Now the Spirit spoke to him with some words about the churches [note plural in Asia]. So which is it, church or churches? Who can know at this point? Many of the apostles appeared to exercise their valid ministries totally apart from Peter and outside of his authority. It's just that the Church of Rome ended up prevailing in Western history.

Also, in Revelation we have a model of the New Jerusalem, "14And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." There is nothing about a rock or cornerstone or one foundation having eminence over the others there, it sounds equal. It's all shrouded in mystery, but I can't help conjecturing now and then.

Logic tells me that there was a leader of the early Roman community; the fact that the individual isn't named is of no particular significance given that St. Peter's wife wasn't named, a lot of details are missing from that early time. Now Joseph of Arimathea was no apostle insofar as we know, but if the legends are true that he went to England and established a church there, it would have had some kind of authority for a head, but not necessarily a bishop per se, until they much later came under the umbrella of the organized church from Rome. I don't know if that is really true or not; it always kind of intrigued me, especially the legend about the unique hawthorne tree, a clone of which used to be and perhaps still is growing in one of the botanical gardens in London. Sorry I drifted off course with the latter.

And how the Irish figure into all this, I haven't read up on, but there is talk that an early, independent Celtic church existed there.

124 posted on 10/28/2006 5:01:02 PM PDT by Aliska
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: Campion
Except for the writings of the fathers, in particular, Ignatius, who knew both Peter and Paul, and who mentions them as commanding the church in Rome in his letter to the Romans.

Since there became 2 copies of Ignatius' Epistles (one set where there is no mention of the Catholic church), which ones are you referring to???

125 posted on 10/28/2006 5:48:34 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: Admin Moderator

My apologies ---


126 posted on 10/28/2006 5:53:03 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: stfassisi

Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years. Can you prove that he was not Bishop of Antioch for 30 years?


127 posted on 10/28/2006 5:58:39 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Aliska
There is this early apocryhpal book,

The Acts of Peter and Paul

It explains that Peter came to Rome first, and it describes how Paul eventually joined Peter. But the narrative begins with Peter already being in Rome.

but all the apostles were given the same powers as he had, binding and loosing. /

Not exactly. The Keys were given to Peter only, and the power to bind and loose was given him first. Two chapters down, in Matthew 18 the power to bind and loose is given to the apostles also, in the context of the church legislation. It is reasonable to conclude that Peter's binding and loosing referred to the matters of salvation (as he holds the keys to the Kingdom of heaven), as the Apostles deal solely with Church matters.

Only Peter was charged with the feeding and shepherding the sheep.

Jesus certainly meant His Church to be till He comes again, even as He foresaw the fracturing. This is explicit in the promise of gates of Hell not prevailing, in the image fo the Innkeeper in the parable fo the Good Samaritan, and in His prayer in John 17 "that they may be made perfect in one: and the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast also loved me. Father, I will that where I am, they also whom thou hast given me may be with me; that they may see my glory which thou hast given me, because thou hast loved me before the creation of the world." Peter also understood his "tabernacle" to extend in perpetuity: "I will endeavour, that you frequently have after my decease, whereby you may keep a memory of these things" (2 Peter 1).

James was the presider over the first council in Jerusalem and spoke with authority there, not Peter.

This is because James was the head of Jerusalem Church. Nevertheless you see that Peter speaks first and sets things in motion, while James concludes the proceedings.

So which is it, church or churches?

I think that when we read of churches, these are local organizations headed up by a bishop. It is clear that they are all to follow the same doctrine, as the Letters put back into line those that strayed. Again, Christ prayed that they be one and on other occasions He spoke of His Church as a single unit.

Church of Rome ended up prevailing in Western history

As a visible symbol of unity, that could be nowhere else but in imperial Rome. It is however, incorrect to say that the local churches operated independently as the local heresies were put out by acts of ecumenical councils. It is true that the early Church was far more consiliar than the later, more authocratic Latin model of the middle ages and till today. But on the other hand, do not forget that the church today is primarily the Latin Church and the Pope's strong hand is as a patriarch of the Latin Church. The Churches of the East, for example, are pretty much left to their own devices (they even don't insert the Filioque)because they face no heresies and are very traditional, while all the heresy in the past 5 centuries is coming from the Latin West.

The earliest example of a Pope exercising authority across the head of the local bishop is Pope Clement I reaching to Corinth to demand reinstallment of certain bishops over the head of no less a figure than apostle John! (Letter to the Corinthians).

nothing about a rock or cornerstone or one foundation having eminence over the others there, it sounds equal.

As it will be, as it was at the table of the Last Supper. The New Jerusalem is Christ in glory and His bride unified and in glory. At that point, the Papacy has filfilled its centrifying role.

128 posted on 10/28/2006 6:09:32 PM PDT by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Hang in there Uncle Chip. Those accusing you of being uncharitable are among the most brutal, ruthless, and hypocritical people on the FR.


129 posted on 10/28/2006 6:17:20 PM PDT by Invincibly Ignorant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Iscool; saradippity; wmfights; Uncle Chip; kerryusama04; DouglasKC
Can you cite the passages in any of the Four Gospels wherein Jesus told anyone but Peter specifically to "feed the flock,sheep,lambs",I am sure it must be there but I have vision problems and often miss a lot. I just don't find it. (sara) Does the bible end (for you) after Jesus was crucified??? (iscool)

The sheep being spoken of are the "Lost sheep of the House of Israel". [Matthew 10:5-6] Our Saviour tells the Twelve not to visit the Gentiles....but go to the House of Israel.

During the first century the area around Jerusalem was known as Judea. Earlier in history it had been known as Judah [II Kings 17:18-23]. The Lost sheep were called "Israel....the Northern Kingdom" and the Southern Kingdom was called Judah.....and Judah was never lost! The Nation of Judah also included the tribe of Benjamin and a portion of the priestly tribe of Levi [I Kings 12:23][II Chronicles 11:1].

The reason the Northern Kingdom was called lost is because they never returned from their Assyrian captivity [verse 23][II Kings 17:6]. In fact, the Assyrian King brought people from Babylon to inhabit the area the Israelites were taken from [II Kings 17 24]. These people still resided in Samaria during the first century and that is where Simon Magus comes from [Acts 8]. The people of Judah (Jews) did return from their Babylonian captivity later in scripture and you will find the return noted in the Books of Ezra and Nehemiah. You will find three tribes mentioned in these books; Judah, Benjamin and their share of the priestly tribe of Levi. There is no mention of the other ten tribes in these scriptures.....meaning they were lost from scripture. The Lord had decided to remove the Northern ten tribes from history [I Chronicles 17:9-10].

There is great distinction in both the Old and New testaments when it comes to these two "Houses of Israel". Both are mentioned numerous time in prophecy, both separately and jointly....but they are two separate entities and when New Testament scripture refers to the "Lost Sheep" or "Feed my Sheep" or "Take care of my Sheep" or "Feed my Lambs" our Saviour is referring to the Nation of Israel[ Matthew 10:6][Matthew 15:24].

To reiterate....the Twelve and subsequently, the Eleven were instructed to evangelize these "Lost Ten Tribes" and not go to the Gentiles. There were plenty of other disciples for that task [Acts 1:15][Acts 2:40]. That is why we say that Peter's primary task was not in Rome....and it is very doubtful he even went there.

130 posted on 10/28/2006 6:25:53 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: annalex
Paul's commission to go to the Gentiles was already established by God

What the scripture tells (Gal. 2, Acts 10f) us is that it was established by St. Peter and possibly in congress with James and John, who, of course, were all lead by the Holy ghost in all they did. The impetus to go to the Gentiles originated from Jesus at the parable of the guests at the wedding and the workers at the vinyard; it was given the natural apostles as the Great Commission, but St. Paul had to be adopted into the apostolic college and be given the mission at that later time.

You stated earlier that Paul's commission was handed out by Peter...This was to show Peter's primacy...As you'll notice in the next verse, both apostles commission was given from someone else...And of course it would be from God...Not Peter...

Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as the gospel of the circumcision was unto Peter;

that the scripture tells (Gal. 2, Acts 10f) us is that it was established by St. Peter and possibly in congress with James and John, who, of course, were all lead by the Holy ghost in all they did.

I don't see biblically where any of it was established by Peter...Peter did not establish ministering to the first Gentile...Peter didn't even know why he was ordered to go to the Gentile...

The Great Commission had nothing to do with Gentiles...When THAT commission was given, salvation was of the Jews. John 4:22...

When Peter had the experience with the Gentile in Acts 10, it was part of the 'transition'...Acts is the book of transition...Lots of things changed from the Gospels to Romans in the book of Acts...

but St. Paul had to be adopted into the apostolic college and be given the mission at that later time.

Paul didn't have to do any such thing...Paul was in the mission field for 3 years before he set his eyes on another apostle...And Paul had already received the commission from God before he knew what Peter looked like...Paul was already preaching to the Gentiles when this meeting took place in Gal. chapter 2...

131 posted on 10/28/2006 6:31:48 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years

That makes more sense as Antioch was part of the old Assyrian Empire where the Israelites had been take captive...and many remained there during the first century.

Peter, being an Apostle to the circumcised, would naturally go there.

132 posted on 10/28/2006 6:34:09 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618; Iscool; Dr. Eckleburg; Quix; ladyinred
The sheep being spoken of are the "Lost sheep of the House of Israel". [Matthew 10:5-6] Our Saviour tells the Twelve not to visit the Gentiles....but go to the House of Israel.

Good points, except the disciples couldn't go to the lost tribes as they had no idea where they were! Plus they were forbidden to go to any cities in Samaria. I think if you check the Greek word for "lost" you will see that its definition is more towards "the perishing", so in fact they were sent out to the Jews who lived around there.

133 posted on 10/28/2006 6:43:29 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

That's ridiculous


134 posted on 10/28/2006 6:43:59 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Invincibly Ignorant

I would like to meet these people. Perhaps they would like to participate in a joint venture in the spirit of ecumenicism in pursuit of the genuine truth about the legends of Peter in Rome.


135 posted on 10/28/2006 6:48:17 PM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Good points, except the disciples couldn't go to the lost tribes as they had no idea where they were!

They knew exactly where they were....they had only been lost to scripture. The first century historian, Josephus, mentions in his "Antiquities" Book XI, Chapter V, Paragraph 2 that there were only two tribes left in Asia (minor) subject to the Romans, the other ten were beyond the Euphrates and were beyond counting.....they were so many!

Also please see this.... Babylonian Jewry

Don't you think that divinely appointed Apostles would be able to find these folks.....if they had been told to do so?

136 posted on 10/28/2006 6:55:41 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618
Syriac Fathers say Peter was Bishop of Antioch for 30 years That makes more sense as Antioch was part of the old Assyrian Empire where the Israelites had been taken captive...and many remained there during the first century. Peter, being an Apostle to the circumcised, would naturally go there.

But you see, the Roman Church simply ignores the words of these Syriac Ante-Nicene Fathers and can't produce the words of any other Ante-Nicene Father to rebut this claim. Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch? Two can play that game.

137 posted on 10/28/2006 6:57:17 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Well he sent out the 12 and they couldn't have been gone for long as they were back for other events in His life. Plus they went on foot. The tribes were assimilated into other cultures by then, in fact, were probably considered Gentiles. Even today, there is speculation on who they are, and some evidence to support it, that they dispersed just about everywhere.


138 posted on 10/28/2006 7:04:19 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Do you ever read "Debka.com"?


139 posted on 10/28/2006 7:08:29 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Peter got around. He went Ireland where they called him "Patrick" (no doubt from Pater and Bishopric) where he chased all the snakes out. From there he went to Scotland where he was called "Paddy" and they named wagons after him. Gold tablets found in the Americas reference... well you get the picture.


140 posted on 10/28/2006 7:08:37 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch?

I'll bet the Vatican knows!

141 posted on 10/28/2006 7:12:19 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
The tribes were assimilated into other cultures by then, in fact, were probably considered Gentiles.

Bingo!

142 posted on 10/28/2006 7:14:23 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: Diego1618

Yippee! Did I win the pot? I bet 2 dollars if not more's in it!


143 posted on 10/28/2006 7:15:22 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Do you ever read "Debka.com"?

I have in the past....but not on a regular basis. Why? What's up?

144 posted on 10/28/2006 7:17:39 PM PDT by Diego1618
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: 1000 silverlings
Peter got around. He went Ireland where they called him "Patrick" (no doubt from Pater and Bishopric) where he chased all the snakes out. From there he went to Scotland where he was called "Paddy" and they named wagons after him. Gold tablets found in the Americas reference... well you get the picture.

He had those happy feet and was fast in his old age, I hear. He hustled all the way from the Babylon in 67AD to Rome at the age of what 75 in a few short months just to be there for all the fun and festivities, torchlight parades and all. He should have fired his tour guide.

145 posted on 10/28/2006 7:18:08 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
Where's their evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch?

There's no evidence for that from the Bible, either, is there. :-0

However, not only do we not wish to provide any evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch, we'll positively insist that he was the Bishop of Antioch ... before he turned over that See to another man, and went to Rome.

146 posted on 10/28/2006 7:18:22 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Ah, that must be where we got Peter Rabbit from


147 posted on 10/28/2006 7:20:11 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Since there became 2 copies of Ignatius' Epistles (one set where there is no mention of the Catholic church), which ones are you referring to???

How about the Syriac version here, translated by Protestant Phillip Schaff, on the CCEL website hosted by the Protestant Calvin College.

148 posted on 10/28/2006 7:23:57 PM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Campion
However, not only do we not wish to provide any evidence that Peter was not the Bishop of Antioch, we'll positively insist that he was the Bishop of Antioch ... before he turned over that See to another man, and went to Rome.

So then you disagree with that great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan who insists that Apostles were never Bishops and vice versa?

149 posted on 10/28/2006 7:24:23 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Actually, now that I think about it, being a bishop would be a reduction in rank for an Apostle. Apostles got their authority from Christ, bishops got theirs from the Apostles.


150 posted on 10/28/2006 7:29:24 PM PDT by 1000 silverlings (stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 851-855 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson