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: Uncle Chip
He was on a thread on 10/25, entitled "Fundamentalist" by Peter Kreeft
51 posted on 10/28/2006 7:52:13 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Your post is full of so many logical fallacies and strawmen that I don't know where to start. But most specifically the argument that God must be an idiot to rely on the Roman model for anointing (and I'm not clear on whether you refer to the Roman Empire or the Roman Catholic Church when you say "Roman").


52 posted on 10/28/2006 7:52:54 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Nope...I'm saying Peter wasn't there...And the bible hints at that as well...

The verse you cited does no such thing. Just because Paul or some other Apostle went to Rome does not logically mean that Peter didn't.

If I write, "CTID posts on FreeRepublic" does that somehow mean that Iscool doesn't?
53 posted on 10/28/2006 7:55:38 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

All of it.
It rides and falls on the contention that "Peter and his successors" have a connection that allows them to be the final say no matter what. Doctrinal development, custom, everything is attached to this claim of essentially absolute authority.
The Pope is the last "absolute" monarch on earth.


54 posted on 10/28/2006 7:57:16 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD
Paul had several journeys to Rome and Irenaeus seems to suggest that Peter had at least one. But Irenaeus does not make Peter the Pope of Rome nor does he say that Peter stay around to oversee it.

The claim to the Papacy does not hinge on how many times or how long Peter was in Rome. The Papacy is based on Christ anointing Peter the Rock. But as you said, Linus was appointed successor, and we recognize him as the second Pope.

The Papacy is similar to the Presidency. The claim is not based on residency or location, it is claimed on authority.
55 posted on 10/28/2006 7:58:46 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

Good to see that you've stepped into this discussion with humility, charity, and love to your brethren.


56 posted on 10/28/2006 8:01:38 AM PDT by Conservative til I die
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: StAthanasiustheGreat

I said that we don’t hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we don’t. I didn’t say that we never hear about him again. He betrayed Jesus and was forgiven, however, his position within the fold diminished considerably after that.

This still does not answer my original question … were is there physical proof that Peter ever visited Rome?


57 posted on 10/28/2006 8:02:40 AM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant.

?


58 posted on 10/28/2006 8:05:08 AM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

"What he and Paul did was to lend their authority to the see of Rome, especially since each man was martyred there. As a result the capital city of the empire became the main focal point of the Church, especially after the destruction of Jerusalem."
_____________________________

What proof is there that Peter was martyred upside down in Rome. We know Paul was because of the books he wrote.

I think your second point is much more on target about why Rome emerged as the dominant power within the early church. They were located where the money and power of the state was.


59 posted on 10/28/2006 8:05:53 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

Are you being sarcastic? That would be an attitude that is condemned in the Bible as " mocking ". If so, isn't that an attitude inconsistent with the characteristics you cited, doing precisely what you are criticizing?


60 posted on 10/28/2006 8:06:09 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: annalex

I said that we don’t hear MUCH about Peter after he betrayed Jesus and we don’t. I didn’t say that we never hear about him again. He betrayed Jesus and was forgiven, however, his position within the fold diminished considerably after that.

This still does not answer my original question … were is there physical proof that Peter ever visited Rome?


61 posted on 10/28/2006 8:06:32 AM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS

Neither lived contemporaneous with Peter. Tertuillian AD 145-220, Ireneaus AD 120-202. So anything they have to report would be hearsay. They never claim to have actually seen Peter walking the streets of Rome.


62 posted on 10/28/2006 8:10:49 AM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

I think many people who are not Catholics regard Rome as the equivalent of Mecca - that is, something essential to the religion. Rome is an historical place, there is ample evidence and tradition that St. Peter was (a) appointed by Our Lord to be his vicar and (b) was in Rome. However, none of this ultimately matters, because the Church can exist without Rome the city, and even, for a time and not ideally, without the Pope. It does not cease to exist, for example, between the time of the death of a pope and the installation of his successor.

The Body of Christ is formed by all of us, including the saints, that is, those who went before us and are now the clouds of witnesses, and if someone were to smite the shepherd, the flock might be scattered - but it would eventually be gathered together again.

As for Rome, it is sacred because of the blood of martyrs, it is symbolic, it has been vitally important for centuries - but it is not the Church, and the Church does not depend upon Rome for its existence.


63 posted on 10/28/2006 8:17:46 AM PDT by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
"Was Saint Jerome mistaken?"
______________________________

This is the crux of the problem. St. Jerome lived from 347AD-420AD. How could he assert who was in Rome 300 years before? Did he have tangible proof?

I think it's ironic that Tertullian is sighted as a source since he was persona non grata after he became a Montanist and never was declared a saint.

Relying on "oral history" is not reliable just look at the doctrines concerning Mary.
64 posted on 10/28/2006 8:18:44 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: HarleyD

"... but then the Catholics would all boycott the show."
_____________________

No, they would just start another thread and hope we would not dispute their view of "history".


65 posted on 10/28/2006 8:25:15 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
There is early testimony that he was, and none to the contrary. But as to the second point, I think there is a misconception about the social status of the early Christians. Our Lord was supported by women such as Mary Magdalen "from the own means," and he was consulted by the likes of Nicodemus, who was a very rich men. St. Paul aludes to the "knights of Caesar." Judaism already had wide appeal among all social classes of Roman society, and her comes a form of Judaism that does away with all the particularity of Judaism that repelled them. Yes, so Rome was a natural place for Peter to go.
66 posted on 10/28/2006 8:33:29 AM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Bainbridge

"It rides and falls on the contention that "Peter and his successors" have a connection that allows them to be the final say no matter what."

The whole concept of "Apostolic succession" is flawed. We do not have any "God Breathed" inspired writings in the Canon written after the Apostolic era. We have no supernatural powers passed on to any of the leaders that came after the Apostles. Peter being in Rome and the Bishop of that church wouldn't really change the argument against "Apostolic succession" if you read the Bible.


67 posted on 10/28/2006 8:36:29 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: livius

"...there is ample evidence and tradition that St. Peter was (a) appointed by Our Lord to be his vicar and (b) was in Rome."
________________________________

Other than a questionable translation in Matthew what proof of these claims do you have?


68 posted on 10/28/2006 8:41:54 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RobbyS
"There is early testimony that he was, and none to the contrary."
____________________________________

Please site these sources. I'm not picking on you, but this statement keeps getting made. Jerome is writing 300+ years after the fact. The statements made by Iraneus contradict the position that Peter founded the church in Rome and was Bishop of it. Who specifically testifies that Peter was the founder of the church in Rome and was the Bishop there?
69 posted on 10/28/2006 8:47:40 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; Dr. Eckleburg
Among these was St. Irenæus of Lyons, a disciple of St. Polycarp who had received the Gospel from the Apostle St. John. Near the end of his life St. Irenæus mentioned, in his work Against Heresies (c. A.D. 180-199), the work of Peter and Paul in Rome:

"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Book 3, Chapter 1, verse 1)".

Ahhh !!! Finally some sacred words from Holy Father Irenaeus!!! Thank you!!! Let us meditate on them but first some questions:

1]Does Irenaeus list his sources for including "Peter's" name in the above quote. Clearly, if he had, the Scriptures in his hand, he could cite Luke, Paul, and Peter as sources for Paul "evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" there, but where oh where did he get the information to put "Peter's" name there???

2]Certainly he had Saint Justin Martur's writings in his hands or that early presbyterian Saint Clement of Rome, later papalized? What did these Ante-Nicene Fathers say about Peter and Rome?. If anyone should know, they should. Post their sacred writings on this matter so we can meditate on them as well, or are they silent on the matter and thus arguing to the contrary from silence?

3]And could Irenaeus have been influenced by all of that Gnostic literature that he was digesting, possibly believing that some of its imaginative stories were actually true. Could he have thought that the apocryphal Acts of Peter or the Acts of Peter and Paul were true, or believable in some way, or even that these wonderful apocrypha were canonical in any way? Maybe he believed these myths about Peter were actually true, after all the magisterium claim that the canon of Scripture was not established until the 4th century, right?. How could Irenaeus possibly know that these books were going to be put on the "not to be read " list? How can we fault poor Irenaeus?

4]What do the great scholars of the Holy See have to say about Irenaeus. Try these words from the great Catholic scholar F.A. Sullivan in From Apostles to Bishops:

"Irenaeus focuses on the church of Rome which he describes as 'greatest, most ancient and known to all, founded and established by the two most glorious apostles Peter and Paul'. Here we must admit a bit of rhetoric, as the church of Rome was not so ancient as those of Jerusalem or Antioch, nor was it actually founded by Peter or Paul".

And further:

"According to Irenaeus, Peter and Paul, not Peter alone, appointed Linus as the first in the succession of bishops of Rome. This suggests that Irenaeus did not think of Peter and Paul as bishops, or of Linus and those that followed him as successors of Peter more than Paul".

Some very sobering points made by an honest Catholic author who has probably had very few masses said for him. How did you guys forget Paul all these years? Father Irenaeus would be ashamed of you. You could have atleast made them co-Popes, but no, you had to rob Paul to papalize only Peter.

Is that enough of our meditation on the sacred words of Father Irenaeus or is there more? No evidence so far of Peter being "bishop" but actually words to the contrary. And where is anything so far from Irenaeus on that legendary "25 year reign on the sacerdotal chair and upside down crucifixion under Nero"? Is he arguing for this from his silence on the matter? And was he too consigned to purgatory for his sins of being rhetorical or maybe not being rhetorical enough? Let's all pray that we find the evidence to spring him from there.

70 posted on 10/28/2006 8:51:06 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
Good to see that you've stepped into this discussion with humility, charity, and love to your brethren.

Thank you, I had good teachers.

71 posted on 10/28/2006 8:54:18 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

So they consign Tertullian to purgatory and deny him "sainthood" and yet quote him as a source for that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome that we have heard so much about all these many years. What does that say about what they really think about Tertullian and his writings?. Perhaps becoming a Montanist was his Penance for his sins of rhetoric embellishment?


72 posted on 10/28/2006 9:03:26 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die

Great points. Glad the thread is still on topic. And most amazingly, attracting many Catholic-bashers.


73 posted on 10/28/2006 9:09:19 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

What,you want a photograph or a post card, willfull blindness and sophistry on your part, I can not correct.


74 posted on 10/28/2006 9:34:19 AM PDT by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip
"So they consign Tertullian to purgatory and deny him "sainthood" and yet quote him as a source for that legendary Petrine Bishopric in Rome that we have heard so much about all these many years."
___________________________

Somewhere along the line institutional "group think" took over and any and all dissent was to be destroyed. It's easy to understand in the context of the threat from the Marcionites, Ebionites and especially the Gnostics, but the consequences are pretty dramatic in that the one thing guiding the behavior (a desire to protect orthodoxy) led to the opposite outcome.
75 posted on 10/28/2006 9:35:51 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

When a Roman Catholic doctrine is challenged it is bashing.
Is it Protestant bashing when you challenge a belief of the "separated brethren"?


76 posted on 10/28/2006 9:38:03 AM PDT by Bainbridge
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

How can you assert, in the face of the mountain of evidence that Peter was in Rome, that he was not 2000 years later?


77 posted on 10/28/2006 9:54:59 AM PDT by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; InterestedQuestioner; adiaireton8
Adiaireton8, Adiareton8, are you okay? Have they consigned you to that purgatorial dungeon until you can come up with the evidence that our great ecumenical thesis requires? Are you having trouble with your Part 2?

Well hang in there, buddy, because I am going to help you. I am going to do your part for you with the help of those left here in the land of the living threads and we will spring you from your purgatory as soon as possible. So keep the faith --- help is on the way.

[I hope they let you read this]

78 posted on 10/28/2006 9:55:26 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: The Cuban

Willful blindness! I think not, just a strong desire for facts not hype or fable. If historical fact is not forthcoming then I must conclude that the events in question are still in question.

Rather than make light of my question how about giving me some historical proof. I accept nothing with blind faith. I accept much by faith (not blind) based solely on biblical pronouncements. The Bible puts Paul in Rome but says nothing about Peter being there. I can find nothing in either archeology or contemporary documentation that puts Peter in Rome. I’m not saying he was not there; just that nothing of historical value puts him there.


79 posted on 10/28/2006 9:56:18 AM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

Or maybe you want a hotel log saying "peter checked in here, AD 63, signed Nero"? Tell me the proof you need other than 2000 years of oral and written history attesting to that fact, a marked grave, markings throughout the catacombs indicating his presence, and the fact that a church and/or pilmgrimage area was built almost immediately over the spot of his execution since immediately after his death?


80 posted on 10/28/2006 9:59:13 AM PDT by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

Comment #81 Removed by Moderator

To: doc1019

WHy don't you get off of the board, and go to your local major city library to the archeology section and look it up? I am not a freaking research librarian.


82 posted on 10/28/2006 10:08:12 AM PDT by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

Comment #83 Removed by Moderator

To: The Cuban

Oh, and more importantly, I can tell you as an attorney, as you are raising the charge, the burden of persuasion and production is in your hands, not mine.


84 posted on 10/28/2006 10:10:54 AM PDT by The Cuban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: All

A quote for all to ponder:

The saints must be honored as friends of Christ and children and heirs of God. Let us carefully observe the manner of life of all the apostles, martyrs, ascetics, and just men who announced the coming of the Lord. And let us emulate their faith, charity, hope, zeal, life, patience under suffering, and perseverance unto death so that we may also share their crowns of glory.

-- St. John Damascus


85 posted on 10/28/2006 10:11:16 AM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
"Whether he was there, or not, is irrelevant.
?"
- Of course irrelevant.
If you get a check for a tax refund that you have not requested and the grounds for which you do not know, you are to cash it [real story, happened to me]. The nature of, and the reasons for, the check are irrelevant, as long as it does not bounce. Thus the check and the reasons for it are to be deemed bona fide.
Ditto here. Enjoy and study the art generated, and be grateful for it. If the history took a different turn, the best one could have gotten instead would be Hagya Sophia, for very high quality artists were [still are] very sparse and at the time were not particularly widely ranging in geographical terms. And Michelangelo was a much better artist than Sinon.
86 posted on 10/28/2006 10:14:55 AM PDT by GSlob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: GSlob

Now I understand your point, thanks for your patient answer.


87 posted on 10/28/2006 10:17:46 AM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: The Cuban

"How can you assert, in the face of the mountain of evidence that Peter was in Rome, that he was not 2000 years later?"
_________________________

It's hard to have a discussion when things are misstated.

I have no reason to believe that Peter didn't visit Rome. I have ample evidence to disbelieve that Peter alone founded the church in Rome; that Peter was the Bishop in Rome for 27 years; that Peter was crucified upside down by Nero; and that Peter was a "super Apostle" and only those who followed through him are the one and only leaders of Christians.


88 posted on 10/28/2006 10:28:09 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
"I’m not saying he was not there; just that nothing of historical value puts him there."
___________________________

If he had been there for 27 years as the Bishop of that church wouldn't it be fair to expect to see some evidence of that?

He may have been there for short periods, but where is the evidence he alone founded the church, instructed it's members and died there.
89 posted on 10/28/2006 10:42:50 AM PDT by wmfights (Psalm : 27)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Like most historians, I'm still waiting for proof that Peter ever ventured to Rome.

How about the fact that his tomb is there?

Why would he, he had already shown that he was unworthy by denying Christ three times. And after denying Christ, we don't hear about him much.

You'd better blow the dust off your Bible, and read the closing chapter of the Gospel of John, then read Acts at least up to chapter 15, then read the two epistles written by someone about whom you say "we don't hear much".

90 posted on 10/28/2006 11:02:19 AM PDT by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Campion

See my post #57. As for dust on my Bible, I will thank you know that my Bible might be worn and tattered around the edges, but dusty ... never.


91 posted on 10/28/2006 11:11:12 AM PDT by doc1019
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: wmfights

There are more historical records to show that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome until he was martyred about 67.
Here are just a few...

Lactantius, The Deaths of the Persecutors 2:5, AD 318, "When Nero was already reigning, Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew."

Bishop Peter of Alexandria, Penance, Canon 9, AD 306, "Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome."

Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea, The Chronicle, AD 303, "[In the second] year of the two hundredth and fifth Olympiad [AD 42]: The Apostle Peter, after he has established the church in Antioch, is sent to Rome, where he remains as a bishop of that city, preaching the gospel for twenty-five years."



The Poem Against the Marcionites, AD 267, "In this chair in which he himself had sat, Peter in mighty Rome commanded Linus, the first elected, to sit down."

St. Cyprian, Epistle 52, A. D. 251, described Rome as "The place of Peter."

Orien, Third Commentary on Genesis, AD 232, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History, "Peter…at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way."



The Little Labyrinth, AD 211, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 5:28:3, "Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter."

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4, 5:1, AD 210, "Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood."

Tertullian, Demurrer Against the Heretics 36 and 32:2, AD 200, "But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is at hand for us too. What a happy church that is, on which the apostles poured out their whole doctrine with their blood; where Peter had a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John [the Baptist, by being beheaded]…[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans , which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter."

Clement of Alexandria, Sketches, AD 200, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 6, 14:1, "The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings; should write down what had been proclaimed."

Caius, Disputation with Proclus, AD 198, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:5, "It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Caius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Caius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’."

St. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, Against Heresies 3:3:1, 3:3:2, and 3:3:3, AD 189, "Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition.

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome], they handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus. Paul makes mention of this Linus in the letter to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus, and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was chosen for the episcopate. He had seen the blessed apostles and was acquainted with them. It might be said that he still heard the echoes of the preaching of the apostles and had their traditions before his eyes. And not only he, for there were many still remaining who had been instructed by the apostles. In the time of Clement, no small dissension having arisen among the brethren in Corinth, the Church in Rome sent a very strong letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace and renewing their faith . . . To this Clement, Evaristus succeeded . . . and now, in the twelfth place after the apostles, the lot of the episcopate [of Rome] has fallen to Eleutherus. In this order, and by the teaching of the apostles handed down in the Church, the preaching of the truth has come down to us."

St. Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth, Letter to Pope Soter, AD 170, quoted by Bishop Eusebius in Church History 2:25:8, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time."

St. Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, wrote Letter to the Romans 4:3, AD 110, "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive."

Pope Clement (fourth Bishop of Rome), First Epistle to the Corinthians, Chapter 5, AD 96, "But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours, and when he had finally suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience."

There are more historical records to show that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome until he was martyred about 67


92 posted on 10/28/2006 11:36:17 AM PDT by stfassisi ("Above all gifts that Christ gives his beloved is that of overcoming self"St Francis Assisi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Salvation; InterestedQuestioner; adiaireton8
Hey Guys! If I do Adiaireton8's work for him and complete his Part II]Evidence from the Writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers for that great ecumenical treatise below, will you let him out of his purgatorial dungeon? I changed the numbers "1 and 2" to Roman numerals "I and II". I thought it would go over better with the magisterium there.

Are there any other changes that I should make on our treatise thus far, and if so, please provide the citations so as to include them. If I have left out anything that can be remotely construed by the most rhetorical amongst as evidence, I will post it and I hope you will as well.

I will be down at the monastery later today in their inquisitional library where they torture all those writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers to get them to cough up everything they said and even lot of things that they didn't say. We will use every inquisitional device to find all that we need to complete Part II of the treatise.

As you can see, we tortured the writings of Clement of Rome and Justin Martur, but we could not break them. They would not tell us what we wanted to hear. Pray that we are more successful with the latter.

We are doing this for poor Adiaireton8 to spring him from his purgatorial dungeon. Please don't be mean to him, he tried. But where he failed, Uncle Chip will prevail on his behalf. Please help me.

Hang in there, Adiaireton8. Help is on the way. Keep the faith. And 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 --- No Evidence

B. Justin Martur --- No Evidence

C. Ignatius of Antioch --- (pending)

D. Irenaeus of Lyons --- (questionable)

E. Dionysius at Corinth --- (pending)

F. Tertullian --- (pending)

G. Hippolytus --- (pending)

H.

I.

J.

K.

93 posted on 10/28/2006 11:51:58 AM PDT by Uncle Chip (The first to present his case seems right until another steps up and questions him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
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.

I am kind of weird in that I never rely on anything after the Four Gospels until I really understand what went on while Jesus walked,so to speak. It's probably because I am somewhat disorganized so I am kind of fanatic about viewing things in the "order" of presentation.

94 posted on 10/28/2006 12:29:30 PM PDT by saradippity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die; Alamo-Girl; .30Carbine; wmfights; Uncle Chip; proud_2_B_texasgal; ...

The Roman religious group/church/denomination/sect.

I don't know how to put it any better.

Father sends His only son to die for a bunch of critters. Son comes and dies a horrid death. Son models what being a servant leader is all about. Son leaves to return to The Father. Sends Holy Spirit to continue to lead the individuals and groups of critters into all truth in humility and shared discernment, decision process etc. as outlined in I Cor 12-14.

After 200 or so years, a group arises with very successful political skills and takes deep powerful root in Rome. Additional political escapades acquire even more power. Tradition builds as calsification and fossilization on the growing plethora of monuments to various human critters--interestingly to human power mongers--instead of to God.

Seems to me if Biblical monuments to the glory of GOD were the objective, depictions of the text of Scripture would have done nicely . . . especially given God's aversion to graven images and all.

In any case, the growing power is UNsurprisingly matched by growing cycles of corruption, gross sin, hypocrisy and overweaning arrogance, haughtiness and abuse of the sheep.

To think that God would have left HIS ANOINTING on such a pile of horse processed hay OF ANY denominational flavor is to construe God as an idiot. To think that Almighty God is so stupid as to allow a collection of folks in His Son's name to acquire power and then use that power on a list of ways OPPOSITE to the model and directions of His Son's teachings . . . and imagining that God would then allow Holy Spirit's anointing to remain on that group???? That's nonsense. Sheer affrontery.

God is not into making sculptures out of horse biscuits.

He's not into gilding horse biscuits.

He leaves all that to Martha Stewart.

Now, certainly, when any individuals have arisin--perhaps again--within the Roman group or any other group who are diligent about following Christ's teachings and examples earnestly and diligently . . . I suspect evidence can be found for a return of the anointing of His Spirit so long as such a case were operant. But such things tend to ebb more than they flow, in my experience and observations.

I suspect a close examination of any denominational group would reveal great long periods of an absence of Holy Spirit's anointing on the leadership and the group with maybe brief interludes where He returned for short gigs, as it were.

What's straw man-ish about expecting, understanding and observing that Roman folks are just as human as other humans? Seems like a no-brainer, to me . . . unless maybe someone is contending that ALL the Roman believers and especially the hierarchy have always been ET's from Zeta Reticuli or some such. Failing that, I think it's quite reasonable to expect Roman believers and leaders to be just as human as the rest of us.

Now why they have appeared so often in history to work so heard demontrating that they are MORE FLAWED HUMAN EXAMPLES-on average in certain eras--than a lot of us--could be a mystery worth exploring. Though I suspect it merely has to do with the arrogance of power mongering and absolute power corrupting absolutely.

As Pastor says . . . God must regret that He didn't redeem monkies, instead.


95 posted on 10/28/2006 12:43:24 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 52 | View Replies]

To: Quix

Break's about over . . .

back to the future . . . no . . .

to

going to pot.


96 posted on 10/28/2006 12:44:30 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 95 | View Replies]

To: Uncle Chip

I have a question for you. Are you a Christian?


97 posted on 10/28/2006 12:52:01 PM PDT by Lil Flower ("Without Love, deeds, even the most brilliant, count as nothing." St. Therese of Lisieux)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: Lil Flower

:-)


98 posted on 10/28/2006 1:08:39 PM PDT by Running On Empty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: Conservative til I die
The verse you cited does no such thing. Just because Paul or some other Apostle went to Rome does not logically mean that Peter didn't.

If the 'pope' was in Rome, wouldn't the chief Jews already have heard of Peter, and been preached the Kingdom of God??? Of course they would...

But the chiefs of the Jews knew nothing about the Kingdom of God other than the small talk and rumors they heard about another sect of religious nuts...And since the Jewish people were Peter's responsibility, that's a pretty good indication Peter was no where near the area...

99 posted on 10/28/2006 1:15:53 PM PDT by Iscool
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: wmfights
if I understand the history correctly there was not a large Jewish or Israelite community in Rome

The Jewish community in Rome in the 1st century was the largest Jewish community in the world outside of Jerusalem.

Some estimates claim as many as 50,000.

They were officially expelled from the city late in the century because of sectarian violence in the community, but by the beginning of the second century the Jewish population was very noticeable once again.

100 posted on 10/28/2006 1:16:03 PM PDT by wideawake ("The nation which forgets its defenders will itself be forgotten." - Calvin Coolidge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | 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