St. Peter and Rome

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

[William Terrell]

Matthew is not about a church, it is about the individual and his ability to do all thing regarding his own salvation. This is its literal meaning. Any interpretation impressed on it is for the purpose of an outside human agency grasping power over the human soul.

The decision of an individual is binding in Heaven. Organizations have no souls, and are unneedful of salvation.

As I said, individuals at their own pleasure tend to congregate in groups. It is not the group that is important, but the individual. Your's is the corporate viewpoint. The gospels are not for corporations.

The scriptures yield a very good description of the interdependency on each individual on each other in the body of Christ. Pushing an all powerful church that has sovereignty over the individuals is, again, a corporate viewpoint.

Jesus did not speak to corporations, He spoke to individuals.

Yes, He did build His church. It is the body of believers all over the world, however not under the wing of any spiritual despot. That is scriptural. The interpretation you impress on it is not consistent with the sovereignty of an individual over his own salvation preached by Jesus.

I don't recall discussing your personality. I was just puzzled how you can be unmindful of all the instances where Jesus clearly told the individual how to gain the Kingdom, where it was, and what to do, doable >only by the individual, to gain salvation. None of which required a church, except for the pleasure of those who like group worship.

There must be some cognitive dissonance there. But, then, the Catholic church has a lot of wealth and power to loose should their con job come to light.

[annalex]

Your post does not address the scriptures I posted. Now who's got cognitive dissonance?

[William Terrell]

Went through them and made the comments that were necessary, although repetitive.

[annalex]

No you did not. You made a naked comment that "Matthew is not about a church" -- when the quote plainly refers to "church", then you mused about individuals and corporations. Then you made another assertion that the church is body of believers, as if that contradicts what I say. Then you make another naked assertion that the Church of the gospel is not "under the wing of any spiritual despot", despite the scripture from 1 Corinthians, which you left without comment. That was the extent of your commentary on the scripture I offered.

[William Terrell]

I commented on everything, just not in order. Would you like me to put it in order for you?

[annalex]

No, I can tell what you are driving at with these, so the order is not the problem. The problem with your commentary is that it does not really comment on the scripture in view, but rather gives me your thoughts on what the Church is that you would have given me regardless of any particular scripture.

You do make a point that is scriptural, regarding the Kingdom of God being inside of the beleiver. However, I also showed you that this metaphor does not preclude the Kingdom of God form being a social organization, as there is plenty of scripture where it is used in that way. And indeed, the Catholic Church never teaches that salvation is somehow divorced from the internal life of the soul. In fact, the entire church life is centered around the two sacraments, confession and Eucharist, that are deeply personal by their very nature.

[William Terrell]

Tell me, if I'm not a Catholic and refuse the Catholic traditions and do not believe the Catholic doctrine, can I be saved to eternal life, with no input or permission at all from the church?

Do you really think that when Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within, He included human organizations. Show me the human organization's soul.

I'm afraid I don't agree with the church's interpretation of scripture, or the orientation of view it would have to have to interpret it that way. So, I don't address the scripture cites so much as to just write an alternate interpretation and why. I try to address the foundation of that interpretation of scripture.

[Uncle Chip]

Hey Diego, in my studies of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, I came across this from Irenaeus writing about the disciples of Simon Magus and the Marcionites:

"When, however, they are confuted by the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by viva voce."

Does that sound familiar? The more things change the more they remain the same. The blabber of the RCC magisterium has not changed since its conception and they are living proof that the tradition that they pontificate ad infinitum is not that of the Apostles but that of the disciples of Simon Magus and their tradition of the tradition of tradition. Their own Holy Nicene Father Irenaeus nails them on this traditional Simonian technique, but then of course, I'm sure they can explain away even his words --- by tradition and the viva voce of the magisterium, as always, to continue to deceive their gullible laity.

[Uncle Chip]

That's Irenaeus: Against Heresies; Book III; Chapter 2; Verse 1 ----

[Diego1618]

That's Irenaeus: Against Heresies; Book III; Chapter 2; Verse 1 ----

Thanks very much for the update. I "had" seen that in the past but could not remember where. Yeah......it's so typical, but they'll come up with twelve reasons why it is so.... and a Papal Bull to go with it.

[annalex]

if I'm not a Catholic and refuse the Catholic traditions and do not believe the Catholic doctrine, can I be saved to eternal life, with no input or permission at all from the church?

The Catholic teaching is that men are judged solely on how much they resemble Christ in their works. They are also judged according to the light they are given. A man who is not Catholic because of a cultural bias but does not reject the essence of Catholic teaching, and who lives according tothe natural moral law can be saved. We are not to judge the futire salvation of individuals. I can, however, recommend conversion to the Catholic Church as the Church Christ founded as the surest way to reach heaven.

when Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within, He included human organizations

I showed you a few posts above that there is scirpturally, a social aspect to the Kingdom, as well as, of course, the individual aspect.

I try to address the foundation of that interpretation of scripture

This is moving from your personal belief system and using the scripture where it fits the personal beleif. The Catohlic way is to read the scripture and form the belief from the entirety of it, no matter how contradictory the pieces seem to be.

[Uncle Chip]

From Father Irenaeus about the Gnostic Marcionite source of one of the RCC's most lasting traditions:

"When, however, they are confuted by the Scriptures, they turn around and accuse these same Scriptures, as if they were not correct, nor of authority, and [assert] that they are ambiguous, and that the truth cannot be extracted from them by those who are ignorant of tradition. For [they allege] that the truth was not delivered by means of written documents, but by viva voce."

[pthurst]

Hi,

Firstly I am not a Roman Catholic. I am a practicing Christian who is slightly peeved that so many of my contemporaries seem to think that the Christian church somehow began in the mid 1500’s

Isn’t it strange that this ‘Peter never went to Rome’ story never surfaced until the reformation? Up until then, it was generally accepted that Peter had met his end in the Neronian Circus, crucified upside down and then buried across the road in the Vatican cemetery.

Any historian will point out that if Peter had never even visited Rome then reliable and credible sources would exist, way before the reformation yet they don’t... Now why might that be so?

Well, I think that by attacking the itinerary of St Peter, any would be propaganda artists strike to the heart of Catholicism so Peter is an easy target in that regard. after all, if he wasn’t even in Rome, how could he be the first pope etc...

There are many reasons why I personally do not belong to the Church of Rome but this lame attempt at protestant propaganda is not one. Peter ends one of his letters with greetings from the church in Babylon, Aside from actually spelling out ROME, this is just about the best evidence anyone could ask for as to his whereabouts. The persecuted church frequently referred to Rome as ‘Babylon’ and we see a better example in John’s book of Revelation and the ‘Harlot of Babylon’ who sits on seven hills etc... In fact this is what we call ‘Textural Critisism’. Its the ability to draw on different biblical references to fill in ‘gaps’. Biblical scholars have identified that the early persecuted church met in secret and developed a series of secret signs and phrases to communicate with each other and not ‘outsiders’ after all if Peter was in Rome he wouldn’t necessarily want to publicise it at the time would he?

In fact, it’s rather foolish to interpret Peter’s closing comments literaly, are we really to think that Peter went to Iraq around AD50-70? There’s no evidence of such an early Christian community in that area however in Rome, there’s plenty of evidence, most of which can still be seen by any avid tourist within an hour of stepping off the plane.

As far as I can tell. Peter probably did go to Rome, He was probably executed in the Neronian Persecution (along with St Paul) and his original Tomb was probably remembered by the Christian community before being enshrined and then built over by Constantine so get over it!

Stupid arguments like this just serve to make some protestants look foolish rather than faithful. something which can be very dangerous indeed, especially if we choose the let our emotions fly in the face of reason.

[Diego1618]

In fact, it’s rather foolish to interpret Peter’s closing comments literally, are we really to think that Peter went to Iraq around AD50-70? There’s no evidence of such an early Christian community in that area.

Yup....you're right. They were not Christian....they were Israelites, descendants of the Northern tribes taken captive 721 B.C. [II Kings 17:23] and also of the Southern tribes taken captive 125 years later [II Kings 25:11].

Josephus tells us during the first century that there were millions of Israelites still beyond the Euphrates, away from Roman control. You'll find that here: "Antiquities, Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2".

It says this: but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country; wherefore there are but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes are beyond Euphrates till now, and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.

The two tribes subject to the Romans were Benjamin and Judah and their ancestors had returned from Babylon after 70 years captivity [Jeremiah 25:11-12]. The Northern Israelites never returned from Assyria and it was these folks "THE TWELVE" had been chosen to evangelize [Matthew 10:5-6]. Peter was among the "Twelve" and as such was instructed not to go among the Gentiles. Paul was later chosen [Acts 9:15] for this task....and he had many assistants.

This is the reason you do not find Peter mentioned as ever being in Rome. This is very difficult for many to accept as it has been Catholic dogma for 1700 years. An entire false Church has been built upon this tradition, but the fact remains.....Paul went to the Gentiles (uncircumcised) and Peter went to the Israelites (circumcised) [Galatians 2:7-9].

[Matthew 15:24] But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Why would Our Lord make that statement?

Welcome to FReeRepublic!

[Diego1618]

Meant to ping you to post #853.