Posted on 06/29/2011 5:46:53 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
After St. Peter died upside down on a cross in the Circus of Caligula and Nero, the surviving Christians obtained his body and buried him quickly nearby, on the steeply sloping Vatican Hill to the north of the Circus. That hill had become a makeshift graveyard four months earlier after the fire of Rome had killed so many residents of the metropolis that their loved ones began to use any open spot they could find on the roadsides radiating outside the city. . . .
When the tropaion of Peter was found underneath the high altar during archaeological escavations in 1941, there was great rejoicing, because it matched what Gaius had written at the end of the second century. Even more exciting was the fact that they found bones in what was clearly Peter’s tomb underneath the victory monument.
(Excerpt) Read more at integratedcatholiclife.org ...
And your reply to me "I cannot even comment on such a ridiculous statement." was.............sweet talk?
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
Why would he list Peter again?
I fail to see Peter listed as the first Bishop of Rome.
Let's do a little simple arithmetic:
"The blessed Apostles, then, having founded and built up the church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus Paul makes mention in his Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus and after him, in third place from the Apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric."
1. Iranaeus says the church was founded by the Apostles Peter and Paul. 2. They appointed Linus - #1.
3. Linus succeded by Anacletus - #2.
4. Anacletus succeeded by Clement - #3.
By my count Iranaeus lists 3 "Bishops of Rome" and Peter is nowhere among them. That is, unless you include Peter as the first because he, with Paul, appointed Linus per your quote, "... the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul;"
By this logic your first Pope was 'Peter and Paul'.
Apologetics 1. By this logic how much of Scripture do you consider as no longer pertinent.
All of it is pertinent.
You won’t accept the history of the Church, so why even bother?
I fail to see the comparison in the two statements. I did not “blast” you for blasting me, rather I said if you are going to go after me for something, do not then omit other relevant material.
As for the question at hand. St. Iraneus, is used as the basis in every subsequent chronology of popes as having listed Peter as the first bishop of Rome.
You are moving the bar, as so often happens.
Originally you claimed that there was no mention of Peter in the excerpt, but as I showed, in the very paragraph previous to your quote, there is Peter.
Paul has never been referred to as the Bishop of Rome, though we that he was there with Peter and that he was martyred there.
What does that tell you?
You can’t say the Church is making this stuff up, as I have pointed out to you that this was common and accepted belief as early as the second century.
Paul has never been referred to as the Bishop of Rome, though we that he was there with Peter and that he was martyred there.
What does that tell you?
Of course I never said that Paul was ever listed as a Bishop of Rome.
That Paul, with Peter, originated the Church of Rome or that he was martyred in Rome is tradition as opposed to documented history.
Bear in mind I make no claim that Peter was never in Rome or that he was not martyred there. I simply say there is no historical proof.
You can’t say the Church is making this stuff up, as I have pointed out to you that this was common and accepted belief as early as the second century.
It was also a common and accepted belief for hundreds of years that Earth was the center of the Universe.
Eusebius is not considered to be the most reliable source for Church history.
Yea, I know.
When it suits the protestants position, these ancient writers and keepers of the faith are called upon.
When it doesn’t, well then they are not trustworthy.
Again, you won't accept the Church's history, so why bother? You don't believe our history, and we couldn't care less whether you do or don't.
How about you give us your church's history in the second century for amusement purposes.
How about you give us your church’s history in the second century for amusement purposes.
Because to be deep in history is to cease to protestant.
John Cardinal Newman
What would a unitarian know about “reliable sources” The unitarians are busy junking the bible wholesale in favor of gay marriages etc.
Oh yes, Eusebius was a great and reliable historian.
So, Eusebius records this legend as a part of the history of the church and that disqualifies him as an historian?
Was the legend in existence or not? That is the question. The letter existed, there were those who believed it, including Eusebius. This has happened from the beginning. The Church does not promote individual revelations as binding on all her children.
But, this goes to the same process by which Canon was determined.
There were hundreds of writings and several more gospels than were included in the Canon.
The church sifted through them and then the Holy Spirit led them to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Those that were found to be Scriptural were included, most were not.
It doesn’t change the lineage, or disqualify the succession he records. Protestants don’t understand that not everything written is infallible. Or maybe they do, but don’t care to know the truth.
The Church has always considered Peter to be the first bishop of Rome and therefore the first pope. There is ample histories, references and evidence and tradition to do so, including the information in this article. Peter, not Paul nor anyone else.
Whether those outside the Church accept this is irrelevant and meaningless. That they do not accept the Church’s authority and teaching in any regard only makes it more so.
If they follow another church, let them worry about its own history and teaching - which, if past experience is a guide - they will avoid discussing at all cost.
Yep, but in a debate like this, I will not concede.
When one concedes or even grows tired of continuing the defense, it is used against the Church.
I do not care if one chooses to ignore or reject the clear teachings and history of Christ’s church.
I do care if someone not well versed in the truth should be led astray by misinformation and calumny against Truth.
No, no conceding.
Just making a point here. If, for example, one wished to ‘prove’ certain specifics about Christ but refused to accept Scriptural accounts as sources, most of the information is lost on them.
Similarly, if someone wishes information about key aspects of Church history, but rejects Church history as sources, same thing. The Church was about the only source that cared or kept track, remove that, and it’s like trying to know about Christ without the Scriptures.
If someone takes that position, they really don’t want to know. And we shouldn’t play the game beyond what has already been done; cite the history.
Those who have an honest inquiry can explore these. Those that don’t will always come up with yet another specious line. Anything to denigrate the Church and anything to avoid examination of their own church’s history and teaching.
thanks for your posts.
Well said, thanks.
JV — remember, Unitarians are not Protestants. They’re not even Christian.
The same argument used by UUs to say that the Unitarians believe that Christ never existed or was made up or was an amalgamation of stuff..
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.