Skip to comments.The Church Built on Peter
Posted on 06/29/2011 5:46:53 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
click here to read article
Why is it that Jesus never directly addressed Peter by any other name but Simon?
Please enlighten me. I am not aware of hard, factual, history which confirms Peter as Pope.
I tell thee, Peter
Another dodge and not true since Jesus says to him, “Thou art Peter.”
John 1:42 He brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon the son of John; you shall be called Cephas “ (which is translated Peter ).
Note “shall be called”. In other words, Jesus tells us that at some point Simon will be called Cephas and when the time came for Jesus to prepare His Apostles for what is to come, He then names Simon, Cephas/Petros/Peter as He said He would.
I point you to any history of the Church, wherein Peter is always named as the first pope, though not a term or title which was used in the beginning.
St. Iranaeus, a disciple of Polycarp who was himself a disciple of St. John, first tracks the successions of the bishops of Rome.
St. Eusebius also does so.
I can’t remember who first uses the term “Apostolic Succession”.
Please note Jesus did not directly address him as Peter. John 1:42 does not meet the standard of direct address.
However, Titanites did prove that I was mistaken in that one time Jesus directly addressed him as Peter.
Luke 22:34 But he replied, "I tell you, Peter, before the cock crows this day, you will deny three times that you know me."
I stand corrected. Thank you Titanites. (Though this certainly wasn't a pleasant conversation.) :-(
Well, I'm certainly glad you can admit that Jesus did call him Peter. And don't forget that there are many other places in the New Testament that God's word calls him Peter.
(Though this certainly wasn't a pleasant conversation.) :-(
No, it wasn't a pleasant conversation, although it was one that seems to give some great pleasure for some reason. The Church, however, does not deny that Peter was a sinner, just as was any Pope.
Hearsay is not "... hard, factual, history which confirms Peter as Pope."
I cannot even comment on such a ridiculous statement.
St. Iranaeus is second century Christianity, and he records the successions of bishops in Rome going back to Peter.
It is historical fact, not fairy tale, not fantasy and not hearsay, but that is anathema to those who reject the one true Church.
You think it's not a valid question to ask a unitarian why they believe this?
or to ask a unitarian, even a "biblical unitarian" like OR why unitarians consider the Bible to be on par with the Koran, Gita, etc. etc.?
didn't you claim you were Catholic? but these and earlier posts betray a lack of any Christian knowledge
just as Paul calls himself father, its the same here. Besides in other languages one doesnt necessarily call priest father. As a supposed ex-Catholic, you, iscool, should know that or are you still searching for the Baptist group that will allow wine?
Thirdly, we Christians consider the Holy Spirit to be God -- why could you deny that?
Forgetting for the moment that the Bishop Of Rome had no authority outside the geographically limited jurisdiction of Rome, your claim of Iranaeus as your "authority" is problematic.
"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."
Peter is missing?
You seemingly have a habit of making dogmatic statements without attribution and expect others to accept them as fact. Opinion is one thing, statement of fact is another.
It would be nice if you provided supporting documentation every once in a while. Otherwise, I'm afraid you can't be taken seriously.
the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from PeterEusebius, Church History V.6
Unitarian Universalism is a liberal religious tradition that was formed from the consolidation of two different religions: Unitarianism and Universalism. Both began in Europe hundreds of years ago.
In America, the Universalist Church of America was founded in 1793, and the American Unitarian Association in 1825. After consolidating in 1961, these faiths became the new religion of Unitarian Universalism through the Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA).
Both religions have long histories and have contributed important theological concepts that remain central to Unitarian Universalism. Originally, all Unitarians were Christians who didn't believe in the Holy Trinity of God (Father, Son, and Holy Ghost), but in the unity, or single aspect, of God. Later, Unitarian beliefs stressed the importance of rational thinking, a direct relationship with God, and the humanity of Jesus. Universalism emerged as a Christian denomination with a central belief in universal salvation; that is, that all people will eventually be reconciled with God.
If you are going to blast me for not providing supporting documentation, then when you do, please include all that is relevant to the discussion.
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?
My apologies, I forgot the link.
If the society changes to the point where the pronouncement is no longer valid because it specifically pertains to things in society that are no longer pertinent.