Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Church Built on Peter
The Integrated Catholic Life ^ | June 29, 2011 | Fr. Roger Landry

Posted on 06/29/2011 5:46:53 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-283 last
To: Jvette
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.

Hearsay is not "... hard, factual, history which confirms Peter as Pope."

251 posted on 07/03/2011 2:22:52 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 248 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

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.


252 posted on 07/03/2011 3:45:52 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: CynicalBear; OLD REGGIE
Snarky? Why is it snarky to ask a Unitarian like OR how exactly does a unitarian use sola scriptura to justify that Jesus Christ is not God?

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.?

253 posted on 07/03/2011 4:07:33 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 193 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Firstly, Scripture for us Christians means the Bible -- I don't know what cult you belong to, but your cult certainly doesn't hold the Bible as sacred.

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, it’s the same here. Besides in other languages one doesn’t 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?

254 posted on 07/03/2011 4:10:16 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
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.

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."

Iranaeus

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.

255 posted on 07/04/2011 9:55:08 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Jvette
the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter…
Eusebius, Church History V.6
256 posted on 07/04/2011 11:19:43 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Jvette; Cronos
History is quite a bit easier when the religion has considerably less of it. For example, Old Reggie's:
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.
Source.


257 posted on 07/04/2011 11:30:49 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

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?


258 posted on 07/04/2011 5:18:20 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 255 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

My apologies, I forgot the link.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm


259 posted on 07/04/2011 5:20:46 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Am I to understand what is "Infallible" today might not be tomorrow because of changes in human society?

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.

260 posted on 07/04/2011 5:57:39 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 240 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
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.

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'.

261 posted on 07/05/2011 9:52:52 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 258 | View Replies]

To: MarkBsnr
Am I to understand what is "Infallible" today might not be tomorrow because of changes in human society?

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.

Apologetics 1. By this logic how much of Scripture do you consider as no longer pertinent.

262 posted on 07/05/2011 9:56:55 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE
Apologetics 1. By this logic how much of Scripture do you consider as no longer pertinent.

All of it is pertinent.

263 posted on 07/05/2011 1:48:04 PM PDT by MarkBsnr (I would not believe in the Gospel if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

You won’t accept the history of the Church, so why even bother?


264 posted on 07/06/2011 12:29:10 AM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

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.


265 posted on 07/06/2011 8:18:13 AM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 261 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
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.

Please be more careful when making a claim as to what I said. Peter was not mentioned as a Bishop of Rome in the excerpt I presented nor, in fact, in the excerpt you mentioned. Peter and Paul were jointly named by Iranaeus as "originators" of the Church at Rome.

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.

266 posted on 07/06/2011 10:11:28 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr; Jvette
the truth of the Gospel was preserved until the times of Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter…

Eusebius, Church History V.6

Eusebius is not considered to be the most reliable source for Church history.

267 posted on 07/06/2011 12:39:22 PM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

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.


268 posted on 07/06/2011 12:57:25 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Jvette
Eusebius is not considered to be the most reliable source for Church history.

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.

269 posted on 07/06/2011 6:08:26 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

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


270 posted on 07/06/2011 6:20:25 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]


271 posted on 07/06/2011 9:34:10 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 270 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; D-fendr; Jvette

What would a unitarian know about “reliable sources” The unitarians are busy junking the bible wholesale in favor of gay marriages etc.


272 posted on 07/06/2011 11:21:37 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: Jvette
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.

Oh yes, Eusebius was a great and reliable historian.

The Legend of Abgar

273 posted on 07/07/2011 10:05:40 AM PDT by OLD REGGIE (I am a Biblical Unitarian?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE

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.


274 posted on 07/07/2011 11:01:59 AM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: Jvette; Cronos; OLD REGGIE

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.


275 posted on 07/07/2011 12:15:27 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 274 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

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.


276 posted on 07/07/2011 1:31:06 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 275 | View Replies]

To: Jvette

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.


277 posted on 07/07/2011 5:28:02 PM PDT by D-fendr (Deus non alligatur sacramentis sed nos alligamur.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: D-fendr

Well said, thanks.


278 posted on 07/07/2011 6:03:21 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Jvette

JV — remember, Unitarians are not Protestants. They’re not even Christian.


279 posted on 07/08/2011 1:05:51 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; Jvette
I simply say there is no historical proof.

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..

280 posted on 07/08/2011 1:07:09 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: OLD REGGIE; MarkBsnr
how much of Scripture do you consider as no longer pertinent.

unlike Unitarians, we don't junk scripture

The "biblical Unitarians" believe that gay marriage, abortions, etc. is all perfectly all right as the "biblical unitarians" say that this is all to be junked.... and then they argue with Christians.

Sad, sad loons

281 posted on 07/08/2011 1:10:41 AM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: Cronos

I actually know nothing about unitarianism other than they seem to reject history.


282 posted on 07/08/2011 6:47:04 PM PDT by Jvette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 280 | View Replies]

To: Jvette; OLD REGGIE; D-fendr

Well, Old REggie, the “biblical unitarian”. It really seems like some folks can only criticize others beliefs without seeing the huge holes in their’s — or perhaps it is precisely because their beliefs are non-existent...


283 posted on 07/08/2011 11:07:32 PM PDT by Cronos ( W Szczebrzeszynie chrzaszcz brzmi w trzcinie I Szczebrzeszyn z tego slynie.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 282 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-283 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