Posted on 01/21/2013 9:12:42 AM PST by marshmallow
you wrote:
“Where in your excerpt does it say a thing about Peter ever being Bishop of Rome?”
Did you actually read the passage?
“He came to Rome, but so did millions of others including Paul, who has just as strong a claim to being a Bishop of Rome based on this excerpt as Peter. Please note, Chapter headings were added by the editor. So, are you sure you have a clue as to how to read?”
Yep. Read on (if you know how):
“After the martyrdom of Paul and of Peter, Linus was the first to obtain the episcopate of the church at Rome.”
Obtain the episcopate. Notice that? Some translations say “appointed bishop”. Not “found”. Not “establish”. Not “formed”. Not “created”.
In other words, it was already there. It already existed. Peter held it. Linus could only obtain it, could only be appointed bishop, after Peter was martyred for only then would the episcopate be open.
Nonsense. There is nothing at all to suggest "it was already there." It does say that Linus was the FIRST to obtain the episcopate and that event happened after the death of Peter and Paul. Nothing in the passage comes close to suggesting Peter was the first Bishop of Rome which would certainly have been pointed out if true. None of Peter's epistles say a thing about Peter being a Bishop of Rome, nor does Paul's letter to the well established Chucrch in Rome. It is a purely made up fiction.
No, the passage itself shows Linus was the first bishop AFTER Peter’s martyrdom. He was the first to OBTAIN the EPISCOPATE. That’s an office. A specific office that already existed. And his obtaining it was only possible when Peter was martyred.
where in the text does it say this? Nowhere. Where in the text does it say Peter ever occupied such an office? Nowhere. You just made it up.
It is more than a bit weird that this 'sin' of division here is flesh man proclaimed. The first Commandment given was Exodus 20:2 "I am the LORD thy God, Which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.
Not one word about having no other church before man.
The ideological differences between Christians and the continued disunity of Christians is insignificant compared to the systematic cover-up and perpetuation of homosexual child abuse that has poisoned the Church.
The Church needs to recognize the importance of this breach of trust and expel all the participants.
Cardinal Law is still wearing a funny hat and robes in Vatican City - right?
You wrote:
“where in the text does it say this? Nowhere.”
Actually it’s right there where I quoted the text.
“Where in the text does it say Peter ever occupied such an office? Nowhere. You just made it up.”
Nope. Obtained the episcopate.
The episcopate is a office. If he obtained it rather than founded it, then it already existed.
Your comment is idiotic.
A 500 or 1000 year old schism, and the heresies that caused them, is VASTLY MORE SIGNIFICANT than a series of diocesan cover-ups over the last 45 years none of which were the product of heresy or schism in itself.
No it didn't. George Washington was the first person to obtain the office of US President. That doesn't mean someone held it before him. Your statement makes no sense at all. The first person to hold any office, "obtained" it. The office has to be established before the first person holding it can obtain it. The text specifically says Linus was the first not Peter. The text never says Peter ever held it which it would if he had. End of Story.
Agrue all you want about fillioque - or the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Nobody will be harmed in that discussion.
Now - participate in and facilitate the molestation of the children of the faithful. That will destroy lives and souls right then and there, and eventually destroy the Church itself.
You wrote:
“No it didn’t. George Washington was the first person to obtain the office of US President. That doesn’t mean someone held it before him.”
Your analogy simply doesn’t work:
1) Scripture already tells us Peter was in Rome.
2) Tradition already tells us Peter was in Rome.
3) Early Church Fathers tell us Peter was in Rome.
4) The lists passed down through history show that the episcopate was an active office BEFORE Linus - held by, opened by, Peter.
5) Linus didn’t establish the office and no one claims he did. He obtained it ONLY AFTER PETER’S MARTYRDOM and the mentioning of that fact shows the office’s open state was completely dependent upon Peter’s death. If he had not died, the office would not have been open for Linus.
“Your statement makes no sense at all.”
Actually, it does. And remember, as I believe now, so did the Church in the early centuries.
“The first person to hold any office, “obtained” it.”
Peter held it first.
“The office has to be established before the first person holding it can obtain it. The text specifically says Linus was the first not Peter. The text never says Peter ever held it which it would if he had. End of Story.”
No, actually the text makes it plain Peter had what Linus got once Peter was dead. Hence, Linus couldn’t have it until Peter’s death - which is what the text tells us by the order of comments and their actual import.
You wrote:
“Agrue all you want about fillioque - or the primacy of the bishop of Rome. Nobody will be harmed in that discussion.”
Heresy damages and destroys souls.
“Now - participate in and facilitate the molestation of the children of the faithful. That will destroy lives and souls right then and there, and eventually destroy the Church itself.”
Destroy souls, yes. Destroy the Church? No, nothing can.
NO it doesn't. It never even hints at that much less says it. Nowhere. It merely says Peter happened to be in Rome when martyred. Same thing it says about Paul. It never says Peter had anything more to to do witht the Church in Rome than Paul did. In fact tradition says Peter was leaving Rome (thus not the bishop) when God call him back to be martyred. If you have do such gymnastics to fabricate the argument for apostolic succession then the Catholic church is built on a foundation of sand. It was interesting to learn that's all you've got.
You wrote:
“NO it doesn’t. It never even hints at that much less says it. Nowhere.”
Actually, it’s right there.
“It merely says Peter happened to be in Rome when martyred.”
No, it says more than that.
“Same thing it says about Paul. It never says Peter had anything more to to do witht the Church in Rome than Paul did. In fact tradition says Peter was leaving Rome (thus not the bishop) when God call him back to be martyred.”
No, actually that is not what tradition says. You seem to be confusing tradition with legend.
“If you have do such gymnastics to fabricate the argument for apostolic succession then the Catholic church is built on a foundation of sand. It was interesting to learn that’s all you’ve got.”
That isn’t all I’ve got, but it looks like - as usual - that the Protestant has to resort to lying. I fabricated nothing. Also, I never once claimed that the “the argument for apostolic succession” was built on anything Eusebius ever said. I merely corrected your false point about Eusebius. It is always so interesting how quickly Protestants resort to outright lying in these discussions. If I were to ask you to point out where I ever claimed what you just said, you would utterly fail. I know it. Every reader here knows it. Why? Because I made no such claim. And still Protestants resort to lying.
No you didn't. Eusebius specifically said Linus was the FIRST bishop of Rome and NEVER say Peter was ever a Bishop of Rome. You respoind that because Linus was appointed Bishop that proves Peter was first Bishop because Peter was in the city of Rome at the time he was mrytred. That made no sense at all and was just lying to avoid the plain language of Eusebius. Typical.
You wrote:
“No you didn’t. Eusebius specifically said Linus was the FIRST bishop of Rome and NEVER say Peter was ever a Bishop of Rome. You respoind that because Linus was appointed Bishop that proves Peter was first Bishop because Peter was in the city of Rome at the time he was mrytred.”
First of all, when and where did I ever claim that Linus was APPOINTED bishop? I never said any such thing, EVER. Again, we see you’re completely making things up that I never, EVER said.
“That made no sense at all and was just lying to avoid the plain language of Eusebius. Typical.”
The lying here is saying I said Linus was APPOINTED. Care to make up anything else and then claim I said it when I never did?
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.