Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marks of the True Church
http://www.catholicbook.com ^ | MOST REVEREND LOUIS LARAVOIRE MORROW, S.T.D.

Posted on 09/22/2013 7:38:11 PM PDT by NKP_Vet

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-55 last
To: boatbums
It has been shown on this forum multiple times that the very idea of a "Pope of Rome" having universal jurisdiction was not even heard of until CENTURIES after Peter was martyred

Really?? Peter 32-67, Linus 67-76, Cletus 76-88, Clement 88-97, Evaristus 97-105, Alexander 105-115, Sixtus 115-125....did the world just imagine this or are the revolutionaries trying to change history?????

51 posted on 09/24/2013 9:27:35 PM PDT by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: terycarl
It has been shown on this forum multiple times that the very idea of a "Pope of Rome" having universal jurisdiction was not even heard of until CENTURIES after Peter was martyred

Really?? Peter 32-67, Linus 67-76, Cletus 76-88, Clement 88-97, Evaristus 97-105, Alexander 105-115, Sixtus 115-125....did the world just imagine this or are the revolutionaries trying to change history?????

Is your contention that Peter was the very first Pope of Rome with universal jurisdiction over all Christians of the world and that Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, et al, formally succeeded him so that the Roman Catholic Church alone can lay claim to having Apostolic Succession traced back to Peter in an uninterrupted line until today??? Careful.

A Timeline of the Early Papacy

150 ad: the church at Rome is ruled by a plurality of presbyters who quarrel about status and honor. (Shepherd of Hermas). “They had a certain jealousy of one another over questions of preeminence and about some kind of distinction. But they are all fools to be jealous of one another regarding preeminence.”

Also note in Hermas: “Clement’s” “job” is to “send books abroad.” — Peter Lampe does not think this Clement is the same individual from 1 Clement, but the time frame is appropriate.

235: Hippolytus and Pontianus are exiled from Rome by the emperor “because of street fighting between their followers” (Collins citing Cerrato, Oxford 2002).

258: Cyprian (Carthage/west) and Firmilian (Caesarea/east) both go apoplectic when Stephen tries to exercise authority outside of Rome.

306: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins)

308: Rival “popes” exiled because of “violent clashes” (Collins again).

325: Council of Nicea: Alexandria has authority over Egypt and Libya, just as “a similar custom exists with the Bishop of Rome.” The Bishop of Jerusalem is to be honored.

381: Constantinople: Because it is new Rome, the Bishop of Constantinople is to enjoy privileges of honour after the bishop of Rome. (This indicates Rome’s “honour” is due to its being the capital.)

431: Cyril, “stole” the council (Moffett 174, citing “Book of Heraclides) and “the followers of Cyril went about in the city girt and armed with clubs … with yells of barbarians, snorting fiercely, raging with extravagant arrogance against those whom they knew to be opposed to their doings…”

451: Chalcedon, 28th canon, passed by the council at the 16th session, “The fathers rightly accorded prerogatives to the see of Older Rome, since that is an imperial city; moved by the same purpose the 150 most devout bishops apportioned equal prerogatives to the most holy see of New Rome …” (Rejected by the pope. But what were these “devout bishops” thinking?).

Schatz, summarizing: In any case it is clear that Roman primacy was not a given from the outset ; it underwent a long process of development whose initial phases extended well into the fifth century. The question is then: can we reasonably say of this historically developed papacy that it was instituted by Christ and therefore must always continue to exist?

His response is that the institution of the Church “must be understood in such a way that an awareness of what is essential and enduring … develops only as a result of historical challenges and experiences.”

That is there was no notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime. There was no notion that Jesus expected Peter to have “successors,” nor that Matthew expected a successor to Peter (Schatz, pg 1).

Only after there was no longer a political power in the west to challenge papal claims, did the “awareness” of the “essential and enduring” nature of the papacy take hold. http://reformation500.com/2009/07/03/a-timeline-of-the-early-papacy/

52 posted on 09/24/2013 11:04:19 PM PDT by boatbums (God is ready to assume full responsibility for the life wholly yielded to Him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Catsrus
Right before Jesus said to Peter- thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my church - there is another scripture where Jesus asks his disciples “who do men say I am?” Peter gave the correct answer by replying - “thou art the Christ - the son of the living God.”(Matthew 16:16) Jesus commended him by saying - 17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven. 18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You have to read Scripture in light of other Scripture - not pull one out of context and build a doctrine on it. Jesus was saying to Peter - upon this rock - meaning the truth of what he had said about Christ being the son of the living God - Jesus was building HIS church - not a church for Peter.

it never fails to amaze me how a protty can post scripture and then proceed to misinterpret it.....Christ clearly meant that Peter was the rock upon which Christ was building His church...Christians have taught this for two thousand years.....you want to correct them?????

53 posted on 09/25/2013 6:41:33 PM PDT by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: boatbums

in your elequant post #52 did you notice that you produced a timeline which included ONLY Catholic Christians???? not a Baptist nor Lutheran mentioned....


54 posted on 09/25/2013 6:49:08 PM PDT by terycarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: terycarl

You can believe your man-made doctrine, but I choose to believe the Word of God. I posted the scripture and the true meaning of it, and you refuse to come to the knowledge of the truth. How sad! Jesus meant no such thing - but, as I said - you are free to believe lies if you so choose - and its apparent that you do!


55 posted on 09/25/2013 8:22:28 PM PDT by Catsrus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-55 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