Posted on 09/17/2015 12:42:53 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Two replies in a row that make no sense.
If Catholics believed this not a one would be poor.
Wrong again.
See post 172.
Yes that was one of the posts that made no sense. and I believe I asked for HISTORICAL proof. I also cited examples of what would be considered HISTORICAL proof.
You cited two sources, neither of which would be considered historical sources. One, the New World Encyclodpedia is a different version of Wikipedia. A lot of it gives the appearance of having been written by catholics. Nothing in the article noted Peter was the founder of the church in Rome.
The Encyclopedia Britannica is not a historical document. It's an encyclopedia.
I searched the following: did Peter start the church in Rome and read the articles, Saint Peter the Apostle.
From the article, Saint Peter the Apostle
The claims that the church of Rome was founded by Peter or that he served as its first bishop are in dispute and rest on evidence that is not earlier than the middle or late 2nd century.
I cited scholarly work.
As previously noted, there is no historical proof Peter started the church in Rome.
I think those pigeons are getting the best of you again.
You have still failed to supply an alternative, feel free to disagree with my position all you want, but you have failed to supply an alternative with ANY proof.
Will do. 😂😀😄
I did supply a scholarly alternative refuting the catholic claim. Did you not read post 172?
Here it is again.
There is, however, no evidence to show that he was the founder of the Roman church, though (along with Paul) he had some connections with it from an early stage.....
Introducing the New Testament, John Drane, Fortress Press Edition 2011, p403.
And I can go to my copy on the shelf to verify the accuracy of your quote. /SARC. I believe that the Christians will stick with the truth, that Peter did indeed found the Church in Rome. BTW you are aware that he is buried in the Catacombs in Rome the same he was crucified upside down.
Or you can order a copy yourself.
Introducing the New Testament, Drane
I believe that the Christians will stick with the truth, that Peter did indeed found the Church in Rome.
Yet again the sources you cited do not affirm this. You would be more accurate if you said, "...catholics will stick with....".
BTW you are aware that he is buried in the Catacombs in Rome the same he was crucified upside down.
I am aware catholics claim he is buried in the catacombs on Rome. Though there is no conclusive proof either way as attested to by the catholic encyclopedia online...see the link below.
In the 1960s, some previously discarded debris from the excavations beneath St Peter's Basilica were re-examined, and the bones of a male person were identified. A forensic examination found them to be a male of about 61 years of age from the 1st century. This caused Pope Paul VI in 1968 to announce them most likely to be the relics of Apostle Peter.
That's a pretty big most likely by the pope.
Was Peter martyred for Christ? Yes he was.
Was he crucified upside down? Some say yes, some no. The Acts of Peter(Source: catholicencyclopediaonline)...a writing of dubious reliability (comments mine) give an account of this.
The article, Acts of Peter in Wikipedia, notes this is the first record of the tradition that Peter was crucified upside down.
But in reality, it doesn't matter where or how Peter was martyred.
What matters is that Christ was crucified for all of our sins and that He arose on the third day.
Absurd. Nowhere is this in Scripture. Paul did not even mention Peter among the 30 or so people in his epistle to the Romans.
Who’s bitter?
The post was about the quality of your popes.
Is that history not an issue for you either?.
No church I attend states that those not members of it go to hell, as Catholicism does.
Catholics are in NO position to point fingers in that area.
"Outside the Church there is no salvation"
From your very own catechism.
846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers?335 Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.336
And from your very own popes....
Pius 9, Quanto Conficiamur Moerore: “Also well known is the Catholic teaching that no one can be saved outside the Catholic Church. Eternal salvation cannot be obtained by those who oppose the authority and statements of the same Church and are stubbornly separated from the unity of the Church and also from the successor of Peter, the Roman Pontiff..”
-http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quanto.htm
Fourth Lateran Council (1215): "There is but one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved."
Fifth Lateran Council: Moreover, since subjection to the Roman pontiff is necessary for salvation for all Christ's faithful, as we are taught by the testimony of both sacred scripture and the holy fathers, and as is declared by the constitution of pope Boniface VIII of happy memory, also our predecessor, which begins Unam sanctam, we therefore...renew and give our approval to that constitution... Fifth Lateran CouncilSession 11, 19 December 1516,
http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum18.htm
Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV: "One indeed is the universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one at all is saved, in which the priest himself is the sacrifice, Jesus Christ, whose body and blood are truly contained in the sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine; the bread (changed) into His body by the divine power of transubstantiation, and the wine into the blood, so that to accomplish the mystery of unity we ourselves receive from His (nature) what He Himself received from ours." — Pope Innocent III and Lateran Council IV (A.D. 1215) [considered infallible by some]
Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema. — Vatican 1, Ses. 4, Cp. 1
St. Thomas Aquinas: It is also shown that to be subject to the Roman Pontiff is necessary for salvation. For Cyril says in his Thesaurus: “Therefore, brethren, if we imitate Christ so as to hear his voice remaining in the Church of Peter and so as not be puffed up by the wind of pride, lest perhaps because of our quarrelling the wily serpent drive us from paradise as once he did Eve.” And Maximus in the letter addressed to the Orientals [Greeks] says: “The Church united and established upon the rock of Peter’s confession we call according to the decree of the Savior the universal Church, wherein we must remain for the salvation of our souls and wherein loyal to his faith and confession we must obey him.” — St. Thomas Aquinas, Against the Errors of the Greeks, Pt. 2, ch. 36
http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraErrGraecorum.htm#b38
Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: (Promulgated November 18, 1302) “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.”
"If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html
Perhaps you could point me to other denominations who have it in their official statements of faith that one must be a member of their church to be saved, as Catholicism does.
And you've ignored the first.
Sounds like a tie; to me.
Talk about bad luck!
I'd never visit EITHER of those places again!
Tain't mine; but GOD's.
I'm just a poor excuse for a messenger.
I never said they were; and anyone can read that.
If any were TRUE; the world would be quite a different place.
Ctholics saying so doesn't make it truth.
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.