Peter's Successor

Further, I'd like to see some evidence that Peter was ever in Rome at all.

It is interesting to note that, for the first several centuries of Christianity, Rome was of no particular consequence. If any bishop held sway at all, it was the bishop of Jeruslaem. The first council, recorded in Acts, was in Jerusalem. As late as 325AD, the council at Nicea saw only a passing involvement by the bishop of Rome, even though the proceedings focused on the very foundations of our faith.

So if the Pope was such an influence, why wasn't he much of an influence?...

 

John might not have known, the battery in his cellphone went dead!

Seriously, if memory serves me right, John may have been exiled to the island of Patmos where he wrote the Book of Revelation, and never knew who may have succeeded Peter.

Horseback communications were a bit slow those days...

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Way to slide the old tongues-is-dead thing in. Can you say off-topic?

 

Amen to that, Dr. B.

The leap of sola scriptura from the beginnings of the Church to the Protestant Reformation being the biggest, not to mention the most responsible for the smorgasbord of doctrines floating around today.

 

Amen to that, Dr. B.

The leap of sola scriptura from the beginnings of the Church to the Protestant Reformation being the biggest, not to mention the most responsible for the smorgasbord of doctrines floating around today. </font>[/QUOTE]Hello, Mister Pot. Meet Mister Kettle.

Doctrines like Marian theology, the Cult of Saints, Purgatory, Papal Infallibility...

 

Drawing a parallel of doctrines that have a modern shelf-life but were already discarded by mid-50's AD.

What was the topic?? </font>[/QUOTE]"Discarded?"

Oh?

Prooooooooooooof?

 

Here is an interesting quote, Curtis.

Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, put the question this way, "Would the heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" (Letters 59 [55], 14).

http://www.catholic.com/library/Papal_Infallibility.asp

 

Actually, Linus is mentioned in Scripture. How did you miss that one?

BTW, DHK tells us that Scripture is the final authority, not the only authority. History tells us that Peter appointed Linus as his successor. DO you know of any historian that states otherwise?

Do you generally take the position that if something is not spelled out in Scripture then it didn't happen? You are no doubt aware that the Bible isn't a complete history of the world, right?

Ron

 

Hi Dr. Bob! It's been a while!

Perhaps you could give me your accessment of 1 Peter 5:13 and tell me exactly what Peter is talking about when he claims to be sending this letter from "Babylon."

I'm sorry it does not speak of Peter being the "Bishop of Babylon," but then again, it does not speak of Bishop O'mally becoming the new archbishop of Boston either...

http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp



God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


- Anima Christi -

Soul of Christ, sanctify me.
Body of Christ, save me.
Blood of Christ, inebriate me.
Water from the side of Christ, wash me.
Passion of Christ, strengthen me.
O good Jesus, hear me;
Within Thy wounds hide me and permit
me not to be separated from Thee.
From the Wicked Foe defend me.
And bid me to come to Thee,
That with Thy Saints I may praise Thee,
For ever and ever. Amen.

 

Maybe the letter came from Babylon.

 

That went right over your head, didn't it?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Christus Vincit! Christus Regnat! Christus Imperat!

 

The reason we have a smorgasbord of doctrines is that MEN are much like the Burger King Commercial; they want to have it their way, not God's. And, God will let them, too! The Bible says, in II Thes. 2:9-12, Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders,
10  And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11  And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:
12  That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness. Moreover, the Bible says in II Thes. 1:6-12, Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you;
7  And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,
8  In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ:
9  Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;
10  When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
11  ¶Wherefore also we pray always for you, that our God would count you worthy of this calling, and fulfil all the good pleasure of his goodness, and the work of faith with power:
12  That the name of our Lord Jesus Christ may be glorified in you, and ye in him, according to the grace of our God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

The problem of doctrine is not with the authoratative new testament, some men believe and obey, but some men simply will not obey it!! Some men had rather reject the truth and believe a lie. The problem is with the pride of men, not the new tetament. In fact, the new testament is the one and only static, standard of objective truth. John 17:17.

It is the height of foolishness, ignorance of historical reality, and scripture not to affirm that the so called councils, conventions, synods, and magisteriums, are monumental failures in establishing pristine new testament Christianity.

God needs no help. He demands humble submission to his will as he has expressed in his verbal plenary inspired word. Luke 6:46, II Tim. 3:16,17.

 

I think I need only answer the first sentence of this discourse, because I think you have it backwards, Frank.

You see, I think it you non-Catholics who want to "have it your way," rejecting the teachings of the original church Christ founded and which was the only one around for the first 1500 years (not to ignore the Orthodox, who still share our same doctrines) for which we Catholics have adhered to faithfully.

To believe in Christ also includes obeying all He commands, right? Then should it also them be true that the Church He founded, with awesome authority, is something we should adhere to out of obedience to Christ who founded it?

You don't believe in the Catholic meaning of the Eucharist? Cast it out, you are in the "Burger King" of choice!

Don't like the teachings of the Church concerning artificial birth control? Throw that out also!

In between those two paragraphs, I have left out perhaps a hundred or more other things you could "pick and choose" from in your particular Christian sect or denomination.

I think I will add one more: Shall you neglect and ignore what Christ did in John 20:22-23 in giving the apostles the power to forgive or retain the sins of men?

After all, Protestant "Burger King" gives you all kinds of options, doesn't it?

God bless,

PAX

Bill+†+


Et ego dico tibi quia tu es Petrus et super hanc petram
aedificabo ecclesiam meam et portae inferi non praevalebunt
adversum eam et tibi dabo claves regni caelorum et quodcumque
ligaveris super terram erit ligatum in caelis et quodcumque
solveris super terram erit solutum in caelis.
(Matt 16:18-19 From the Latin Vulgate)

 

W Putnam:
My last post substantiates my position. I Thes. 5:21. Now, why not present evidence that supports your assertion. If your positon is true, which it is not,it should be supported by incontrovertible evidence. Again, rationally speaking, of course.

And by the way, since you have a proclivity for not reading divine evidence I quoted all of it for you.

 

Curtis:

I have posted evidence that substantiates my position. I ask anyone who disagrees to at least do the same. Otherwise, they are simply striving in the wind.

Putnam said, " You don't believe in the Catholic meaning of the Eucharist? Cast it out, you are in the "Burger King" of choice!"

Now, if he is really serious, he should do as God requires and prove it with the divine evidence which supports one making that conclusion. I doubt seriously that will take place.

Curtis, God's word teaches us we only need his word to be saved, John 17;17, James 1;18,21, not the words or teachings of a ecclesiastical heirarchy. Again, I have provided the scriptural support for my position. For those who disagree, do the honorable thing and use the same standard. Or, as Titus says, SHUT UP!