Authority of the Church

[Mea_Culpa]

From Old Scholar
I haven’t made the claim that Jesus was not present during the communion. Just that we do not drink His blood or eat His flesh.

From John 6

**[53] So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you;
[54] he who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day.
[55] For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
[56] He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.
[58] This is the bread which came down from heaven, not such as the fathers ate and died; he who eats this bread will live for ever.” **

 

[utunumsint]

Here are some of the quotes I mentioned.

This one is from Clement of Alexandria taken from a fragment in Eusebius I blieve.

Marcus, my son, salutes you. Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Cæsar’s equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul’s Epistle to the Hebrews.

Here is one from Tertullian in his Perscriptions against the heretics.

For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed.

And this one as well.

Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord’s! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John’s [the baptist] where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!

I can also look up the other ones as well if you’d like.

I will also include this one from 1st Clement from chapter 5.

But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the church] have been persecuted and put to death. **Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours; and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. **Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Old_Scholar]

It’s not that hard a question to answer

From what you are saying, it sounds like contraception is no longer sinful. There was a time when all the Lutheran faiths taught that contraception was sinful. What changed?

This is in answer to your earlier claim that the Catholic Church changes its teachings and all that, while the Lutheran church has not changed its teachings.

When did the Lutheral Church make the claim that contraception was sinful? Do you have proof of that?

What makes you think contraception was ever sinful? What is the Scripture that says that?

Human life is sacred but it doesn’t become life until the sperm and egg unites. To stop the process is not sinful—if it were then abstinence would also be sinful because it does the same thing???

 

[Mea_Culpa]

Just go to their website and you will find the history of when the Lutheran Church split into two groups. The ECLA, the liberal group left the LCMA, the conservative group, over such things as women pastors, homosexuallity, abortion, etc. The MS is the conservative, fundamental group…I understand that there has been another split off the ECLA into a third group even more liberal than the ECLA. I don’t remember their name.

The Missouri Synod is still the same Lutheran Church that has existed for centuries. They follow the ‘Book of Concord’. You can also find that on the internet and see exactly what is believed, and why.

Ah yes, the history of a protestant sect splintering into a thousand pieces because it denies the Magisterium of the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Sounds very familiar.

_____________ (insert the name of protestant sect) was founded by ______________________, then immediately split apart over the doctrine of _____________________. The ______________ splinter further split 5 years later because of ______________. After many more splits, my sect, the First Southern Missouri Reformed Assemby Synod _________________ was formed, which is really the church founded by Jesus Christ 2,000 years ago.

I’m really tired of “Old Scholar.” He cuts and pastes some lie from an anti-Catholic website, it’s refuted, and instead of answering or replying to that, he just cuts and pastes a new lie. Instead of going to the beach, movies, pool, etc. maybe he should go check out a Catholic Mass for himself. I haven’t been to one for quite a while that didn’t have the eucharist under both forms (body and blood).

 

[Old_Scholar]

Well the only earlier writings are from Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Hermas, and Diadach. Clement does not specifically state that Peter and Paul were in Rome, but he does describe their martyrdom in chapter 5 of the first letter. There is also a fragment from Piapas, I believe that is very early.

Ireneaus does make the first recorded statements about Peter preaching in Rome, but then again, so does Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and Origen. All within the first three centuries. All coming from different parts of the ancient world. Alexandria, Cathage, Smyrna, and Rome.

Ireneaus was educated by Polycarp, a disciple of St. John, and he was ordained in Rome, spending a great deal of time there before going to Lyons. During the persecution of Decian, he returned to Rome. All this to say that Ireneaus had firsthand exprience of the church in Rome, and therefore of the Roman tradition regarding Peter and Paul’s martyrdom there. I see no reason why he would lie about this.

Irenæus said that Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome when Matthew wrote his gospel.(Against Heresies 3.1) There are problems with that. Most scholars, Catholic included, believe Matthew’s gospel was written in the 80s and Peter and Paul were both dead then. Also there is the question of whether Matthew actually wrote the gospel. That brings Irenæus’ writings about this in question. However in the same writing, he correctly states that the other gospels came after Peter and Paul had left.(died)

Ireneaus says that Rome was the last place that Peter preached. The letters of Paul to the Romans and even Luke’s Acts may predate the time he spent in Rome. (Note that the only recorded martyrom of an apostle is in Acts and is James.) Also, Second Peter is sent by Peter from Babylon, which was code word for Rome in the early church. This is attested to by many apocryphal writings that both predate Christianity and come from the same era.

At the time Peter was in Babylon, the name ‘Babylon’ had not yet been used as a code word for Rome. That didn’t come until after Nero and after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. At least that is what most scholars say. Remember John’s writing of the revelation of Christ uses it as a code word for Rome but that was written nearer the end of the century.

I’ve given multiple first, second and third century writers who claim otherwise. I’m not overly concerned with the bones however. I actually don’t know much about the issue.

It’s interesting that no mention of Peter being martyred in Rome appeared until the third century when Stephen was trying to claim that he was succeeded from Peter…He was the first to use Matthew 16:18 you know for his ‘authority.’

This contradicts the written historical accounts I’ve mentioned. I’m willing to agree that it is possible, just like it is also possible that they’ve found Jesus’ tomb and that my faith is false. But I find it unlikely.

Have you at least gone to the site and saw what was there? Seems like a great deal of evidence to me. Even the pope said that this could change the entire Christian world when this was discovered.

Well Peter didn’t only minister to the Jews. He preached to Cornelius. He was also involved with Gentile converts when he started to eat separately from the Gentiles in Antioch and Paul rebuked him for it. I also believe there were many palestinian Jews in Rome. I don’t think they were exiled until Nero’s percecution, during which both Paul and Peter were probably martyred.

Actually the Jews were driven out of Rome long prior to Nero.

Read the Scriptures carefully about Peter going to Cornelius. He did not want to go and practically argued with God about going. He said it would be a sin and went there under duress. The reason God wanted him to go to a gentile home was made clear in Acts at the council.

The tradition mentioned by Clement of Alexandria and Origen is that Mark wrote the Gospel while Peter was Preaching in Rome.

Again, the Catholic site that discusses the dates of the gospels date Mark at 65 - 70 A;.D. and Luke in the 80s. Peter and Paul were gone then. Here is the link:

Dates of the gospels

Again, according to Irenaeus, Rome was the last place Peter preached before his martyrdom. The accounts we have from acts predate his journey there. All the letters of Paul predate his journey there. John’s Gospel makes alusion to the suffering Peter will endure, but it would have been anachronistic for him to mention Peter’s journey’s to Rome in that account. John’s letters, on the other hand, are not an account of the sufferings of the apostles. They contain doctrinal information.

If Peter and Paul were martyred together, how do you account for the fact that Paul was imprisoned there for the last two years of his life and never mentions Peter?

I’m not sure what writing you are referring to. Most of those writings are of gnostic origine and come from late in the second and third century, so I don’t worry about them much.

I believe it is the “Constitution of the Holy Apostles.” No one believes it was written by them however but from someone who had to know them and travel with them. It was written prior to the end of the first century, around 70 A.D. They are like all the other apocryphal books—good reading and use for historical purposes but nothing else.

God bless,
Ut

 

[utunumsint]

Irenæus said that Peter and Paul were preaching in Rome when Matthew wrote his gospel.(Against Heresies 3.1) There are problems with that. Most scholars, Catholic included, believe Matthew’s gospel was written in the 80s and Peter and Paul were both dead then. Also there is the question of whether Matthew actually wrote the gospel. That brings Irenæus’ writings about this in question. However in the same writing, he correctly states that the other gospels came after Peter and Paul had left.(died)

This brings into question his claim that they died in Rome at the same time that the Gospel of Matthew was written, but it does not necessarily disprove that Paul and Peter were both martyred in Rome.

At the time Peter was in Babylon, the name ‘Babylon’ had not yet been used as a code word for Rome. That didn’t come until after Nero and after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. At least that is what most scholars say. Remember John’s writing of the revelation of Christ uses it as a code word for Rome but that was written nearer the end of the century.

I’ll do some more research on this. Unfortunalty I’m going to a family camp next week so I wont be able to get back to you for a while. Its an interesting point.

It’s interesting that no mention of Peter being martyred in Rome appeared until the third century when Stephen was trying to claim that he was succeeded from Peter…He was the first to use Matthew 16:18 you know for his ‘authority.’

I provided quotes that were earlier than Stephen from Tertullian, and St. Clement of Rome who at least aludes to it. I guess your implying that Stephen was propagating this to prop up his claim to papal authority? Even if that was true for earlier popes, Tertullian was not exactly a friend to the hierarchy.

Have you at least gone to the site and saw what was there? Seems like a great deal of evidence to me. Even the pope said that this could change the entire Christian world when this was discovered.

Like I said, I don’t really know anything about it. Can you provide me a link?

Actually the Jews were driven out of Rome long prior to Nero.

I’m not sure about this, but I’ll look into it again.

Read the Scriptures carefully about Peter going to Cornelius. He did not want to go and practically argued with God about going. He said it would be a sin and went there under duress. The reason God wanted him to go to a gentile home was made clear in Acts at the council.

So you are saying that Peter disobeyed God and refused to minister to the Gentiles?

Again, the Catholic site that discusses the dates of the gospels date Mark at 65 - 70 A;.D. and Luke in the 80s. Peter and Paul were gone then. Here is the link:

Dates of the gospels

You probably have a point for the Gospel of Luke, but the Gospel of Mark, most likely coincides with Nero’s percecution. Wasn’t the persecution around 64 AD? Wikipedia seems to agree with this date, (whatever that’s worth.)

If Peter and Paul were martyred together, how do you account for the fact that Paul was imprisoned there for the last two years of his life and never mentions Peter?

What is your source for this?

I believe it is the “Constitution of the Holy Apostles.” No one believes it was written by them however but from someone who had to know them and travel with them. It was written prior to the end of the first century, around 70 A.D. They are like all the other apocryphal books—good reading and use for historical purposes but nothing else.

Do you mean the Diadach? Peter, nor any of the other apostles are mentioned in that document. I also checked the Apocalypse and the Gospel of Peter, and nothing there either.

…wait. I found it.

newadvent.org/fathers/0854.htm

1. Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, and Galatia, even to Pontus, received the apostles’ ordination to the priesthood from Simon Cephas, who himself laid the foundation of the church there, and was priest and ministered there up to the time when he went up from thence to Rome on account of Simon the sorcerer, who was deluding the people of Rome with his sorceries.

1. **The city of Rome, and all Italy, and Spain, and Britain, and Gaul, together with all the rest of the countries round about them, received the apostles’ ordination to the priesthood from Simon Cephas, **who went up from Antioch; and he was ruler and guide there, in the church which he had built there, and in the places round about it.

I’ve never even heard of this document. But New advent gives it an unkown date. I’ll look into it some more. There is no mention of Linus though.

God bless,
Ut

 

[Old_Scholar]

Here are some of the quotes I mentioned.

This one is from Clement of Alexandria taken from a fragment in Eusebius I blieve.

Here is one from Tertullian in his Perscriptions against the heretics.

And this one as well.

I can also look up the other ones as well if you’d like.

I will also include this one from 1st Clement from chapter 5.

God bless,
Ut

When you mention writings of Clement of Alexandria, remember that Pope Clement III dropped him because his life was unknown, he never obtained public cultus in the church and his doctrines were spurious. No one believe what he had written. Pretty much the same deal as II Clement(Clement of Rome).

Tertullian did most of his writing at the end of the 2nd century and at the beginning of the third. Origen wrote in the third century.

What you posted from I Clement did not mention Peter in Rome at all. Clement would have known because it has been said that Peter ordained him. I still wonder why no one wanted to record the fact, if it was a fact that Peter was in Rome???

Also, these writings in the third century came after Calixtus I had claimed papal authority over others by quoting Matthew 16:18. No one had tried that before and he was strongly rejected by most everyone of that day.

If Paul ordained Linus, who served from 67 - 79, then Cletus was Bishop of Rome from 79 - 91, and Clement from 91 - 100, we have to wonder when papal authority really began. In I Clement, although Clement sent his epistle from the Church of Rome, he claimed no authority as supreme bishop. Neither did Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I, Telesphorus, Huginus or Pius I.

It was Anicetus who attempted to influence Polycarp into changing the date of Easter but Polycarp refused to yield to his authority. then after Soter and Eleutherus, it was Victor I who threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter when they did but they told him they were not afraid of his threats. Irenæus rebuked Victor for trying to dictate to the Easter Church, even though Irenæus was from the West. After Zephyrinus came Calixtus(160-222) who tried to base his claim of authority on Matthew 16:18 and Tertullian called him a usurper by speaking as if he were Bishop of Bishops.

During all this time no one attempted to claim any special authority for Peter, as he himself did not do as well.

I just can’t help but wonder why somewhere along the line someone would say something about such authority if it were true. I believe it is because they knew Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome and had no special power. In fact, it would have been a step down for an apostle to be a bishop.

 

[Old_Scholar]

ut

I’ll answer your long post later but right now it’s lunch time and then the pool while I still have sun…later ‘¿’

 

[utunumsint]

When you mention writings of Clement of Alexandria, remember that Pope Clement III dropped him because his life was unknown, he never obtained public cultus in the church and his doctrines were spurious. No one believe what he had written. Pretty much the same deal as II Clement(Clement of Rome).

Your right about this, but that doesn’t invalidate him as a historical source, only as a Catholic saint and a source of orthodox doctrine. He was more of a Christian merging stoic philosophy. Second Clement was spurious, but it is also almost as old as 1st Clement. But from a historical perspective, Clement II adds nothing of importance.

Tertullian did most of his writing at the end of the 2nd century and at the beginning of the third. Origen wrote in the third century.

Agreed.

What you posted from I Clement did not mention Peter in Rome at all. Clement would have known because it has been said that Peter ordained him. I still wonder why no one wanted to record the fact, if it was a fact that Peter was in Rome???

You are right. Clement does not explicitely mention this, but he is on record mentioning that they were both martyred. Why he does not say that they were martyred in Rome is open to conjecture. But that conjecture has to be nuanced by the later explicit claims from Ireneaus and Tertullian.

Also, these writings in the third century came after Calixtus I had claimed papal authority over others by quoting Matthew 16:18. No one had tried that before and he was strongly rejected by most everyone of that day.

The only one I know who rejected Calixtus was Tertullian. But Tertullian is the very source the declares that Peter was martyred in Rome. So this can’t be false since it comes from an enemy of the Papacy. He has nothing to gain by lying about it.

If Paul ordained Linus, who served from 67 - 79, then Cletus was Bishop of Rome from 79 - 91, and Clement from 91 - 100, we have to wonder when papal authority really began. In I Clement, although Clement sent his epistle from the Church of Rome, he claimed no authority as supreme bishop. Neither did Evaristus, Alexander I, Sixtus I, Telesphorus, Huginus or Pius I.

I don’t know anyone who says Paul ordained Linus. I know Ireneaus claims that both Peter and Paul ordained Linus.

It was Anicetus who attempted to influence Polycarp into changing the date of Easter but Polycarp refused to yield to his authority.

I wouldn’t say that. Rather, Anicetus refused to excercise his authority on account of a matter of discipline.

then after Soter and Eleutherus, it was Victor I who threatened to excommunicate the Eastern Churches for celebrating Easter when they did but they told him they were not afraid of his threats. Irenæus rebuked Victor for trying to dictate to the Easter Church, even though Irenæus was from the West.

Agreed. This has become a lesson for the pope quoted in Vatican 2 to not use papal authority arbitrarily for trivial matters.

After Zephyrinus came Calixtus(160-222) who tried to base his claim of authority on Matthew 16:18 and Tertullian called him a usurper by speaking as if he were Bishop of Bishops.

But Tertullian was the one who claimed Peter was martyred in Rome. That is the issue we are focusing on at the moment.

During all this time no one attempted to claim any special authority for Peter, as he himself did not do as well.

Tertullian never claimed special authority for Peter??? I don’t have time to get into this right now, but maybe when I get back.

I just can’t help but wonder why somewhere along the line someone would say something about such authority if it were true. I believe it is because they knew Peter was not the first Bishop of Rome and had no special power. In fact, it would have been a step down for an apostle to be a bishop.

This is a different topic, but I’m willing to get into it after we finish the question concerning Peter’s preaching and martyrdom in Rome.

God bless,
Ut.

 

[KingAlfred]

For me, the RCC has the greatest spiritual authority on Earth.

 

[utunumsint]

Just to recap the current state of the case, so as to save you answering all the previous posts.

I have evidence from

1. 
   *]Clement of Alexandria that Peter was in Rome and taught there. I think this is good evidence because Clement was a scholar, not a priest, bishop, or deacon.
   *]Tertullian provides evidence that Peter preached in Rome and was martyred there. His evidence is also good since he had a falling out with the Roman Hierarchy and could gain nothing from stating this.
   *]I also have evidence from Ireneaus claiming Peter preached in Rome. If this were a lie, there are many people who would have caught it since he sent out his Adversus Heresias to other priests and bishops so that they could better defend themselves against the attacks of Gnostics. I am sure that they would have questioned this had there been another tradition or claim to Peter’s grave.
   *]Finally, there are no other claimants to the final resting place of Peter or Paul in any document, from any source, from the first century to today.
   
   Now given all of this evidence, I feel also justified in taking II Peter as referring to Rome when he talks about Babylon, and in inferring Rome as the place of Peter and Paul’s martyrdom in the passage from St. Clement.
   
   Old Scholar’s case seems to be the following:
   1. 
      *]Clement did not mention Rome when he spoke about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
      *]Tertullian may have been secretly trying to invent this story to support Calixtus’ claim to papal authority? Is this correct?
      *]The tomb of St. Peter may possibly be located in Jerusalem, and the bones claimed by Rome are fakes.
      
      Am I properly stating your case?
      
      God bless,
      Ut

 

[Old_Scholar]

utunumsint

Here is the link: Peter’s Tomb

Same info from another site: [Tomb of Peter](” http://www.aloha.net/~mikesch/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm”)

This one is also interesting as it gives more information about others:

                               [More tombs](” http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html”)

So you are saying that Peter disobeyed God and refused to minister to the Gentiles?

No I am not saying that. I said Peter was very reluctant to go there. After seeing the vision God gave him for the third time, Peter began to believe it. It was obvious however that he was a devout Jew and wanted to obey the Law of Moses.

Acts 10:17 Now while Peter doubted in himself what this vision which he had seen should mean, behold, the men which were sent from Cornelius had made inquiry for Simon’s house, and stood before the gate,

1. And he said unto them, Ye know how that it is an unlawful thing for a man that is a Jew to keep company, or come unto one of another nation; but God hath showed me that I should not call any man common or unclean. 29) Therefore came I unto you without gainsaying, as soon as I was sent for: I ask therefore for what intent ye have sent for me?

That’s what I meant in saying Peter was reluctant. During the council at Jerusalem Peter remember this and that was why he backed Paul in saying that Christ wanted them to preach to the gentiles as well as the Jews.

You asked for my source to what I said about Paul never mentioning Peter while in Rome and you say Peter was there. Well just read Paul’s writings. He says that only Luke is with him and he never mentions any visits from Peter. Also when addressing his friends in Rome, he mentions 28 people and doesn’t mention Peter. Isn’t that odd if Peter were there?

The following is directly from this site: Constitution of Apostles

Book VII, Section IV

Who Were They that the Holy Apostles Sent and Ordained?

XLVI. Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:—James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; [An incidental proof of the early origin of this compilation is furnished by the clear distinction it makes between James the son of Alphæus and James the brother of our Lord. The theory of Jerome, which identifies them, was later.—R.] upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Cæsarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchæus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. **Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul; 2 Tim. iv. 21. and Clemens, after Linus’ death, the second, ordained by me Peter.3 ** [Noteworthy, and to be recalled hereafter. See vol. iii. p. 258.] Of Ephesus, Timotheus, ordained by Paul; and John, by me John. Of Smyrna, Aristo the first; after whom Stratæas the son of Lois; 2 Tim. i. 5. and the third Aristo. Of Pergamus, Gaius. Of Philadelphia, Demetrius, by me. Of Cenchrea, Lucius, by Paul. Of Crete, Titus. Of Athens, Dionysius. Of Tripoli in Phœnicia, Marathones. Of Laodicea in Phrygia, Archippus. [Comp. Col. iv. 16, 17., whence this is probably derived.—R.] Of Colossæ, Philemon. Philem. 1. Of Borea in Macedonia, Onesimus, once the servant of Philemon. [Philem. 10.—R.] Of the churches of Galatia, Crescens. [Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 10.—R.] Of the parishes of Asia, Aquila and Nicetas. Of the church of Æginæ, Crispus. These are the bishops who are entrusted by us with the parishes in the Lord; whose doctrine keep ye always in mind, and observe our words. And may the Lord be with you now, and to endless ages, as Himself said to us when He was about to be taken up to His own God and Father. For says He, “Lo, I am with you all the days, until the end of the world. Amen.”Matt. xxviii. 20.

I believe this to be spurious however because Clement didn’t become Bishop of Rome until after Peter was dead. There is no doubt however, that these writings were not done by the apostles but at a much later date. They are totally discredited.

 

[Old_Scholar]

Just to recap the current state of the case, so as to save you answering all the previous posts.

I have evidence from

1. 
   *]Clement of Alexandria that Peter was in Rome and taught there. I think this is good evidence because Clement was a scholar, not a priest, bishop, or deacon.

1. 
   Clement of Alexandria has already been discredited by the pope I listed earlier. His writings are not considered valid by the RCC.
   

   *]Tertullian provides evidence that Peter preached in Rome and was martyred there. His evidence is also good since he had a falling out with the Roman Hierarchy and could gain nothing from stating this.

   Tertullian stated things about Peter but I did not see anything to back it up. He was also writing two hundred years later—just when the church was trying to tie itself to Rome. Makes you wonder about him. After all, as you said, he was really not believed by the church.
   

   *]I also have evidence from Ireneaus claiming Peter preached in Rome. If this were a lie, there are many people who would have caught it since he sent out his Adversus Heresias to other priests and bishops so that they could better defend themselves against the attacks of Gnostics. I am sure that they would have questioned this had there been another tradition or claim to Peter’s grave.

   This writing of Irenæus is the best evidence that exists for Peter being in Rome. 1 Clement did not mention it and it is claimed he was made bishop by Peter but of course that can not be true because Clement didn’t become bishop until 91 A.D. long after Peter was dead.
   
   I also believe that if Irenæus was giving bad information, even though he wrote 100 years later, it would have been disputed. However we don’t have everything written back then and if Peter were in Rome when was it? During all Scripture he is often elsewhere but never mentioned in Rome. During the last few years of Paul’s life, Paul was in Rome but not Peter. When Paul wrote Romans, Peter was not in Rome. Paul often said that he would go to Rome and establish the church. If Peter had ever been there, surely he would have established the church but everytime Paul mentions it, there is no Peter.
   
   After all, the RCC makes the claim that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome for 25 years…I dont see how anyone can believe this. If Peter was ever in Rome, it was to refute Simon Magnus and we don’t even know he was there then.
   
   *]Finally, there are no other claimants to the final resting place of Peter or Paul in any document, from any source, from the first century to today.
   
   Now given all of this evidence, I feel also justified in taking II Peter as referring to Rome when he talks about Babylon, and in inferring Rome as the place of Peter and Paul’s martyrdom in the passage from St. Clement.
   
   Old Scholar’s case seems to be the following:
   1. 
      *]Clement did not mention Rome when he spoke about the martyrdom of Peter and Paul.
      *]Tertullian may have been secretly trying to invent this story to support Calixtus’ claim to papal authority? Is this correct?
      *]The tomb of St. Peter may possibly be located in Jerusalem, and the bones claimed by Rome are fakes.
      
      Am I properly stating your case?
      
      God bless,
      Ut
      
      No you aren’t. I don’t think Tertullian would be trying to support Calixtus’ claim to supremacy as he did not believe it was valid. In fact he refuted the claim.
      
      Where in 1 Clement does it speak of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul? What I maintain is that Clement did not make any claims of authority over the church when writing to the Corinthians. If he was a pope, then, welllll——?
      
      I never said the bones found in Rome are fake. I said there are a few human bones and more animal bones. There is no proof they are the bones of Peter. The site of the alleged tomb is actually a Jewish site and Peter would not be buried there as a pope.
      
      And regarding Babylon, I agree that the reference in Revelation is to Rome but there is no evidence that when Peter said he was writing from Babylon, he was anywhere else. There is no reason to believe he wasn’t in Babylon.
      
      

 

[NotWorthy]

When did the Lutheral Church make the claim that contraception was sinful? Do you have proof of that?

What makes you think contraception was ever sinful? What is the Scripture that says that?

Before I go and find your answer, I want to ask you, are you claiming that the Lutheran Church has ALWAYS allowed contraception and has NEVER claimed that it was SINFUL?

I just want to get your affirmative before I do the work.

 

[Ecoclimber]

The deaths by martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome towards the close of Nero’s reign are among the facts of first-century Christian history which may in these days be regarded as practically outside controversy. The evidence of the letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth written by Clement first-century document of the most authentic character, even if it stood alone, could not seriously be challenged. ‘Let us take the noble examples of our own days. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] were persecuted and contended unto death. Let us take before our eyes the good Apostles. Peter, who through unjust jealousy endured not one, or two, but many toils, and having thus borne witness went to the place of glory that was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed [how to obtain] the prize of endurance. . . . To these men of holy life was gathered together a great multitude of the elect, who having through jealousy suffered many insults and tortures became very splendid examples amongst us.’ The instances mentioned here, Peter, Paul, and the great multitude, cannot be separated. If language means anything, it means here that these several examples of brave and patient witness unto death took place ‘amongst us,’ i.e. recently and at Rome.

That the Church of Corinth to whom it was addressed thus interpreted the passage in the latter half of the second century appears from the letter of Dionysius bishop of 146Corinth to Soter bishop of Rome written before 1174 A.D., in which the statement appears ‘Both alike [Peter and Paul], having taught together in Italy, suffered martyrdom about the same time.’ And when we learn from this same Dionysius that it had been the custom at Corinth to read Clement’s Epistle in the Church on the Lord’s Day from the earliest times, it may be assumed that the tradition of events, which, at the date when Clement’s epistle was first received at Corinth, must still have been fresh in men’s memories, had been handed down continuously.

May I reference an article at this location that supports Peter being in Rome

ccel.org/ccel/edmundson/church.ix.html

 

[Old_Scholar]

The deaths by martyrdom of the Apostles Peter and Paul at Rome towards the close of Nero’s reign are among the facts of first-century Christian history which may in these days be regarded as practically outside controversy. The evidence of the letter of the Church of Rome to the Church of Corinth written by Clement first-century document of the most authentic character, even if it stood alone, could not seriously be challenged. ‘Let us take the noble examples of our own days. Through jealousy and envy the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] were persecuted and contended unto death. Let us take before our eyes the good Apostles. Peter, who through unjust jealousy endured not one, or two, but many toils, and having thus borne witness went to the place of glory that was his due. Through jealousy and strife Paul showed [how to obtain] the prize of endurance. . . . To these men of holy life was gathered together a great multitude of the elect, who having through jealousy suffered many insults and tortures became very splendid examples amongst us.’ The instances mentioned here, Peter, Paul, and the great multitude, cannot be separated. If language means anything, it means here that these several examples of brave and patient witness unto death took place ‘amongst us,’ i.e. recently and at Rome.

That the Church of Corinth to whom it was addressed thus interpreted the passage in the latter half of the second century appears from the letter of Dionysius bishop of 146Corinth to Soter bishop of Rome written before 1174 A.D., in which the statement appears ‘Both alike [Peter and Paul], having taught together in Italy, suffered martyrdom about the same time.’ And when we learn from this same Dionysius that it had been the custom at Corinth to read Clement’s Epistle in the Church on the Lord’s Day from the earliest times, it may be assumed that the tradition of events, which, at the date when Clement’s epistle was first received at Corinth, must still have been fresh in men’s memories, had been handed down continuously.

May I reference an article at this location that supports Peter being in Rome

ccel.org/ccel/edmundson/church.ix.html

All you have is Rev. Brampton’s opinion. No proof…How about giving the verse, etc. in 1 Clement that states that Peter and Paul were martyred in Rome???

 

[MDK]

I’m really tired of “Old Scholar.” He cuts and pastes some lie from an anti-Catholic website, it’s refuted, and instead of answering or replying to that, he just cuts and pastes a new lie. Instead of going to the beach, movies, pool, etc. maybe he should go check out a Catholic Mass for himself. I haven’t been to one for quite a while that didn’t have the eucharist under both forms (body and blood).

You’ve got it right in the bulls-eye. There’s no partner for a decent discussion, but an endless pit of conjecture and falsehoods.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

I think it amusing that “Old Scholar” uses New Testament dating derived from anti-Christian “scholars” of the late 18th and early 19th century in support of anything that underminds the antiquity of the Catholic Church

churchinhistory.org/

Both
THE AUTHORS OF THE GOSPELS
[According to the Clementine Tradition]

---

and

BISMARCK AND THE FOUR GOSPELS
1870 - 1914

---

are quite usefull

 

[NotWorthy]

When did the Lutheral Church make the claim that contraception was sinful? Do you have proof of that?

What makes you think contraception was ever sinful? What is the Scripture that says that?

Human life is sacred but it doesn’t become life until the sperm and egg unites. To stop the process is not sinful—if it were then abstinence would also be sinful because it does the same thing???

I’ll look into more specific info, but it seems some people on a Lutheran forum have the same thoughts as I do on this matter. When asked a similar question, his reply was:

A little historical information: no church, protestant or catholic, approved of contraception until about 1930, when the Episcopalians gave it the ok. I’m not sure when Lutherans changed on this; it seems like in the Missouri Synod they just kind of acquiesced to the culture over time.

 

[NotWorthy]

Here’s what Wikipedia has to say:

Christian views on contraception

   			**From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia**

  	 									Jump to: [navigation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#column-one), [search](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_contraception#search(name removed by moderator)ut)
  	 			Prior to the 20th century, [contraception](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraception) was generally condemned by all the major branches of [Christianity](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity), including the major reformers like [Martin Luther](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther) and [John Calvin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin). This unified front no longer exists, however. Among Christian denominations today there are a large variety of positions towards contraception.

So, it seems that Sola Scriptura depends on the culture that it is read in, rather than what the original authors meant.