Catholic practices that have no biblical basis

[Minks]

the bad things i hate the idea of blidy beliving heck i only became a chirstian due to the overwhelming evidecen of the resurection

“From a rigorous historical point of view: no documents, no birth! From a regular point of view: person who existed, birth!”

actually no , there are more accounts to be had , lack of documents does not invalidate that one

and not only lack of sources but contradiction of others, for example one of my biggest concerns is

did peter found the church of rome?.. he went there most likely did he found it? …most likely no

the sources both eccliastical and secular dont help it

and here comes the big one if enough evidence comes to disprove a tradition …

then why should i trust it?

@historyfan81

Church of Rome? If you are referring to the Catholic Church, it most certainly was not founded by Peter! Jesus Christ, Himself, founded the Catholic Church! Christ chose Peter upon whom to BUILD His Church, according to what HE taught to Peter and the original Apostles, but it was Christ who founded our Church, not Peter.

Heeding the Words of Christ, all twelve of the original Apostles traveled with some of THEIR followers of Christ to spread Christ’s Word in foreign nations near and far. Because Rome was where Peter spent the last of his days on earth, and because the other Apostles kept in touch with Peter, reporting to him their successes and concerns (among other reasons), Rome became known as the seat of Peter, or the hub of the Catholic Church.

It made sense for Peter to claim Rome as his seat (center of activities; headquarters) because Rome was already a central point of activity—a bustling hub—for the rest of the civilized world at that time. We are known as the Roman Catholic Church, not the Church of Rome, which, if there is such a group, would likely embrace only those of Rome. The Roman Catholic Church encompasses all peoples on the earth, as directed by Jesus Christ, but free will permits those people to choose whether or not they will follow Him.

 

[historyfan81]

no no the chruch of rome , meaning that peter went to rome and established the church of rome and became its first bishop

that

not that he founded the catholic chuch

that he founded the church of rome
so " In a strong tradition of the Early Church , Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul , served as its bishop, authored two epistles, and then met martyrdom there along with Paul .

 

[Annie]

When I run across something like this, first, I consider the source, potential motivations, biases, etc. I also consider the “evidence” in light of other things I know.

In the same way, there are those whom I know who, if they were accused of a heinous crime, i would have a lot of trouble believing it, no matter the evidence if the evidence were not completely 100% overwhelming (like video + fingerprints + everything else pointing in the same direction).

We have had people convicted on evidence beyond a reasonable doubt who have later been ruled innocent, usually due to DNA evidence.

And I trust the Church.

However, I would say least still be curious, so I would look into what was presented as evidence and I would do what i could to investigate it.

One of the things i would do would be to start a post for one issue, so that people who know more than I do, at least about this issue, can help me weigh the evidence. And then on to the next, and so on.

Sometimes what some of those determined to undermine the Catholic Church comes up with sounds very compelling, then someone points out a discrepancy, a lack of logic, a missing fact, and the whole argument unravels.

 

[Annie]

"In a strong tradition of the Early Church , Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul , served as its bishop, authored two epistles, and then met martyrdom there along with Paul."

So what is this saying that causes you doubt?

 

[Minks]

no no the chruch of rome , meaning that peter went to rome and established the church of rome and became its first bishop

that

not that he founded the catholic chuch

that he founded the church of rome
so " In a strong tradition of the Early Church , Peter is said to have founded the Church in Rome with Paul , served as its bishop, authored two epistles, and then met martyrdom there along with Paul .

@historyfan81

Lol! You’re certainly entitled to be wrong! You’ve not told us WHO has said all this! Jack Spratt? The Apostles acknowledged Peter as their go-to guy long before Peter journeyed to Rome. The Early Church IS, WAS, and ALWAYS SHALL BE the Catholic Church. As Archie was so fond of saying: “Case Closed!”

 

[historyfan81]

its one of the reasons

sir are you reading what iam saying iam not arguing that peter created catholisim

iam arguing that did peter founded the church of rome? or merly took over when he got there?

and the church of rome was already established before peter arrival

 

[Minks]

its one of the reasons

sir are you reading what iam saying iam not arguing that peter created catholisim

iam arguing that did peter founded the church of rome? or merly took over when he got there?

@historyfan81

You might want to reread what you’ve written. You DID say that Peter founded the Catholic Church, but that is not true. Christ founded it.

Apparently, you’ve heard complaints about the Church and assume them to be true. Before you find fault with the Church, you owe it to your soul to find out what the Church teaches.

As others have pointed out, you need to take one issue at a time and study what the church teaches about that issue, instead of relying upon vague ideas and distortions.

 

[historyfan81]

if i did then i apologiese that was not my itention, i know catholics dont belive that

just to clear the confusion , did peter found the church in rome not did peter found the universal church

pparently, you’ve heard complaints about the Church and assume them to be true. Before you find fault with the Church, you owe it to your soul to find out what the Church teaches.

no , i left catholisim beacuse like i said historical revisosim , protestants also make up historical fallacies like constantine made the catholic church …bad very bad

 

[Minks]

its one of the reasons

sir are you reading what iam saying iam not arguing that peter created catholisim

iam arguing that did peter founded the church of rome? or merly took over when he got there?

and the church of rome was already established before peter arrival

@historyfan81

I know nothing about the “church of Rome.” It doesn’t concern me. I don’t understand why you’re so hung up on that phrase. The Catholic Church had been established in several nations by the Apostles. Wherever Peter happened to be was where the seat of the Catholic Church existed.

In modern terms, he might have been compared to a traveling salesman with his “office” in his car, but after a certain point, that salesman may need to let others take care of the details while he keeps tabs on everything while sitting in an office so that people can always contact him when, as overseer, or CEO, he’s needed.

Peter needed to establish a main office/headquarters, because until he settled in Rome, Church Headquarters were located wherever Peter happened to be. For the sake of convenience, that headquarters site of the Church ultimately became the Vatican, as we know it now, in Rome. He could have settled on an island, and that island would have been where the Vatican is now located.

 

[historyfan81]

s, he might have been compared to a traveling salesman with his “office” in his car, but after a certain point, that salesman may need to let others take care of the details while he keeps tabs on everything while sitting in an iffice so that people can always contact him when, as overseer, or CEO, he’s needed.

Peter needed to establish a main off

…really , the church IN antioch exist the church IN corinth , the chruch IN jerusalem

the church in the city of rome does it predate peter or not there …i have oversimplefied it

 

[PetraG]

Is the Bible biblical? The New Testament, at any rate? Where is the biblical authority for that?

It seems to me that this is the best argument for the idea that the authority that deemed what is and isn’t in the Bible also has authority to say what does and does not belong in the Deposit of Faith generally.

 

[Minks]

Minks:

s, he might have been compared to a traveling salesman with his “office” in his car, but after a certain point, that salesman may need to let others take care of the details while he keeps tabs on everything while sitting in an iffice so that people can always contact him when, as overseer, or CEO, he’s needed.

Peter needed to establish a main off

…really , the church IN antioch exist the church IN corinth , the chruch IN jerusalem

the church in the city of rome does it predate peter or not there …i have oversimplefied it

@historyfan81

PLEASE proofread your posts before sending. Please. Many of them are very difficult to read. We can only guess at your meaning. This one? Believe me, it is not simple for the rest of us to understand. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

When Peter went to Rome, the first Catholics—the Apostles—had been to many cities. WhereEVER Peter might be, THAT place was where the Catholic Church headquarters were located because the Pope was the CEO—the Chief Executive Officer of the Catholic Church, the final decision-maker. US President Harry Truman described the Pope’s job well when he said, “The buck stops here!” That began with Peter, immediately after Christ rose to Heaven.

Whenever the other Apostles—the first bishops—ran into a problem, they turned to Peter for the answer, for the decision they needed. THOSE WHO REPLACED THE APOSTLES in the line of succession also turned to their current person in the line of succession replacing Peter, who was our first Pope. This is corroborated by letters and journals of Early Church Fathers.

All the records to which you’ve obliquely referred—where do you think they’re kept? Who was custodian of those records from the time they were written until this very moment?

 

[historyfan81]

e, it is not simple for the rest of us to understand. I don’t know what point you’re trying to make.

yeah iam good at reading and talking not so much writting

but i think if there is enough proof some of the early chruch records maybe wrong

[Irenaeus of Lyons] (c.130–c.202) wrote in the 2nd century says that Peter and Paul had been the founders of the Church in Rome

but there is some evidence that when peter arrived the church of rome was already established

so who is rigth?

other sources claimed he lived in he city for 25 years which makes no sense , as during that time 68-25 was 43 AD , which is the time of emperor clauduis and we know the expelled the jews out of rome during this time period

 

[Annie]

but there is some evidence that when peter arrived the church of rome was already established

How about if you let us in on that evidence?

The first few things I was able to find on this topic were so clearly anti-Catholic propaganda with no evidence shown that I gave up, but you have apparently found some better evidence?

Why not let us take a look?

---

Also, the quote you posted above said that it was a long-standing tradition of the Church, so that means that it is a tradition about our history, not a teaching about faith or morals, which is what the teaching authority of the Church is limited to.

 

[historyfan81]

peter and the question of the fouding of the church in the city

we have enough evedince to show that he was most likely there .even though historians Nicola Denzey Lewis like gives arguments that he never went there.

but new evidence shows that he most likely did went there even thorugh its not a historical concensus

1. expulsion of the jews…

emperor clauduis who was in office AD 41-54, expluses the jews out of the city first mention the
incident in the writings of [Roman historians Suetonius (c. AD 69 – c. AD 122),

Cassius Dio (c. AD 150 – c. 235)

and fifth-century Christian author Paulus Orosius. Scholars generally agree that these references refer to the same incident.

The exact date is uncertain. The maximal time window for the expulsion of Jews from Rome is from January AD 41 until January AD 52. More detailed estimates such as those based on the AD 49 date by Orosius or the reduction of the AD 53 upper limit due to Proconsul health are possible but controversial.

his shows that by 41-49 AD and prior to it there was a significant chirstnian comunity in the jewish comunity in rome

the the first epistle of Peter does mention that “The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son” ([1 Peter 5:13] It is not certain whether this refers to the actual Babylon or to Rome, for which Babylon was a common nickname at the time, or to the Jewish diaspora in general, as a recent theory has proposed.

Date of 1 peter?

close and numerous correspondences between 1 Peter and Romans suggests to some scholars that 1 Peter had knowledge of Romans (this is not to say that 1 Peter was literarily dependent on Romans). If these scholars are correct then 1 Peter must have been written after Romans, which was written around AD 56-58 (Elliott 136-137). But it is also possible the similarities reflect early Christian themes in general.

• As noted above, the term “Babylon” in 5:13 is a reference to Rome. Since this usage is only attested in documents written after AD 70, when Rome destroyed Jerusalem like Babylon had in 587 BC, many scholars consider this a strong indication that 1 Peter was written after AD 70. However, the above writings were politically subversive apocalyptic literature while 1 Peter is an epistle containing nothing subversive ([2:13-17] the reference to Babylon forms an inclusio with “disapora” in 1:1 and functions to identify both author and reader as “exiles.” These differences prevent the reference to “Babylon” from requiring a date after Peter’s death.

but if we give it the earliest possible date its early 60s AD

paul doesnt mention peter in the epistele to the romans , so using this time range we can say peter arrival is post 58s AD ( since the time range of the letter is 55 to 58 AD) and he stays there till his death under emeperor nero

 

[historyfan81]

assuming using the accepted date of the expulsions of the jews in 49 AD , and that the curch of rome was already established and had already time by paul writtings . and peter shows up after these events.

therefore to respond to some cahtolics claim there are 2 visits to rome ,one in 43 Ad and another in 60

Eusebius of Caesarea 260/265–339/340 relates that when Peter confronts Simon Magus at Judea (mentioned in Acts 8), Simon Magus flees to Rome, where the Romans got to regard him as a god. According to Eusebius, his luck did not last long, since God sent Peter to Rome, and Simon was quenched and immediately destroyed.

According to [Jerome]( (327–420) "Peter went to Rome in the second year of Claudius to overthrow Simon Magus, and held the sacerdotal chair there for twenty-five years until the last, that is the fourteenth, year of Nero.

not only is this mentioned a couple of centuries after the fact which raises some big alarms on its autencity.

it stil has problems , one why is this not mentioned in acts? acts is a the date of acts is depending but even if we use the earliest date possible tha it was not written after 62 AD we have the problems that “that is 19 years after peters first visit”

and there is no mention of it , one would think that is the case.

also no church father mentions the date of 42 ad or the confronation of magnus. in fac there isnt one beacuse the story comes from an acoprhyfull book called the Acts of Peter written sometime around the half second century.

so did peter found the church of rome? , no he most likely just took it over.

my sources

The Apocryphal Acts of Paul, Peter, John, Andrew and Thomas : Pick, Bernhard, 1842-1917 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

The Open Court Publishing Co., Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., Ltd, Chicago, London 1909.

The Letters of Paul: An Introduction by Charles B. Puskas (Aug 3, 1993) [ISBN]
page 20 states: “The document of primary importance in determining a chronology of Paul is the Gallio Inscription found at Delphi”

“The Gallio Inscription”](http://www.wfu.edu/~horton/r102/gallio.html). Retrieved 2012-08-19

 

[Annie]

peter and the question of the fouding of the church in the city

Why are all these details so important to you and so much that you are willing to leave the Church over them?

You started off with “Catholic practices which have no biblical basis.”

Now you are hung up on Peter’s being in Rome.

For me, the whole issue of Peter and Rome is not that on which I base my faith, nor even my belief in the Papacy.

 

[Annie]

therefore to respond to some cahtolics claim there are 2 visits to rome ,one in 43 Ad and another in 60

Responding to your PM, I want to point out that there is a difference between pious tradition and the teaching Tradition of the Church.

The issue of Peter and Rome would be under the first: just normal traditions that one might find in any society. Which ship an ancestor came to the US on, whether an ancestor converted to Christianity because of fears of the Nazis or because they believed it, really, these are noce things to know about one’s family, but not major important issues, right?

Now, the oral teachings from Christ to the Apostles are Traditions. Consider John 21:25:

25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.

The types of writings we have show that they are not compendiums of information as a textbook would be, they are biographies, history, and letters. Nothing indicates an intention to be comprehensive.

The teachings that were not written then were still passed on, and those are Tradition.

The Holy Spirit protects the Church from error in faith an morals, so these Traditions are vitally important.

What Peter did and when he did it? Not so much. Not does the Church claim that these traditions are important or necessarily true.

 

[LilyM]

Yeah but it was donuts who asked Constantine to interrvive Wich was unheard of since the church took care of church matters and the emperor of well rhe empire.

Unknow to all of them allowing the emperor to take such big say in church matters if broke of separation of church and state allowin for all the papacy scandals in the middle ages

Mmmm … donuts … I think maybe you are referring to Donatus?

And we need to remember that at the time divisions of religious opinion were having a huge impact on secular society as well - people were literally rioting, destroying each other’s property and so on over religious differences. So the Emperor had an interest in healing the religious divides and so keeping the peace. Much as the different secular rulers did at the time of the Reformation.

 

[historyfan81]

mainly its that i do to reasons like this

need to remember that at the time divisions of religious opinion were having a huge impact on secular society as well - people were literally rioting, destroying each other’s property and so on over religious differences. So the Emperor had an interest in healing the religious divides and so keeping the peace. Much as the different secular rulers did at the time of the Reformation.

like i said to be fair no one at the time knew what the reprecussions would be