First Pope

[adrift]

If I were to ask you to list all the historical evidence for Christopher’s existence what would you list? Go ahead, I’ll wait but I’m going tell you right now not to expect me to hold my breath on this one. By the way I am serious on this request. I really do want to see your list. He supposedly lived in the third century. Do any of his contemporaries mention him? Is he noted in any written histories of the time such as along the line of historical accounts written by Josephus or Eusubius. A birth Certificate or Death Certificate would be most helpful but I doubt if any exist. Anyway show me what you got and I want evidence not legend or myth. I want good historical and empirical evidence. Okay?

The fact is that St. Christopher was a legendary figure in Lycia which is in Turkey. The Great Catholic Encyclopedia says he was a martyr but then says that almost nothing is known about his life or his death. So what do they know and how do they know it. Is it historical evidence or is it mere legend and/or myth How do they know he was a martyr. The only evidence for him is listed in the earliest Martyrology some 200 years after he died as “a memory” What the heck is that? I know what it is not. ‘A memory’ is not historical evidence.

Your claim is that he doesn’t exist. Your claim it is up to you to provide proof.
There are many people that you cannot prove existed. Abraham, Moses, Adam and Eve, King Arthur all have their doubters. But that isn’t the point. I am disputing this statement from you

So the church **even when admitting St. Christopher never existed **was still right in celebrating a feastday in his honor.

This is not a truthful statement. The Church has admitted no such thing. The Church said three things.

1. There isn’t much evidence to support the myths that grew up around him.
2. He was more of an Eastern saint and didn’t belong on the Calendar.
3. His cult was not to be suppressed.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Around the year 200, Tertullian (AD 160-220) penned his famous work, The Demurrer Against the Heretics. There he wrote the following:

“The Apostles - a title which means ‘those who have been sent forth’ - immediately chose by lot Matthias as the twelfth, in the place of Judas, on the authority of a prophecy which is one of the psalms of David” (Tertullian, *The Demurrer Against the Heretics, *20:4).

So, in addition to Paul who recognized the existence of 12 apostles other than himself, we have the witness of an Early Church Father who taught clearly that Matthias was the twelfth apostle.

 

[guanophore]

I hope that you are not offering this as an example of papal infallible teaching as it certainly does not meet the requirements thereof.

It is the constant Teaching of the Church that Judas was an Apostle, and that after his death, Matthias was enrolled as the 12th Apostle to take his place.

Matt 10:1-4
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

The one Apostle who betrayed Him.

Mark 3:14-19
14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. 16 So **he appointed **the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Luke 6:12-16
13 And when day came, he called his disciples and **chose twelve **of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

If you think that Judas was not given authority and was sent out along with the other 11 Apostles, then you have a lot of scripture twisting left to perform.

Why would you need an infallible papal decree to affirm something that is so clear in the Scriptures? Such decrees are made when people fall into heresy (such as you have done) and to correct errors. Since there has (fortunately) never been rampant waywardness based upon your strange eisegesis, there is no need for such a decree.

 

[guanophore]

This was also from the site you linked.

Please note that your source does not say he did not exist. There is legend and myth about him but that does not mean he did not exist. In fact your source, indicatesthat he did exist but we know little fact about him. Your statement that the Church honors a nonexistant saint is false.

It appears that he is running rampant with false statements about the Church. I found myself wondering today “what could be the source of all these rabbit trails?” It occurs to me that if inkaneer is chasing rabbits down such trails, he is not pursuing the doctrine of the faith, or growing in faith, but just being carried away by empty philosophies (even though they are of his own making). It is an interesting way of keeping a Christian real busy going nowhere useful.

Ever read the Screwtape letters? It is one of the strategies recommended to Wormwood. Maybe it is Uncle Screwtape hard at work?

 

[guanophore]

If I were to ask you to list all the historical evidence for Christopher's existence what would you list?   Go ahead,

He made it clear that the reason St. Christopher was removed from the liturgical calendar is because there is a LACK of historical evidence.

That does not equate to him never existing. There is a lack of historical evidence for the vast majority of humanity, but they all have existed. The Church wants those upheld as role models to have available to the faithful a life worth emulating.

If you think there was never a pious, generous, and holy man who embodied the light of Christ you are sadly mistaken.

By the way I am serious on this request.

Since your answer was already provided in the post above this one, it is clear that the only thing you are serious about is chasing another rabbit.

 Anyway show me what you got and I want evidence not legend or myth.  I want good historical and empirical evidence.  Okay?

Otherwise you will believe he never existed?

I guess most of the population from the third century to the 12th will have to disappear too, since there are very few documents indicating that any of them lived.

 The only evidence for him is listed in the earliest Martyrology some 200 years after he died as "a memory"  What the heck is that?  I know what it is not.  'A memory' is not historical evidence.

It is for the people that knew the person.

I am not sure what your agenda is, but I am sure that this has nothing to do with the thread topic.

 

[inkaneer]

Your claim is that he doesn’t exist. Your claim it is up to you to provide proof.
There are many people that you cannot prove existed. Abraham, Moses, Adam and Eve, King Arthur all have their doubters. But that isn’t the point. I am disputing this statement from you

This is not a truthful statement. The Church has admitted no such thing. The Church said three things.

1. There isn’t much evidence to support the myths that grew up around him.
2. He was more of an Eastern saint and didn’t belong on the Calendar.
3. His cult was not to be suppressed.

You are asking me to prove that something did not exist. No one can prove a negative because there is no negative evidence. There is only positive evidence that something exists or existed. Palentologists are always finding evidence in the form of fossils of species that existed. They never find evidence of species that never existed. There is no such thing as negative evidence. Rather it is the lack of positive evidence that is the proof that something did not exist. And until that positive evidence is provided then no one can claim that something existed.

Just show me the empirical evidence that St. Christopher actually existed in reality and I will believe you. Thius far you haven’t done it. Like I saud in my prior post I’m not holding my breath on this one.

 

[adrift]

You are asking me to prove that something did not exist. No one can prove a negative because there is no negative evidence. There is only positive evidence that something exists or existed. Palentologists are always finding evidence in the form of fossils of species that existed. They never find evidence of species that never existed. There is no such thing as negative evidence. Rather it is the lack of positive evidence that is the proof that something did not exist. And until that positive evidence is provided then no one can claim that something existed.

Just show me the empirical evidence that St. Christopher actually existed in reality and I will believe you. Thius far you haven’t done it. Like I saud in my prior post I’m not holding my breath on this one.

Nice dodge. The point is that you claim the Church said he didn’t exist that is what you need to prove.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
If I were to ask you to list all the historical evidence for Christopher’s existence what would you list? Go ahead,

He made it clear that the reason St. Christopher was removed from the liturgical calendar is because there is a LACK of historical evidence.

I would agree that zero evidence was a lack of evidence

That does not equate to him never existing. There is a lack of historical evidence for the vast majority of humanity, but they all have existed. The Church wants those upheld as role models to have available to the faithful a life worth emulating.

Yes, but the church does not throw its weight behind the sainthood of the " vast majority of humanity’ like they did for St. Christopher. Back in the fifties you weren’t Catholic unless you had a magnetic statue of Jesus and Mary on your dash [that’s when cars were made of real metal and you had a dashboard made of steel] and a St. Christopher medal pinned to the overhead above the rearview mirror depicting St. Christopher carrying the Christ child across a river. The Church never made the “vast majority of humanity” the patron saint of travelers. Now did they?

If you think there was never a pious, generous, and holy man who embodied the light of Christ you are sadly mistaken.

Not only do I think that there was “a pious, generous, and holy man who embodied the light of Christ” I think there were a lot of them. And not only men but women too! And the vast majority of them labored in obscurity and we will never know their names nor what they did. That is why the Church has a feast day for these unknown saints called All Saints day. But to have a feastday for a mere legend or to call a legend a saint is both hypocriscy and a mockery of all those unknown saints

your answer was already provided in the post above this one, it is clear that the only thing you are serious about is chasing another rabbit. Otherwise you will believe he never existed? I guess most of the population from the third century to the 12th will have to disappear too, since there are very few documents indicating that any of them lived. It is for the people that knew the person.
I am not sure what your agenda is, but I am sure that this has nothing to do with the thread topic.

Actually I caught this rabbit when you acknowledged in your first paragraph and I will quote your own words here, “there is a LACK of historical evidence.” Yeah there certainly is a lack of historical evidence but that is no reason to be pronouncing anyone a saint. Actually there is more evidence for the existence of UFO’s and extraterrestial life than there is for St. Christopher. At least we have peole who claim to be eye witnesses to UFO’s and ET’s. But not one account of anyone who claimed to have known Christopher or witness anything in his life and that is no reason to make him a saint nor have a feastday in his honor.

Now that this rabbit has been caught let’s get back to Bishop Matthias.

 

[inkaneer]

It is the constant Teaching of the Church that Judas was an Apostle, and that after his death, Matthias was enrolled as the 12th Apostle to take his place.

Matt 10:1-4
2 These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon, also known as Peter, and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John; 3 Philip and Bartholomew; Thomas and Matthew the tax collector; James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, the one who betrayed him.

The one Apostle who betrayed Him.

Mark 3:14-19
14 And he appointed twelve, whom he also named apostles, to be with him, and to be sent out to proclaim the message, 15 and to have authority to cast out demons. 16 So **he appointed **the twelve: Simon (to whom he gave the name Peter); 17 James son of Zebedee and John the brother of James (to whom he gave the name Boanerges, that is, Sons of Thunder); 18 and Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Cananaean, 19 and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him.

Luke 6:12-16
13 And when day came, he called his disciples and **chose twelve **of them, whom he also named apostles: 14 Simon, whom he named Peter, and his brother Andrew, and James, and John, and Philip, and Bartholomew, 15 and Matthew, and Thomas, and James son of Alphaeus, and Simon, who was called the Zealot, 16 and Judas son of James, and Judas Iscariot, who became a traitor.

If you think that Judas was not given authority and was sent out along with the other 11 Apostles, then you have a lot of scripture twisting left to perform.

Why would you need an infallible papal decree to affirm something that is so clear in the Scriptures? Such decrees are made when people fall into heresy (such as you have done) and to correct errors. Since there has (fortunately) never been rampant waywardness based upon your strange eisegesis, there is no need for such a decree.

Think of it this way. Jesus assembles a bunch of disciples and from them selects twelve [including Judas] to be Apostles. He then, over a,period of about three and one half years, teaches and trains them to lead His Church. These men are going through the equivalent of what a priest does today and that is go through seminary school. And what do they learn? They learn theology. But what if a priest does not finish seminary. Is he a priest? Would you attend a Mass celebrated by someone who did not finish his seminary training. Can a seminarian consecrate a host? It is clear Judas never finished his training. He did not receive the authority that other Apostles did. He did not receive the authority to consecrate the Eucharist because he left the Last Supper before Christ instituted it. He did not receive the power to forgive sin as he was dead before Jesus gave this authority to the Apostles. In effect Judas left the seminary before graduation from Apostle school. So if Judas never possess this authority how in the world can Matthias, as Judas’ successor receive them from Judas? He cannot. Matthias received this authority from the Apostles when they made him a bishop. And that requirement that Peter speaks of, that whoever is selected must have been a follower of Jesus from the start of His ministry at the Baptism of John and witness His Resurrection becomes nothing more than saying we want a person who has undergone the training. Just as you would not accept a priest who did not finish seminary, so too Peter wanted someone who finished his training.

 

[adrift]

Quote:

Now that this rabbit has been caught let’s get back to Bishop Matthias.

Actually, you need to start your own thread and stop derailing this one which is about how the pope after Peter was determined.

 

[inkaneer]

Actually, you need to start your own thread and stop derailing this one which is about how the pope after Peter was determined.

I believe that the original question was answered. Linus was the second pope and he was appointed by Peter. I don’t think that Paul and Peter were in prison together as they were executed several years apart. Peter himself may have designated his successor before his death. Sort of a ‘solo Petrus’ thing. So even if we don’t know what the process was one thing is clear is that the outcome was known. There is no other claim to being the second pope by anyone. Linus is the unanimously accepted successor to Peter.

 

[adrift]

Think of it this way. Jesus assembles a bunch of disciples and from them selects twelve [including Judas] to be Apostles. He then, over a,period of about three and one half years, teaches and trains them to lead His Church. These men are going through the equivalent of what a priest does today and that is go through seminary school. And what do they learn? They learn theology. But what if a priest does not finish seminary. Is he a priest? Would you attend a Mass celebrated by someone who did not finish his seminary training. Can a seminarian consecrate a host? It is clear Judas never finished his training. He did not receive the authority that other Apostles did. He did not receive the authority to consecrate the Eucharist because he left the Last Supper before Christ instituted it. He did not receive the power to forgive sin as he was dead before Jesus gave this authority to the Apostles. In effect Judas left the seminary before graduation from Apostle school. So if Judas never possess this authority how in the world can Matthias, as Judas’ successor receive them from Judas? He cannot. Matthias received this authority from the Apostles when they made him a bishop. And that requirement that Peter speaks of, that whoever is selected must have been a follower of Jesus from the start of His ministry at the Baptism of John and witness His Resurrection becomes nothing more than saying we want a person who has undergone the training. Just as you would not accept a priest who did not finish seminary, so too Peter wanted someone who finished his training.

I hate taking this off topic again but where does scripture state that Judas left before the institution of the Last Supper?

 

[inkaneer]

Okay back to Matthias. Another thought just struck me. That is Peter’s words in Acts 1:20:

“20For it is written in the book of Psalms: Let their habitation become desolate, and let there be none to dwell therein. And his bishopric let another take.”

We dealt with the part about the bishopric but what of the first part. Peter is actually quoting two verses from two different psalms here and seemingly joining them together. The two Psalms are Psalm 69 verse 25 [Let their habitation become desolate and let there be none to dwell therein] and Psalms 109 verse 8 [And his bishopric let another take.] So what is Peter referring to when he speaks of Judas’ ‘habitation’? I think he is referring to Judas’ Apostleship which became desolate or unihabitable because Judas never completed it so no one could succeed to it. Obvious here is that there is a difference between Judas’ habitation and his office. One could take over his office [episkope][office of bishop] but not his habitation which is his Apostleship.

 

[adrift]

Okay back to Matthias. Another thought just struck me. That is Peter’s words in Acts 1:20:

You seem to believe that because you have declared that this thread has been answered you can than change the question of the thread.:nope:
I have started a thread for you.
Is Matthias an Apostle?

 

[onenow1]

It appears that he is running rampant with false statements about the Church. I found myself wondering today “what could be the source of all these rabbit trails?” It occurs to me that if inkaneer is chasing rabbits down such trails, he is not pursuing the doctrine of the faith, or growing in faith, but just being carried away by empty philosophies (even though they are of his own making). It is an interesting way of keeping a Christian real busy going nowhere useful.

Ever read the Screwtape letters? It is one of the strategies recommended to Wormwood. Maybe it is Uncle Screwtape hard at work?

2tim.2:14 Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers.
15 Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a workman who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.
16 Avoid such godless chatter, for it will lead people into more and more ungodliness,
17 and their talk will eat its way like gangrene. Among them are Hymenae’us and Phile’tus,

I guess C.S. Lewis must have read the above .

Good Job All
Peace
onenow1

First Pope >>2Peter 1:14 since I know that the putting off of my body will be soon, as our Lord Jesus Christ showed me.
15 And I will see to it that after my departure you may be able at any time to recall these things.

 

[diggerdomer]

So the church even when admitting St. Christopher never existed was still right in celebrating a feastday in his honor. We celebrated a nonexistant saint and were right to do so. Interesting!

By “right” I mean the Catholic faithful were correct to follow the devotions prescribed (but not required) by the Church. That’s all.

I have yet to see someone post where the Church has dogmatically stated Matthias was an Apostle.

Show me where the Church dogmatically states abortion is sinful.

Simply this, I believe the dogmatic teachings of the church, those that have been formally defined.

Oh, ok, well, if it’s really that simple, please share with us the list of such teachings.
inkaneer;7210702:

I also believe other church teachings that have not been formally defined, again because I believe them.

Like Matthias being an Apostle? So…in the end…it’s your opinion that define Catholic beliefs, right? Apart from what is “dogmatic” (according to your understanding of such).

The Catechism does not contain everything regarding Catholic belief.

CCC 938 supports my point exactly, contrary to yours…Apostles do not succeed Apostles in the New Testament. Bishops are successors to Apostles. Where does the New Testament say (or any Catholic tradition say) that Matthias was a Bishop and not an Apostle?

 

[diggerdomer]

WOW!!! How about “Thou shall not kill”?

Wow. How about looking at the following chapters of Exodus where killing is commanded by God? Those are part of God’s law, too, God’s law is not only the 10 commandments.

NSo the scripture and the Church both say there were Twelve Apostles and I agree. You are the one at odds with the church and scripture claiming there are now 19 Apostles. Formerly you said 18 but you apparently added one between posts.

There are 12 Apostles that the New Testament witnesses to, called by Christ.

There are also more than 12 men who were called “Apostles” as the New Testament witnesses to.

That’s my belief.

How does that contradict with the Catholic Church?

 

[diggerdomer]

That is not so. The Catholic Church does teach there were only 12 Apostles.

Of course. Exactly my point. So why do you refuse to accept the Catholic Church considering Matthias an Apostle?

Especially given that the Catholic Church accepts and teaches such both through Scripture and Liturgy?

 

[diggerdomer]

I believe that the original question was answered. Linus was the second pope and he was appointed by Peter.

If you believe that, with no Scriptural reference, why don’t you accept that Matthias was an Apostle?

It’s the exact same Catholic tradition that suggests both.

Or, again, if you are better able to discriminate Catholic teachings according to what’s believable or not, please share your reference.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
WOW!!! How about “Thou shall not kill”?

Wow. How about looking at the following chapters of Exodus where killing is commanded by God? Those are part of God’s law, too, God’s law is not only the 10 commandments.

I was responding to your original post in which you said:

“Scripture nowhere says abortion is wrong. Does that mean that the Church’s clear teaching on abortion as an intrinsic evil is wrong?”

Are we to conclude that you do not equate abortion with killing? Or are we to conclude that because God ordered the killing of people then we can play God and kill unborn babies?

Which is it?

There are 12 Apostles that the New Testament witnesses to, called by Christ.

I would say there were twelve of Jesus disciples who were called to be Apostles. Eleven of the twelve became Apostles and were empowered with all of the authority of the Church. Judas did not receive all of the authority and that is why Peter says Judas only had a part of the ministry the others did.

There are also more than 12 men who were called “Apostles” as the New Testament witnesses to.

That’s my belief.

How does that contradict with the Catholic Church?

Because the Church says there are Twelve Apostles [CCC #'s 1577, 869, 610, 191 and 865] which coincides with Scripture [Rev 21:14] which also says there are twelve Apostles.
Like the Church and Scripture and unlike you, I say there are twelve Apostles. It appears to me that your beliefs on this as well as the issue abortion contradict the Church’s teaching.