In what order did each church appear?

[Lumen_Gentium]

Roman Catholic 101:

All bishops are NOT Peter, BUT successors to all the Holy Apostles and NOT JUST Peter.

The Pope is successor of Peter.

StMarkEofE:

Eastern Orthodox Catholic 101:

All Bishops are Peter.

StMarkEofE

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

The Pope is successor of Peter.

But he is not the only successor, is he?

People might like to check this article about Peter’s other succesors, from a Catholic source.

Antioch is a very clear example of a succession from the Apostle Peter…

melkitecathedral.org/melkite/history3.htm

Peter’s First See

The evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch

The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

• Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,
• Pope John Paul II,
• Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV

They are all together in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)

The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch. I realise that this will be a surprise to some Catholics

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Early than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter. Here is a complete list of his apostolic succession from the holy Apostle Peter

web.archive.org/web/20040209…/patriarchs.htm
Tinyurl: tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.

---

“I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.” ~Proverbs 7:17

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I was going to reply to you, as regards this decontextualised quote from Saint Ambrose and your further quotes with a slew of other quotes from him which would provide a balance. But then we would have reached the profitless stage of simply swapping quote for quote and, to be frank, I have too much respect for my patron Saint to humilate him in such a way.

Think about it. You’re arguing over the statement

“Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church is, no death is there, but life eternal”

For Pete sake, it was Jesus who said to Peter you are rock, and on this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. Do you really want to take issue over this? Therefore by definition, where Peter is there is the Church.
Fr Ambrose:

So instead I am going to provide a small paragraph from the Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno. He addresses this quote in the context of Saint Ambrose’s writings.

There is no question then that Ambrose honored the Roman see, but there are other texts which seem to establish a certain distance and independence as well. He commented, for example, that Peter’s primacy was a primacy of confession, not of honor; a primacy of faith, not rank…

Finally, one further text should be mentioned in connection with Ambrose since it is a text which like Roma locuta est has become something of a shibboleth or slogan. This is the brief phrase from his commentary on the fortieth Psalm: Ubi Petrus, ibi ecclesia (where Peter is, there is the Church)…As Roger Gryson has shown, in his study on Ambrose and the priesthood, the context of such a statement has nothing to do with any treatise on ecclesiology. It is but one statement in a long chain of allegorical exegesis starting with the line from Ps. 41:9: ‘Even my bosom friend in whom I trusted…has lifted his heel against me.’ This is not to deny the fairly common association of Peter as the symbol of the Church, the figura ecclesiae we have seen in Augustine. But it says little that is new and nothing at all about papal authority.
~Robert Eno, *The Rise of the Papacy *, pub.1990.

St Ambrose is a doctor of the Church. Robert Eno??? He’s just one of a long string of heterodox writers. They’re a dime a dozen. I don’t waste my eyesight on these guys or their commentary. I had to endure these yahoos in college in the 60’s. No more. I’ll choose to read St Ambrose directly.

Notice that Protestants quote Eno’s understanding of St Ambrose, they don’t quote St Ambrose directly. That should tell you something.

 

[Hadoque]

Re: In what order did each church appear? Another poster recently gave this resource.

whostartedyourchurch.com/

It should answer your questions.
images/buttons_cad/quote.gif

Martin Luther never wanted to start ANY new church. But he saw how the CHURCH (catholic) had becomed extremely sinful and working against God.

He pointed out those faults in his 95 theses and wanted the SINFUL church to change it´s sinful behaviour.

If Catholics still think that Martin Luther was some priest that thought it would be fun to divide the Church, they need to read history.

Hadoque

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

steve b:

For Pete sake, it was Jesus who said to Peter you are rock, and on this rock I will build my Church, and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it. Do you really want to take issue over this?

OK, it’s back to the old statistics

Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…”

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.

So, 17 Church Fathers saw Peter as the Rock.
68 Church Fathers did not see him as the Rock

Archbishop Kenrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair to say that the
Orthodox are dunderheads over this matter.
Are the Church Fathers also dunderheads?

 

[steve_b]

StMarkEofE:

The problem is that Rome saw her primacy as something different than the Patriarchates of the East did. When the west tried imposing her thoughts on the East the East just shrugged her shoulders and assumed that Rome was just boasting. You see, primacy today is a form of Supremacy and not what was during the first millenium. This can be attributed to the “development of doctrine” which is so accepted now in the west. The church in Rome was but another see of an Apostle as is the other Patriarchates. The Eastern bishops were very confused when Rome tried imposing her rules on them because this was not the norm but the exception. Rome self imposed a special place for herself and then tried imposing it on her Eastern brothers and sisters. No wonder we in the east revolted at this idea. Rome became very full of herself and liked it and wanted the other churches to bow to her wishes.

StMarkEofE

Don’t shoot from the hip. It’s hard to hit a target. Instead, take careful aim and try and hit something. Try quoting somebody.

 

[Ignatius]

2. Some Protestant denominational information is too generalized.

This is a bit off topic, but I’m curious and have to ask. Why are you, a protestant, taking Catherine of Alexandria as your patron?

Yours in Christ.

 

[Eden]

Hadoque:

If Catholics still think that Martin Luther was some priest that thought it would be fun to divide the Church, they need to read history.

Hadoque

If Lutherans still think that Martin Luther was some priest that God thought should divide the Church, they need to read history.

 

[Peacemaker2]

Originally Posted by steve b
That’s not good enough. Here’s the quote again

"The gift of the keys was not bestowed on St. Peter personally or exclusively, but as the representative of the apostles and of all Catholic bishops descending from them.”

I couldn’t find it in any of Ambrose’s writings. Do you have the exact reference?

Fr Ambrose:

I keep saying that tossing quotes at one another is unproductive. Get hold of some of Saint Ambrose’s writings. And maybe a commentary on him. His thought on the place of the bishop of Rome is a long way from the modern concept of papacy. Reading the Church Fathers takes one back into the mind of the early Church. But beware, it is amazingly similar to modern Orthodox thought!

Good grief Father, rather than dancing around things why don’t you answer the question and quote your sources? You tossed the quote - why don’t you at least take the time to let Steve know where you are quoting it from?

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

OK, it’s back to the old statistics

Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…”

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.

Archbishop Kenrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair to say that the
Orthodox are dunderheads over this matter.
Are the Church Fathers also dunderheads?

1. Every Church father doesn’t have to defend the doctrine for it to be true. ECF’s wrote about issues that needed to be addressed when they needed addressing. So it is not unusual that every single ECF didn’t write about Peter and the papacy.
2. Bp Kenrick’s opinion aside, the Church took another view.

 

[steve_b]

Hadoque:

Martin Luther never wanted to start ANY new church. But he saw how the CHURCH (catholic) had becomed extremely sinful and working against God.

He pointed out those faults in his 95 theses and wanted the SINFUL church to change it´s sinful behaviour.

If Catholics still think that Martin Luther was some priest that thought it would be fun to divide the Church, they need to read history.

Hadoque

This is from Luthers Werkes. You be the judge. Where you see *** this is where Catholic Answers forum deletes offensive words automatically in texts. This piece was about adding “sola” to fide.

"To the Honorable and Worthy N., my favorite lord and friend.

[snip]

you ask why I, in the 3rd chapter of Romans, translated the words of St. Paul: “Arbitramur hominem iustificari ex fide absque operibus” as “We hold that the human will be justified without the works of the law but only by faith.” You also tell me that the Papists are causing a great fuss because St. Paul’s text does not contain the word sola (alone), and that my changing of the words of God is not to be tolerated.

[snip]

On the first hand, if I, Dr. Luther, had thought that all the Papists together were capable of translating even one passage of Scripture correctly and well, I would have gathered up enough humility to ask for their aid and assistance in translating the New Testament into German.

Returning to the issue at hand, if your Papist wishes to make a
great fuss about the word “alone” (sola), say this to him: “Dr.
Martin Luther will have it so and he says that a papist and an ***
are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic iubeo, sit pro ratione voluntas. (I will it, I command it; my will is reason enough) For we are not going to become students and followers of the papists. Rather we will become their judge and master. We, too, are going to be proud and brag with these blockheads; and just as St. Paul brags against his madly raving saints, I will brag over these asses of mine! They are doctors? Me too. They are scholars? I am as well. They are philosophers? And I. They are dialecticians? I am too. They are lecturers? So am I. They write books? So do I.

[snip]

I will go even further with my bragging: I can exegete the psalms
and the prophets, and they cannot. I can translate, and they
cannot. I can read Holy Scriptures, and they cannot. I can pray,
they cannot. Coming down to their level, I can do their dialectics and philosophy better than all of them put together. Plus I know that not one of them understands Aristotle. If, in fact, any one of them can correctly understand one part or chapter of Aristotle, I will eat my hat! No, I am not overdoing it for I have been educated in and have practiced their science since my childhood. I ecognize how broad and deep it is. They, too, know that everything they can do, I can do. Yet they handle me like a stranger in their discipline, these incurable fellows, as if I had just arrived this morning and had never seen or heard what they know and teach. How they do so brilliantly parade around with their science, teaching me what I grew beyond twenty years ago! To all their shouting and screaming I join the harlot in singing: “I have known for seven years that horseshoe nails are iron.” So this can be the answer to your first question. Please do not give these asses any other answer to their useless braying about that word “sola” than simply “Luther will have it so, and he says that he is a doctor above all the papal doctors.” Let it remain at that. I will, from now on, hold them in contempt, and have already held them in contempt, as long as they are the kind of people that they are - asses, I should say. And there are brazen idiots among them who have never learned their own art of sophistry - like Dr. Schmidt and Snot-Nose, and such like them. They set themselves against me in this matter, which not only transcends sophistry, but as St. Paul writes, all the wisdom and understanding in the world as well. An *** truly does not have to sing much as he is already known for his ears."
[snip]

He rants further but that should be enough. Still think the guy didn’t want to divide the Church? This is the Father of Protestantism speaking here.

 

[steve_b]

Fr Ambrose:

I keep saying that tossing quotes at one another is unproductive. Get hold of some of Saint Ambrose’s writings. And maybe a commentary on him. His thought on the place of the bishop of Rome is a long way from the modern concept of papacy. Reading the Church Fathers takes one back into the mind of the early Church. But beware, it is amazingly similar to modern Orthodox thought!

1. Just as I thought. You can’t produce the reference.
2. Read original documents, and quote THEM. Not polemicists whose work won’t stand scrutiny.

 

[Aris]

Fr Ambrose:

OK, it’s back to the old statistics

Here is a quick summary of the way that
the Church Fathers interpreted that verse -
“Thou are Peter and upon this rock…”

Archbishop Kenrick, who was one of America’s
extraordinary bishops, was opposed to the doctrine of
papal infallibilty and at the First Vatican Council
in 1869 he voted against it. He wanted to deliver
a speech against the proposed doctrine at the Council
but instead he ceased to attend the Council meetings.
He published his speech in Naples the following year.

It is important because he lists the five different
patristic interpretations of Matthew 16:18.

Let’s look at how the Church Fathers line up over this verse:

1…“That St. Peter is the Rock” is taught
by seventeen (17) Fathers

2…That the whole Apostolic College is the Rock,
represented by Peter as its chief,
is taught by eight (8 ) Church Fathers

3…That St. Peter’s faith is the Rock,
is taught by forty-four (44) Church Fathers

4…That Christ is the Rock,
is taught by sixteen Fathers (16)

5…That the rock is the whole body of the faithful.
Archbp. Kenrick gives no figure.

So, 17 Church Fathers saw Peter as the Rock.
68 Church Fathers did not see him as the Rock

Archbishop Kenrick summarises

“If we are bound to follow the greater number
of Fathers in this matter,** then we must hold
for certain that the word “Petra” means not Peter
professing the Faith, but the faith professed by Peter.”

**This is an important point by Archbishop Kenrick and
it should be given its full weight. It is RC doctrine
that where there is something disputed the choice must
be made for the consensus of the Fathers, the
consensus patrum.

You can look this up and check that I have it
accurately in
Friedrich, Docum ad illust. Conc. Vat. 1, pp. 185-246

As to who Archbishop Kenrick was.
Please see the Catholic Encyclopedia
newadvent.org/cathen/08618a.htm

Now in light of the fact that the large majority
of the Church Fathers do NOT teach that the Rock
is Saint Peter, I say that it is not fair to say that the
Orthodox are dunderheads over this matter.
Are the Church Fathers also dunderheads?

Again this is from a document/letter that was purportedly stopped from being public during Vatican I.

However, the facts are there that the good archbishop publicly submitted to Vatican I Council’s proclamation regarding the Papal Infallibility.

So that should say something of the worth of the letter above.

Another thing to be said of these statistics is that it propogates the misconception and fallacy that those who publicly acknowledged that “Peter was the Rock” and “Peter’s confession was the Rock” are mutually exclusive domains or sets.

They are not. The Catholic Church acknowledge both interpretations plus “Christ is the Rock”.

Father, do you want to give proving this a try? How? List down all of the 44 Fathers that said “Peter’s Faith is the Rock”. We will then dissect each quote. I am even sure we can find a quote from the same father saying “Peter is the Rock”.

Father, how about it? Do you want me to start a thread on this?

 

[Aris]

Father Ambrose,

In case you want to check it out, I started a thread in the Apologetics Forum so that this thread will not be hijacked.

 

[Hadoque]

SteveB

He rants further but that should be enough. Still think the guy didn’t want to divide the Church? This is the Father of Protestantism speaking here.

No, I don´t think Luther wanted to start a new church. He wanted the Church to reform and get rid of it´s sinful behaviours.
You quote excerpts from what Martin Luther said to show how that he wanted to start a new religion? It does not work, there is nothing in there saying anything else than any neutral viewer would have said; The church at that time was in the hands of SINNERS.

What happened after the reformation, (the breakout of the people who realized how sinful the Catholic church had becomed); was that the Catholic church also reformed and got rid of it´s politically dependecies and also Popes who were far from beeing good Christians. If they even were Christians at all?

When Martin Luther pointed out the sinful behaviour of the Catholic church, the ruling pope was “Leo X”. He is known in history for his words

This Jesus-myth has served us well

and

Since god has given us the papacy, let us enjoy it

Is there anything more needed to say to explain why a good priest like Martin Luther started to question the papacy and it´s sinful popes? I guess they don´t teach that much about history in Catholic schools.

Still, this does not mean that we today have a totally different situation where I think the Pope has a wonderful and righteous mission in unifying all Christians, no matter of denominations. Our new Pope has the wonderful opportunity to reach out his mighty hand of the NEW Papacy and let all people who love Christ, into his Church.

Hadoque

 

[Lumen_Gentium]

Fr. Ambrose,

I was saying all bishops (including bishops of Antioch) are successors of the Holy Apostles (including Peter).

I was asserting the Pope, the bishop of Rome, is the successor of Peter because Peter established his church in Rome.

I have observed you keep directing to Antioch wherever as far as a sense of the Pope being the successor to Peter comes up. You see, Peter could have not established a church in Rome before starting a church somewhere. After all, he was not Roman and Rome is farther than Antioch from Jerusalem. All along as he travelled to Rome, wherever he preached the Gospels, any successor to him from these places could make the claim being the successor of Peter and no one can dispute that claim. We know all bishops are successors of the Holy Apostles.

But what makes the Bishop of Rome so particular among these successors is that it was in Rome where Peter established the church which Christ entrusted its care to him. Peter was in Antioch for seven years while he was in Rome for 25 years and died there. He sure had a lot of time establishing the church in Rome than Antioch.

Early church fathers, from Eusebius, St. Irenaeus, Dorotheus, St. Augustine among many others, testified this special bond between Rome and Peter.

PAX
Fr Ambrose:

But he is not the only successor, is he?

People might like to check this article about Peter’s other succesors, from a Catholic source.

Antioch is a very clear example of a succession from the Apostle Peter…

melkitecathedral.org/melkite/history3.htm

Peter’s First See

The evolution of the Patriarchate of Antioch

The article features a fascinating photograph of three bishops with the apostolic succession of Saint Peter, photographed all together in Damascus in 2001.

• Syriac Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius Zakka I,
• Pope John Paul II,
• Antiochian Orthodox Patriarch Ignatius IV

They are all together in the Syriac Orthodox Cathedral of St. George in Damascus, May 2001. (photo: L’Osservatore Romano)

The oldest lineage of bishops which comes down to us in the 21st century who is a successor to St Peter is not actually the bishop (Pope) of the Church of Rome, but the bishop (Patriarch) of the Church of Antioch. I realise that this will be a surprise to some Catholics

Peter founded the Church of Antioch in 34 AD, and he remained there for 5-7 years. Paul (and Barnabas) came to Antioch to see Peter there and it was in Antioch that the dispute between Peter and Paul flared up about whether converts had to be circumcised. In order to resolve this Peter and Paul took the dispute to James in Jerusalem and James called all the Apostles to a Council in Jerusalem to make a determination.

Early than this, Antioch had received a large number of Christian refugees who fled Jerusalem after the martyrdom of Saint Stephen the deacon, a period of martyrdom in Jerusalem which Paul himself had initiated while he was still the uncoverted Saul!

To succeed him in Antioch Saint Peter consecrated Euodius (Evodius) as bishop of that city. Euodius was succeeded as bishop in Antioch by the great Saint and holy martyr Ignatius who was himself consecrated by either Saint Peter or Saint Paul. The Patriarch of Antioch is the 170th successor of Saint Peter. Here is a complete list of his apostolic succession from the holy Apostle Peter

web.archive.org/web/20040209…/patriarchs.htm
Tinyurl: tinyurl.com/6s6q2

So the Church of Antioch founded by Saint Peter is a little bit older than Rome, and like Rome it has an unbroken apostolic succession going back to Saint Peter.

---

“I have perfumed my bed with myrrh, aloes and cinnamon.” ~Proverbs 7:17

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Lumen Gentium:

But what makes the Bishop of Rome so particular among these successors is that it was in Rome where Peter established the church which Christ entrusted its care to him. Peter was in Antioch for seven years while he was in Rome for 25 years and died there. He sure had a lot of time establishing the church in Rome than Antioch.

Facts about Peter and his time in Rome:

1. Peter was imprisoned in Jerusalem at 44 AD so how was he present in Rome at that time?!
2. **Clodius Caesar ** exiled all the Jews and the Christians from Rome at 45 AD, and the book of Acts made reference to this event (Acts 18:2). So it is again impossible for Peter to be in Rome then.
3. In 50 AD, he attended the apostles council in Jerusalem, so it was impossible for him to be in Rome then.
4. St. Paul wrote to the Romans in 57-58 AD asking to be given a chance to reach them and teach them about God. This is a proof that Peter did not preach the Romans in Rome, otherwise Paul wouldn’t have asked to be given a chance to go.
5. In 58 AD when Paul sent his epistle to Rome, he greeted 20 people, and 2 families, and the name of Peter was not among them which means that he (Peter ) was not there at that time.
6. When St. Paul reached Rome at 60 AD, the Book did not tell us that he met with Peter, but rather Paul met the leaders of the Jews… thus proving that Peter did not preach them with the Lord Jesus.
7. St. Paul stayed in Rome for two years after preaching the Romans, (62/63 AD) meaning that if Peter reached Rome then, the church of Rome was founded, established and was strong by the works of the Holy Spirit and Paul.
8. Therefore we acknowledge what Origen said, that, St. Peter came to Rome before he died, about 65 AD, to chase Simon the sorcerer, who offered money to him (Peter) and John for the power of the Holy Spirit (Acts 8:9-24), and Peter was crucified there and died.

 

[Fr_Ambrose]

Fr Ambrose:

Facts about Peter and his time in Rome:

I am indebted to Elizabeth for the above. She has sent four messages on this topic of Saint Peter and Rome to another thread

**Pope John Paul II and Pope Shenouda III **
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=52488&page=1&pp=100

They are Messages # 97, 98, 99, 100.

.

 

[Chrissy5754]

I found a lot of info on this @

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Christian_denominations

 

[steve_b]

Hadoque:

No, I don´t think Luther wanted to start a new church. He wanted the Church to reform and get rid of it´s sinful behaviours.
You quote excerpts from what Martin Luther said to show how that he wanted to start a new religion? It does not work, there is nothing in there saying anything else than any neutral viewer would have said; The church at that time was in the hands of SINNERS.

Would you like to count the sins of Luther just in that short exerpt I posted from his writings? This guy who fashions himself a reformer. A reformer of WHAT? Certainly not charity, or humility. Did you even read what was posted? He inserted the word “SOLA” into a text of scripture where it wasn’t before, and started a huge misunderstanding in theology around “Sola Fide”, and also Sola Scriptura. And as you can see, divisions occured.

Hadoque:

Is there anything more needed to say to explain why a good priest like Martin Luther started to question the papacy and it´s sinful popes? I guess they don´t teach that much about history in Catholic schools.

You obviously don’t know Luther.

Hadoque:

Still, this does not mean that we today have a totally different situation where I think the Pope has a wonderful and righteous mission in unifying all Christians, no matter of denominations. Our new Pope has the wonderful opportunity to reach out his mighty hand of the NEW Papacy and let all people who love Christ, into his Church.

Hadoque

I’m looking forward to Benedict XVI pontificate.

http://www.ewtn.com/images/hp/Ascenion_05/HP_ascension1_05.jpg