F
Farsight001
Guest
I will return charity with charity and integrity with integrity.
Peter was never a bishop of Rome or at Rome, CC does not teach it anymore
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
Do you even read what you post? You just posted contradictions.
P
pablope
Guest
This is what he posted in another thread…and my reply:
Originally Posted by highrigger1
pab,
Not hardly. I do not use such. I want only the truth. Commonly I find the Catholic websites are the ones to add words and phrases to distort ancient documnets and scripture. I see it all the time and have to always check what comes from it.
Here is the one I use. ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.toc.html
Peace, JohnR
*Well…I just checked your source…it is not a neutral site…it is an anti-catholic website…and what you are saying in the bolded above is not true.
here is what they say…Writings in the library for the most part represent orthodox Christianity as understood by mainstream Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox Christians, with greater emphases on Reformed and Protestant writings.
The CCEL also seeks to provide educational and scholarly opportunities for interested faculty members and students of Calvin College.
They have a calvinist bent.
This then just shows their bias…with emphasis on what they believe to be orthodox…they are not objective…so their translations are slanted…and cannot be trusted. *
M
MartinJordan
Guest
Wow, the wikipedia entry about Darmaid MacChulloch. Interesting…
Ive also read about the BBC show he came on… they kept on superimposing images of, His Holiness Benedict XVI during commentary on the inquisition. :tsktsk:
MJ
Ive also read about the BBC show he came on… they kept on superimposing images of, His Holiness Benedict XVI during commentary on the inquisition. :tsktsk:
MJ
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
I take this opportunity to apologise to you for anything I may have said to offend you or the Catholic faith. That was not my intention nor was it my intention to say that anything that runs counter to this or that argument is “ridiculous.” I called “ridiculous” something else which I don’t need to get into again now.
I will follow your advice and indeed exit this discussion and the Catholic Answers Forums as I see I only stir up needless trouble by my being here.
I apologise and wish you and all the members of CAF all the best!
Alex
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, both bishoprics succeed from the Apostle Peter. As we read in the NT, Peter travelled first to Antioch, where the followers of Christ were first called “Christians”.
History records that Peter and Paul labored together in Rome “laying the foundation of the Church”. We know from Acts that Paul planted Churches all over the Empire before finally going last to Rome. So it was quite near the end of their ministries for both of them when they were in Rome, and both finally martyred there.
Peter was made Pope in Cesarea Phillipii, when Jesus commissioned him. He would have been Pope whereever he was, it just so happened that God chose Rome to be pre-eminent among the Churches.
G
guanophore
Guest
Peter and Paul were in prison when they were in Rome. They didn’t travel anywhere! It was their last, and permanent stop on the missionary journey. A bishop is the overseer, and of course, all the local Christians would have yielded authority to the Apostles. It is possible, since they were incarcerated, that Linus was commissioned to care for the flock while they were still alive because they could not leave prison.
Stephen168
New member
False Dilemma: A limited number of options is given while in reality there are more.
Either X is true or Y is True
Claim Y is False
Therefore X is true
Either you can proof it to be true or it is a myth
You can not prove it to be true
Therefore it is a myth.
Either you can prove the existence of your Great-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-Grandfather or he is a myth
You can not prove him to have existed
Therefore he is a myth
The missing option in your false dilemma is that something is true but not provable to someone’s satisfaction. The authority of the Apostles was handed down to the Bishops but we can never prove it in the written record; like the existence of a Great-G-G-G-G-G-G-G-Grandfather.
G
guanophore
Guest
Do you honestly believe that the Christians in Rome did not defer to the Apostles as overseers of the flock?
I agree that the Church in Rome existed before the Apostles’ Peter and Paul arrived, as is testified in the NT, but Paul was clear that Rome had not received Apostolic teaching when he wrote to them. Even if there were leaders in the Roman community, which I think we can assume there were, can you fathom such persons failing to defer to an apostle as authorative over the flock?
G
guanophore
Guest
No, not the CCC necessarily, bit ANY official Catholic document that supports your claim that the CC “no longer teaches that Peter was the Bishop of Rome.” If you can’t support your claim with any documents, then we will have to assume you have just made it up in your imagination.
It is true that the roles of all the Church offices developed and changed over time, but the Apostles’ role never did. They were overseers of the flock from the time they were appointed by Christ.
The reason we call the successors of the Apostles bishops is because after the first generation, it was no longer possible for anyone to qualify for the office of Apostle.
The succession is the authority of Christ, given to the Apostles, handed down to those who were given that authority. Your pastor is not in that line of succession. Authority comes from Christ, and through the One Church that He founded.
Claiming you have apostolic authority does not make it so.
G
guanophore
Guest
I think you still have a lot of NT and history tu understand, highrigger. Yes, it was used for missionary work, but also for ordination and the passing on of Apostolic authority. What would happen to you if you had to acknowledge that Jesus really did give authority to the Church, and the Church gave it to her bishops?
Well, we read it differently, do we not?
When you take it out of context, it is easy to lose the meaning. The context of the NT is the Catholic Church.
False. In the Church that was founded by Christ, NO ONE TAKES ON tasks. They are all GIVEN the tasks and authority that exists, and it all comes from Christ. This modern notion that a person can just take this upon themselves was unknown to the Church prior to the Reformation. Well…not necessarily unknown, but those who did so were called heretics, schismatics, and worse by the true bishops.
I am sure you wish they didn’t.
You certainly seem to be working hard to convince yourself that the CC does not posess the authority invested in her by Christ. I wonder why that is?
C
CopticChristian
Guest
High,
This is all fascinating and based on what I read of your posting, your references and Guanaphores instruction…Peter was an Apostle, Peter wrote Scripture, Peter resided over the Jerusalem Council…and most of the other stuff about Peter including whether he was in Rome or not is not a discussion based on Scripture Alone…I find your embracing extrabiblical sources as a good foundation for further learning…praise to you…
A
AbideWithMe
Guest
Hi Pablope—
I asked farsight to be charitable because this thread was degenerating into words that bordered on personal attacks, rather than informative discussion. I do think highrigger could have tried harder to communicate in a way that would be less provocative and more likely to generate a worthwhile discussion.
There are some people here at CAF who are very knowledgeable–I considered Alexander Roman to be among them—but some of these threads get junked up with one-sided or two-sided boxing matches, and they’re ugly, useless, and time-consuming to wade through. If someone gets cranked up by feeling they need to defend Catholicism, or if they feel provoked, I wish that, rather than taking the bait, they would step back and ask some of the more knowledgeable and dispassionate posters to give (name removed by moderator)ut.
For what it’s worth, I’ve never seen CCEL’s translations be anti-Catholic. Some of the notes and commentary can show the author’s disagreement with Catholicism, but that’s understandable. Numerous times I’ve compared CCEL’s translations to New Advent’s and those on Early Christian Writings; if you want to say CCEL’s translations are untrustworthy, you need to provide some examples instead of doing a guilty-by-association argument. Being a Calvinist doesn’t make someone a dishonest scholar.
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: While I agree laying on of hands can simply be commissioning one for a mission. Such as a lay minister of the Eucharist. There is also ordination (Holy Orders) which gives the Holy Spirit to the ordained, bishops (overseers), elders (priests), deacons. Not to get off topic the following are my scriptural defense for the Church, which includes ordination in the second link. I’m leaving in a few hours for Nashville so I will just make a few remarks.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447593&postcount=987
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447600&postcount=988
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447604&postcount=989
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7447619&postcount=990
While I don’t have a problem with deacons running the every day business of the Church in Rome. I do disagree there was no bishop. We see that clearly in Clement’s letter to the Corenthians. Only a bishop can ordain, deacons can’t nor can they confirm or say mass, hear confessions etc.
Pope Clement I “Owing to the sudden and repeated calamities and misfortunes which have befallen us, we must acknowledge that we have been somewhat tardy in turning our attention to the matters in dispute among you, beloved; and especially that abominable and unholy sedition, alien and foreign to the elect of God, which a few rash and self-willed persons have inflamed to such madness that your venerable and illustrious name, worthy to be loved by all men, has been greatly defamed. . . . Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us *, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy” (Letter to the Corinthians 1, 58–59, 63 [A.D. 80]). archive.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp
JL: No one can take on the task of a shepherd they must be called and SENT.
JL: I disagree of course. I doubt you could present anything new, on the keys, that most of us have not heard.*
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Well look at it from a logical Biblical standpoint.
Its St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans where we learn that there is a large Gentile church in Rome, but that Paul himself did not found it. Indeed, Paul makes it very clear that he has never even visited Rome (to say nothing of establishing a church there) and expresses the desire to visit Rome one day --see Romans 1:13-15, Romans 15:22-23. And, indeed, the Roman church (composed predominately of Gentiles) is so well established that Paul does not even plan to spend a great deal of time there, but just to visit it in passing as he makes his way to Spain (see Romans 15:24). Rome was the most important city in the world at this time --the center of the entire world, with a population of well over 1 million people. Yet, St. Paul (who is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and who spent almost 2 years in Corinth and over 2 years in Ephesus) sees no need to focus his attention on Rome, but plans to pass it over and to focus on Spain. Why? Well, if we read Romans carefully, Paul tells us. In Romans 15:20, he says: “I aspire to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.” Now … Here, we must ask the question: Who is this “other man” that Paul is referring to??? Who is it that laid the “foundation” of the Roman church? Whenever St. Paul speaks of someone laying a “foundation,” he is always speaking about an Apostle (see 1 Corinth 1:10, Ephes 2:19-20, etc.). Thus, what Apostle founded the Roman church? According to Tradition (in both East and West), this “other man” was St. Peter. Indeed, given that the Roman church which Paul writes to is composed predominately of Gentiles, what other Apostle (aside from St. Paul himself) converted both Gentiles as well as Jews?? Only St. Peter. Thus, he is the “other man” who Paul is referring to. For, unless Rome was in the hands of an Apostle who was considered greater than Paul, there is no way that Paul would even think of passing over Rome in order to focus his attention on Spain. This is obvious if one even bothers to think about it for a moment. [David McDonald]
Basically what I was referiing to earlier. Taken into consideration with what guanophore mentions above when Paul finally get to Rome which he always intended to do, then we see prison, persecution etc.
For a decent non bias overview of all this, the good the bad and the ugly with the Anti-Popes etc. I would consider reading “Heirs of the Fisherman” by John-Peter Pham, he spent 40-years in the Vatican as a Diplomat and was given access to the historical evidence dating back to St Peter in the Apostolic Succession.
Its St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans where we learn that there is a large Gentile church in Rome, but that Paul himself did not found it. Indeed, Paul makes it very clear that he has never even visited Rome (to say nothing of establishing a church there) and expresses the desire to visit Rome one day --see Romans 1:13-15, Romans 15:22-23. And, indeed, the Roman church (composed predominately of Gentiles) is so well established that Paul does not even plan to spend a great deal of time there, but just to visit it in passing as he makes his way to Spain (see Romans 15:24). Rome was the most important city in the world at this time --the center of the entire world, with a population of well over 1 million people. Yet, St. Paul (who is the Apostle to the Gentiles, and who spent almost 2 years in Corinth and over 2 years in Ephesus) sees no need to focus his attention on Rome, but plans to pass it over and to focus on Spain. Why? Well, if we read Romans carefully, Paul tells us. In Romans 15:20, he says: “I aspire to proclaim the Gospel, not where Christ has already been named, so that I do not build on another man’s foundation.” Now … Here, we must ask the question: Who is this “other man” that Paul is referring to??? Who is it that laid the “foundation” of the Roman church? Whenever St. Paul speaks of someone laying a “foundation,” he is always speaking about an Apostle (see 1 Corinth 1:10, Ephes 2:19-20, etc.). Thus, what Apostle founded the Roman church? According to Tradition (in both East and West), this “other man” was St. Peter. Indeed, given that the Roman church which Paul writes to is composed predominately of Gentiles, what other Apostle (aside from St. Paul himself) converted both Gentiles as well as Jews?? Only St. Peter. Thus, he is the “other man” who Paul is referring to. For, unless Rome was in the hands of an Apostle who was considered greater than Paul, there is no way that Paul would even think of passing over Rome in order to focus his attention on Spain. This is obvious if one even bothers to think about it for a moment. [David McDonald]
Basically what I was referiing to earlier. Taken into consideration with what guanophore mentions above when Paul finally get to Rome which he always intended to do, then we see prison, persecution etc.
For a decent non bias overview of all this, the good the bad and the ugly with the Anti-Popes etc. I would consider reading “Heirs of the Fisherman” by John-Peter Pham, he spent 40-years in the Vatican as a Diplomat and was given access to the historical evidence dating back to St Peter in the Apostolic Succession.
L
Lincoln7
Guest
jlhargus,
There is a treatment of this here:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
Kind regards
Lincs.
I hesitate to view Clement as a monarchial Bishop, there is too much in the letter that does not fit with such a view, as well as the nature of the church in Rome at the time.
There is a treatment of this here:
beggarsallreformation.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/this-bridge-should-be-illuminated.html
Kind regards
Lincs.
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
You have to take into consideration what the Christian Church in Rome looked like in this period also. This is far cry from Constantine and Helena. Paul gives good insight to this also. As do the Roman and Jewish historians.
The periods which are least documented are the periods most persecuted, and not just this period but through history.
The periods which are least documented are the periods most persecuted, and not just this period but through history.
A
agnes_therese
Guest
And you know what John Henry Newman said: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”High,
This is all fascinating and based on what I read of your posting, your references and Guanaphores instruction…Peter was an Apostle, Peter wrote Scripture, Peter resided over the Jerusalem Council…and most of the other stuff about Peter including whether he was in Rome or not is not a discussion based on Scripture Alone…I find your embracing extrabiblical sources as a good foundation for further learning…praise to you…
Maybe highrigger1 is on his way home!
G
GaryTaylor
Guest
Ha, interesting life story of another who gave up everything to find the Kingdom, the journey in itself of many a soul, its the story of the war of Good and evil, we often call history. The History of mankind, is the History of Good and evil. I do believe Bl Newman states that somewhere.And you know what John Henry Newman said: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”
Maybe highrigger1 is on his way home!
A
Alexander_Roman
Guest
Before I go
, one more comment . . .The fact that Sts Peter and Paul were imprisoned at Rome has no bearing on the debate here - first point.
St Peter would have been overseer not only in Rome, but anywhere he would have went throughout the Roman Empire - a point you make yourself. So all that means is that the Apostles would be given pre-eminence over the bishops they consecrated in the Churches they established whenever they would visit them. An Apostle had the same powers as a bishop, but did not have the same role as a bishop since the Apostles were entrusted with the spread of the Church throughout the world. Had Sts Peter and Paul survived Nero, there can be no doubt but that they would have moved on from Rome to establish Churches elsewhere. There is even the tradition that Sts Peter and Paul were in London . . . St Peter would have still been the founder of the Church of Rome and the Bishops of Rome would have been able to point to him and his authority in whose name they would speak.
So the argument that St Peter was, in fact, “immobilized” at Rome because of his imprisonment is no indication that he was the Bishop of Rome there or that his role as an Apostle to the world was somehow abrogated because of his imprisonment. Surely, that was an involuntary immobilization.
Again, that St Peter was the founder of the Church of Rome and consecrated its first bishops in no way takes away from the authority of the Church of Rome. For the Christian East, it was the additional fact that Peter was martyred at Rome and where his relics were venerated as well as the fact that Rome was the capital of the empire that gave the Church of Rome its pre-eminence and leadership role in teaching and governance of the entire Church.
Take care, good-bye.
Alex
- Status