Please give me the name of the man, or men, that founded the Catholic Church, and when...

[Radical]

*7. “According to legend, after leaving Jerusalem in the 40s Peter traveled through Asia Minor and eventually to Rome, where he was martyred under the emperor Nero after the great fire of 64. These legends, however, come from later developments in the Petrine tradition.” L. Michael White From Jesus to Christianity, Harper 2004 p272

1. “As to worldwide jurisdiction, did it ever cross Peter’s mind when preached to his little flock at Antioch or Rome that he had command over the whole Church? Such an idea had to wait until Christianity was integrated into the Roman Empire. Even then it took time for the papacy to grow to the stature that made such pretension plausible… So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded to Peter.” Peter De Rosa, Vicars of Christ. Crown Publishers, 1988, p25
2. “That Peter founded the Church in Rome is extremely doubtful and that he served as it’s first bishop (as we understand the term today) for even a year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century… The tradition is only vaguely discerned in Hegesippus and may be implied in the suspect letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans (c. 170). By the third century, however, the early assumptions based upon invention or vague unfounded tradition have been transformed into “facts” or history. D. W. O’Conner, Peter in Rome, Columbia University Press, 1969, p207
3. “In fact, the first Roman bishop in any meaningful sense was probably Soter, 166-74…” Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, Simon and Schuster, 1976, p61
4. “Well if Peter alone of the Twelve left Jerusalem, can the claim of succession be derived from him as bishop of Rome? So defenders of the papacy have claimed. But Brown asserts that “Peter never served as the bishops or local administrator of any church. Anitioch and Rome included.” Garry Wills, Papal Sin, Doubleday 2000 p158 - Wills quotes Raymond E. Brown, SS., Biblical Reflections on Crises Facing the Church, Paulist Press, 1975, p70.
5. The question of whether Peter was indeed the first bishop of Rome has recently gained popular prominence due to the American best seller by papal critic and dissenter Garry Wills who vigorously dismisses the entire idea as myth. Although simplistically and sensationally presented, Wills’ thesis relies on the view of many, albeit more subtle, critical scholars that Peter could not have been a bishop at Rome because there were no bishops in Rome until the middle of the second century A.D. This view that Peter could not have been a bishop appears to be the common or majority view among critical scholars. Oswald Sobrino, J.D., M.A. (Catholic author “Catholic Analysis 2006” who also writes on the web)

To be fair, in addition to the 11 books and 1 web paper I checked above, I have one book - that I bought autographed by the author - A History of the Popes - Vicars of Christ by Charles A. Coulombe, MJF Books, 2003. The author discusses at length Peter’s extra-biblical activities in depth including details of Peter’s supposed years in Rome without a single citation nor without mentioning, as do the 12 sources cited above, that there is no historical record of it for over a hundred plus years later. *

thanks to Snow…was good stuff.

 

[Cinette]

*After my posting to you Radical I went to Mass and I was very sad and emotional.

You see, we take Jesus at his word. Although we might not fully understand all Jesus’ teachings we believe because we love and trust him. The Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Faith and the celebration of Holy Mass is the highest form of prayer.

You criticize us for believing and defending the Truth. We were warned that this would happen. Nevertheless it hurts. As I was contemplating the Holy Eucharist this morning I thought what a great gift it is and I thought of the disciples who turned their backs on Jesus when He told them to “eat my flesh, drink my blood”. Jesus did not call them back to explain – he kept repeating what he said. You are one of those disciples Radical. However, I tell you something – so would I have turned my back had I been there when Jesus delivered this teaching.

The only difference between us Radical is that I would have turned my back on Jesus then but I have the benefit of 2000 years of witness. I have the benefit of history, the Holy Scriptures, the Magisterium and our shepherd the Pope - whereas you aggressively refuse to consider these things. I praise God that I was born long after Jesus spoke those words.

You also pooh pooh Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16:18-19. That and other declarations by Jesus when he established His Church and gave authority to Peter and the other Apostles are central to our Catholic faith. Of course we will defend it - others have died defending these truths.

I apologise for what I said above - you do not know what you are saying.
*

 

[Radical]

You also pooh pooh Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16:18-19.

let me be very clear on one thing, I do not “pooh pooh” anything Jesus said, but I do disagree with your interpretation of what Christ said…

That and other declarations by Jesus when he established His Church and gave authority to Peter and the other Apostles are central to our Catholic faith. Of course we will defend it - others have died defending these truths.

and still others have killed enforcing these “truths”

I apologise for what I said above - you do not know what you are saying.

thanks…I think

 

[joe370]

Radical, if you are right and Jesus’ church is not the Catholic church in communion with Rome, built on Peter, then isn’t it safe to say that Jesus’ church is not any of the 16th, 17th…21st century Protestant churches either, considering the fact that they are all offshoots of the CC or offshoots of one of the PC’s that were offshoots of the CC?

for those following along…I thought I would provide a nice quote further verifying what I have said about Peter and the founding of the Roman Church. I am, however, too lazy to type it myself and so “googled” a bit of the quote with the hope that I could find it on the web for copying and pasting purposes. Low and behold I found the quote on this thread from late 2008 where Snow was good enough to do my typing for me. The quote is this:
“That Peter founded the Church in Rome is extremely doubtful and that he served as it’s first bishop (as we understand the term today) for even a year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century… The tradition is only vaguely discerned in Hegesippus and may be implied in the suspect letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans (c. 170). By the third century, however, the early assumptions based upon invention or vague unfounded tradition have been transformed into “facts” or history. D. W. O’Conner, Peter in Rome, Columbia University Press, 1969, p207
The funny thing is that Guanophore even responded to the post…but he is still denying the consensus that was building back in 1969. Irish Polock will, no doubt, protest that the quote isn’t from the last 25 years, but then I could point out that Garry Wills repeated the quote with approval in 2000. I think Snow’s post merits repeating (given all the demands for more evidence that I have received on this thread)…so here is the rest of Snow’s summary:

*But for now, I’d like to post what I have run across in my studies about whether or not Peter was actually a monoepiscopal leader over the Church and Bishop of Rome.

He wasn’t - Catholic scholars agree:

1. “Let’s see what St. Ireneaus has to say on the subject back in the second century between the period of 175-190 A.D.

Adversus Haereses (1:27:1):

“Credo was the one who took his system from the followers of Simon, and came to live in Rome at the time of Hyginus, who held the ninth place in the espiscopal succession from the Apostles downward.” note: 100 plus years after the fact

and

1. An unquoted and un-cited and unquoted claim that Eusebius said that Peter was the 1st Bishops of Rome. (which would have been about 230 plus years after the fact.

I always enjoy the opportunity to add to my library and so a few trips to the bookstore and local library resulted in the following that indicate that I am far from alone in my assertion that the evidence for Peter as the first pope is lacking (and note that at minimum 5 of the historians below are Catholic - Cahill, McBrian, Duffy, Wills, Johnson, De Rosa - and a number of those were trained in the Catholic priesthood.)

1. “Vatican propaganda notwithstanding, Peter was never the “bishop of Rome… The first man who can be designated “bishop of Rome” with historical certainty is Anicetus, who stands eleventh in the Vatican’s somewhat fanciful list of early “popes…” Thomas Cahill, Pope John XXIII, Penguin Books 2002, pp1-2
2. Nothing is known of the length of his residence (in Rome): the story that it lasted 25 years is a 3rd century legend. Ignatius assumes that Peter and Paul wielded special authority over the Roman Church while Iraneus claimed they jointly founded it and inaugurated its succession of bishops. Nothing, however, is known of their constitutional roles, least of all of Peter as presumed leader of the community… In the late 2nd cent. the tradition identified Peter as first bishop of Rome.(J.N.D. Kelly, The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, Oxford University Press, 1986 p6-7)
3. “The papcy was to claim that Peter was the first bishop of the church at Rome… No proof exists.” Brian Maynahan, The Faith - A History of Christianity, Doubleday, 2002, p41
4. “(The first succession lists, however, identified Linus, not Peter, as the first Pope. Peter was not regarded as the first Bishop of Rome until the late second or early third century.)” and “St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. ca. 200) assumes that Peter and Paul jointly founded the church of Rome and inaugurated it’s succession of bishops (Against Heresies 3.1.2: 3.3.3). However, there is no evidence that Peter actually served the church of Rome as its first bishop even though the “fact” is regularly taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics… Indeed, there is no evidence that Rome even had a monoepiscopal form of ecclesiatiscal government until the middle of the second century.” Richard P. McBrien, Lives of the Popes, Harper Collins 1997, pp29-30
5. “Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there (Rome) a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there is no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the death of the apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve.” Eamon Duffy, Saints and Sinner - A History of the Popes, Yale University Press 1997, pp1-2
6. Peter and Paul, however, do not appear to have been monarchial bishops handing on office to their successors… The first bishop whose actions suggest monarchial status is Anicetus (c. 155-66).” Paul Johnson, The Papacy, Orion Publishing Group, 1998, p26 *

to be cont…

 

[guanophore]

Are you sure the beliefs of the bishops at Nicaea 325 didn't span quite a spectrum?

In fact, I am sure they did.

Do you think the 4 gospels or the Pauline epistles weren't recognized and used as scriptures until some council made an official declaration?

Yes, along with a number of other early writings that did NOT make the canon.

and that was the end of Arianism? nobody changed there mind? nobody watered down the decision of Nicaea? Everyone stuck to strick trinitarianism thereafter?

I am sure that some of the heretics persisted in their heresy. The Church founded by Christ, though, was purified of this evil, and was able to move forward in “all Truth” just as He promised.

an authority? do you mean like an emperor who wanted to ensure unity of belief throughout his empire? ....I don't know about you, but I am kinda happy that the government no longer determines the religion of its citizens.

No, an authority like those appointed by Christ - successors of the Apostles who had the authority to bind on earth what was bound in heaven.

Constantine cared little about unity of belief. He did not care if the weight went toward Arianism, or not, or whether the Church chose to observe Sat or Sun. as a Holy Day. He wanted choices to be made to improve commerce.

Constantine had no power to “ensure unity of belief” any more than the successors of the Apostles did. In fact, there is no power on earth that can 'ensure unity of belief". The best that can be expected is that there will be consequences for lack of compliance. For that reason, I too am glad that the government no longer determines religion.

But Constantine did not “determine the religion of it’s citizens” either. All he did was decrimanlize the faith, so that the adherants did not need to be put to death as atheists for their faith.

 

[guanophore]

a NT overseer or elder has the role of ministering to the congregation in a number of ways…but not as a priest who offers a sacrafice on behalf of the congregation.

On has to wonder why it is so important for you to cling to this belief in spite of all of history and scripture saying otherwise.

I think if you consider the source of the Last Supper being the Passover, it is clear that there is an elder who presides on behalf of the whole family. During the Last Supper, Jesus told the apostles “do this” (or “make this”) in memory of me. After that, the Aposltes presided over this ceremony on behalf of the community, and taught their successors to do the same.

well, to be precise, it is that in the NT no person is singled out (of the royal priesthood) and identified as a (special) priest under the new covenant....unless you want to consider Christ himself.

It is curious that you do not see certain persons singled out for ministerial duty. I wonder how you dispatch so many passages from the NT. I agree, though, it is the special priesthood of Christ into which they are taken up.

In addition to Chirst and the Levites, pagan priests are also mentioned an so is Melchizedek. All Christians form a royal priesthood and have priestly duties which include proclaiming the gospel…but there is simply no longer any need for a priest who offers sacrifices on behalf of his flock. I hope that clarifies my meaning

The modern English word “priest” is a contraction of the Gk “presbyter”. It is quite clear that this role exists in the NT, and that there are duties delegated to them that are distinguished from those of the flock in general.

 

[guanophore]

 b/c today, "bishop" carries a lot of baggage with it...overseer doesn't have all that history..

This statement clarifies the source of the problem. I am curious, what sort of “baggage” does your mental construct of the word “bishop” carry?

well, on that basis, every christian is then entitled to the label of “priest”

Yes, but to avoid confusion, the term is generally used to refer to the minsterial priesthood.
.

well that is just it, we are all of the same priest hood and there is no need for a catholic priest to offer anything on any one’s (other priest’s) behalf…independent or no.

It seems very important to you NOT to have this need. I wonder how things would change for you if you came to believe that you do, in fact, have such a need.

…we are all part of the priesthood and so in that sense we are all “priests” (clergy no more so than the laity).

Are you honestly going to purport that the presbyters in Scripture have no duties or role apart from the congregation?

c)the absense of the NT and the ECFs (to the end of the 2nd century) designating any particular individual or group of ministers within the Church as a “priest” contrasts dramatically with what proceeded and what followed.

It would, if it were true, but it is quite clear from the NT writings that this is not the case. If you believe there is and “absence”, it is because you have a huge blind spot.

d) this priestly duty, the only one identified for the Church, has nothing to do with the Eucharist…

Clearly for you it cannot, because the acceptance of such a concept would turn your whole faith practice on it’s head.

e) the one specified to possess the priestly duty is an apostle...not an overseer or a bishop.

At least you have been able to see that there is a priestly duty in those ordained by Christ. It is a start.

The proclamation is accompanied by signs and wonders (v. 19), so if one wants to assert that the priestly duty contemplated by v. 16 belongs to a priestly office w/i the Church, then I would suggest that the office holder better have the verifying signs and wonders.

And indeed, such a wonder is visible at each reconciliation and each divine liturgy.

I am glad you have persisted in this thread, Radical. It has given the onlookers a chance to see how hard one must work to deny the Catholic faith.

 

[panevino]

b/c today, “bishop” carries a lot of baggage with it…overseer doesn’t have all that history…

ok understood. Have you read the way a bishop is described in the Shepard of hermas?
I only saw it quickly last week, and did not check context, but it described them as large trees among/over the sheep flock. *I know u have read the descriptions by st ignatius. Also see 1peter2:25 re application to Jesus!
Also see 1tit3:4-5 and then 1tit3:15 the bishop has a key role in the church which is the pillar …etc

Didache “…15You must, then, elect for yourselves bishops and deacons who are a credit to the Lord, men who are gentle, generous, faithful, and well tried. For their ministry to you is identical with that of the prophets and teachers.  2You must not, therefore, despise them, for along with the prophets and teachers they enjoy a place of honor among you…”
For idea of teacher -see 1tim2:7

I noticed several hundred posts ago you seemed to suggest that the flock could appoint a bishop as if it’s not that special and appealed to the didache(again sorry if I have u wrong)

I note how Stephen and phillip are ordained in …acts6:3
3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business.

The apostles allow the flock to put forward people but it is the Apostles that make the call and it is the Apostles who lay hands. The flock mereley help pick candidates right? And this I assume is in an environment where the apostles don’t know anyone or enough of them.
This is clearly also the case b/w Paul/Titus

See 1Tit5For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and ordain elders in every city, as I had appointed thee:

With Titus given ability to appoint as Paul did him.

well, on that basis, every christian is then entitled to the label of “priest”

correct. Given our offering of a pure spiritual sacrifice.
Only pure through and beacuse of Calvary.
See didache 14…on every lords day…break bread and give thanks, first confessing your sins so that your sacrifice may be pure

*well that is just it, we are all of the same priest hood and there is no need for a catholic priest to offer anything on any one’s (other priest’s) *behalf…independent or no. *

We make the offering, the catholic priest plays a major part/enables it, but be is not offering it for us. *That is my understanding at least.
*The above ordination process and the role of bishop described is a clear special role set out *of the priesthood/ bishopric of Jesus(1peter2:25)

*be careful of what you ask for here

ha I am here to learn, so am happy to be corrected.

first off, I think the NIV is the better translation. It reads: **…to be a minister of Christ Jesus to the Gentiles with the priestly duty of proclaiming the gospel of God, so that the Gentiles might become an offering acceptable to God, sanctified by the Holy Spirit. *
a few things WRT to that verse:

a) we are to live *godly{/b] lives…but we are not to become actual gods. The use of “priestly” doesn’t make the doer an actual priest disagree. Priest does not have to equal OT priest of the OT Law. But there is definitely a NT priesthood under jesus the high priest, and some of them are called bishops. This can’t be denied, at least I don’t think it can. Just to clarify I am not arguing with u that they =OT priests. To me a general and ministerial priesthood is clear in the NT, but please realize i also say the veil is clearly torn with a catholic priesthood.

b) we are all to proclaim the gospel, so we all share in that priestly duty…we are all part of the priesthood and so in that sense we are all “priests” (clergy no more so than the laity).

agree about gospel, as u know I suggest a clear ministerial priesthood is shown in the NT.

c)the absense of the NT and the ECFs (to the end of the 2nd century) designating any particular individual or group of ministers within the Church as a “priest” contrasts dramatically with what proceeded and what followed.

bishop has always been a position in the church, NT & ECF’s. A class of the priesthood Peter mentioned. I don’t have my books with me so can respond beyond this at the moment

d) this priestly duty, the only one identified for the Church, has nothing to do with the Eucharist… *

completely disagree with u. The “thanksgiving”/Eucharist is the most important part of the priesthood , and can only be done as a priest , general and ministerial under/through the High priest Jesus. …wow that’s pretty catholic, even for me. But don’t get men wrong a broken heart of repentance is offered by the general priesthood at any time.

e) the one specified to possess the priestly duty is an apostle…not an overseer or a bishop. The proclamation is accompanied by signs and wonders (v. 19), so if one wants to assert that the priestly duty contemplated by v. 16 belongs to a priestly office w/i the Church, then I would suggest that the office holder better have the verifying signs and wonders.
no, for the reasons stated *

all the best

Sure. Stephen and phillip did some of that I believe after acts 6.
I note there r several gifts, not all are as illustrious as “wonders”.

Thanks for the discussion.

 

[rainman10]

Hi, Rainman10,

I had no idea the non-responses would be so quick.

What is so amazing to me is that if they even thought they had something of substance - they would have responded with it. As it turns out - we have two non-responses and one with an insult about not making his ‘cut’.

The nice thing about these written dialogues is that they form of history. Every post is available for review and assessment. Literally, the posts on this thread really do speak for themselves.

God bless

Yup, the Dokimas reply was a nice dodge. However, in order to prove Protestantism as being true, ONE MUST PROVE THAT JESUS GAVE MAN THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE HIS TEACHINGS AND START NEW CHURCHES. Which, of course, He did not do…sooooo Protestantism is man made. End of story.

 

[rainman10]

You know there’s no verse just as you have no real point. Jesus never said the CC is the church He started which hightens the idea you really don’t have a point.

Then show me from Apostolic Tradition or the ECF’s where they were taught or believed that men can start their own churches anytime they want. Oh, wait, you can’t do that either because you are a sola scrupturist (if I remember correctly). And if you did believe in Apostolic Traditons or ECF’s teachings, you would not find that teaching there either.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

Yes, it does … but, only if you push your tongue firmly against your cheek…

Actually, while you will not find ‘my’ spelling in the dictionary (this is an idea I got from someone else a long time ago - while I can not give a source, it is not original with me) it is just a way to characterize the degree of self-deception necessary to actually be able to ignore a truth.

Now, this does not have to be a denial of a religious truth, as we have seen demonstrated here in great detail. This can be the denial of any truth - like the diabetic who has a steady diet of cake and ice cream, the hypertensive who refused to take his blood pressure because he feels ‘ok’, etc. These are classic cases of non-compliance to the medical program necessary to keep or maintain the health of thsse patients. So, if you tell yourself something long enough, you have the intellecutal momentum (this does not require honesty) to keep right on going - yep - right off the cliff!

God bless

*Does D E K I A L spell DENIAL? ?? *

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Joe370,

Great post!

What I found so curious is despite all of the smoke about Peter not having been to Rome, not having been the Bishop of Rome, not having served as Bishop of Rome for 25 years - is that this ‘myth’ withstood all of the early heresies of the Catholic Church. Not only withstood these heresies - but, the ECFs were referring matters back to the Successor of Peter for final disposition.

Imagine, all of these guys - closer to the Apostles and Apostolic Succession chronlologically than any of the 16th Century ‘Martys-come-lately’ obviously believe what Christ said in Matt 16:18! And you are right, there is no foundation for people who refuse to believe in the Church of Christ founded on Peter to splinter off and found their own in accordance with whatever man-made traditions that they want to follow.

A final thought, the list of Popes is neither imagined or fanciful - rather, it is annoyingly historic, complete with warts! But, it is real. As we go down the list, beginning with Peter being No. 1 we find the following:

1.St. Peter (32-67)
2.St. Linus (67-76)
3.St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4.St. Clement I (88-97)
5.St. Evaristus (97-105)
6.St. Alexander I (105-115)
7.St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I
8.St. Telesphorus (125-136)
9.St. Hyginus (136-140)
10.St. Pius I (140-155)
11.St. Anicetus (155-166)

Pope St. Ancetus is #11 - not 12 - and he began in 155AD. Here is the link to see who followed: newadvent.org/cathen/12272b.htm. There is no other group to look to who is claiming SS or SF or private interpretation or the ‘if we don’t like it we can change it’ doctrine.

Even if the the history to the Protestants making this claim appears dim or vague - they appear to stop their argument with Pope St. Anicetus (and his successors) - which is (1517-155=1362) 1,362 years before Luther nailed his 95 Thesis on the cathedral door.

God bless

Radical, if you are right and Jesus’ church is not the Catholic church in communion with Rome, built on Peter, then isn’t it safe to say that Jesus’ church is not any of the 16th, 17th…21st century Protestant churches either, considering the fact that they are all offshoots of the CC or offshoots of one of the PC’s that were offshoots of the CC?

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Cinette,

This is a very kind and compassionate post… it is also very accurate!

God bless

*After my posting to you Radical I went to Mass and I was very sad and emotional.

You see, we take Jesus at his word. Although we might not fully understand all Jesus’ teachings we believe because we love and trust him. The Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Faith and the celebration of Holy Mass is the highest form of prayer.

You criticize us for believing and defending the Truth. We were warned that this would happen. Nevertheless it hurts. As I was contemplating the Holy Eucharist this morning I thought what a great gift it is and I thought of the disciples who turned their backs on Jesus when He told them to “eat my flesh, drink my blood”. Jesus did not call them back to explain – he kept repeating what he said. You are one of those disciples Radical. However, I tell you something – so would I have turned my back had I been there when Jesus delivered this teaching.

The only difference between us Radical is that I would have turned my back on Jesus then but I have the benefit of 2000 years of witness. I have the benefit of history, the Holy Scriptures, the Magisterium and our shepherd the Pope - whereas you aggressively refuse to consider these things. I praise God that I was born long after Jesus spoke those words.

You also pooh pooh Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 16:18-19. That and other declarations by Jesus when he established His Church and gave authority to Peter and the other Apostles are central to our Catholic faith. Of course we will defend it - others have died defending these truths.

I apologise for what I said above - you do not know what you are saying.
*

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Rainman10,

I was just thinking … do you think God had a Plan by establishing Apostolic Tradition before the development of the Canon of Scripture?

After reading a number of the posts presented, I get the impression that anyone with an idea can be a priest, create his own belief structure, pick and choose from Scripture and just pretty much arrange things to suit themselves. It is a wonder it took until the 16th Century for such imaginings to root themselves so firmly in the hearts of men.

God bless

Then show me from Apostolic Tradition or the ECF’s where they were taught or believed that men can start their own churches anytime they want. Oh, wait, you can’t do that either because you are a sola scrupturist (if I remember correctly). And if you did believe in Apostolic Traditons or ECF’s teachings, you would not find that teaching there either.

 

[fbl9]

[After reading a number of the posts presented, I get the impression that anyone with an idea can be a priest, create his own belief structure, pick and choose from Scripture and just pretty much arrange things to suit themselves. It is a wonder it took until the 16th Century for such imaginings to root themselves so firmly in the hearts of men.

God bless[/COLOR]

Oh but there were, remember the millions upon millions that the Church tortured for days then burned them at the stake.

 

[Nicea325]

Low and behold I found the quote on this thread from late 2008 where Snow was good enough to do my typing for me. The quote is this:

Non-sense!

“That Peter founded the Church in Rome is extremely doubtful "](BASED ON WHAT? NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED HERE SUPPORTING HIS CHARGE) and that he served as it’s first bishop (as we understand the term today) for even a year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition "](UNFOUNDED TRADITION? I GUESS SNOW NEVER BOTHERED TO READ THE COUNTLESS WORDS OF MANY ECF STATING OTHERWISE!)

**[that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century… ] ** REALLY? Snow was to LAZY and BIASED doing proper research. Do not let this choke you up!

Pope Clement I (Roman Bishop)

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and **they appointed **their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, **to be the bishops and deacons **of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”

The tradition is only vaguely discerned in Hegesippus and may be implied in the suspect letter of Dionysius of Corinth to the Romans (c. 170). By the third century, however, the early assumptions based upon invention or vague unfounded tradition have been transformed into “facts” or history. D. W. O’Conner, Peter in Rome, Columbia University Press, 1969, p207

Baloney! Problem is men like Snow simply do not like what they READ & HEAR from many ancient sources. Where is Snow’s OTHER empirical evidence proving Peter never founded the church at Rome? Show me the overwhelming evidence by Snow? You got that crucial evidence Radical? Debunk the unfounded tradtion?

The funny thing is that Guanophore even responded to the post…but he is still denying the consensus that was building back in 1969.

What consensus? And show me the other historical PROOF from those who formed the ‘consensus’ Peter was NEVER in Rome and DIED elsewhere?

 

[RedDawgMCM]

Hi, RedDawgMCM,

Buck up old boy… I guess… you didn’t make ‘the cut’, either!
no way can they handle anything like the Eucharist - except the Catholic Church misunderstood Christ and Paul for 1,500 years!
God bless

Thanks TQualey, I think I’ll survive the snub greater men than he have done worse unto me…

let me be very clear on one thing, I do not “pooh pooh” anything Jesus said, but I do disagree with your interpretation of what Christ said…

This appears to be the best we are gonna get from old Radical…He disagrees with our interpretation…so did many others that day…when they got it straight from the horses mouth…He didn’t call them back and say but guys wait I only mean it as a symbol…

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Fb19,

And, what is your source to substantiate the millions upon millions burned at the stake?

God bless

Oh but there were, remember the millions upon millions that the Church tortured for days then burned them at the stake.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Nicea325,

If you listen to this guy for long, you’ll get the impression that Peter is just hanging on by a thread! My guess is that before another 30,000 iterations of Protestant splintering - Peter will be declared a ‘myth’ and Christ’s words - while not ‘poo-poohed’ will be simply relegated to the closet where metaphors are kept to gather dust and ignored.

He has no historical leg to stand on - ignores his own evidence when it does not point the way he wants and simply demonstrates that if you stand fast long enough you will be right. In this case, he is simply standing in quicksand and he like all of us has one less day today to be on this earth.

We really are accountable for what we say and do - and on such a broad path as the internet - where no one really knows how many are reading this material - there is a stiff price to pay for spreading scandal, falsehood and simply refusing to be honest. My appeal is simply to conscience to do the right thing and be forthright in presenting an opinion. There is precious little that I have seen from these characters. And, that to me is very sad.

God bless

Non-sense!

“That Peter founded the Church in Rome is extremely doubtful "](BASED ON WHAT? NOT A SINGLE SHRED OF HISTORICAL EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED HERE SUPPORTING HIS CHARGE)

and that he served as it’s first bishop (as we understand the term today) for even a year, much less the twenty-five-year period that is claimed for him, is an unfounded tradition "](UNFOUNDED TRADITION? I GUESS SNOW NEVER BOTHERED TO READ THE COUNTLESS WORDS OF MANY ECF STATING OTHERWISE!)

**[that can be traced back to a point no earlier than the third century… ] ** REALLY? Snow was to LAZY and BIASED doing proper research. Do not let this choke you up!

Pope Clement I (Roman Bishop)

"Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and **they appointed **their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, **to be the bishops and deacons **of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . . Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry" (Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3 [A.D. 80]).

In his Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110), Ignatius of Antioch remarked that he could not command the Roman Christians the way Peter and Paul once did, such a comment making sense only if Peter had been a leader, if not the leader, of the church in Rome.

Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190), said that Matthew wrote his Gospel “while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.” A few lines later he notes that Linus was named as Peter’s successor, that is, the second pope, and that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome.

William A. Jurgens, in his three-volume set The Faith of the Early Fathers, a masterly compendium that cites at length everything from the Didache to John Damascene, includes thirty references to this question, divided, in the index, about evenly between the statements that “Peter came to Rome and died there” and that “Peter established his See at Rome and made the bishop of Rome his successor in the primacy.”

Baloney! Problem is men like Snow simply do not like what they READ & HEAR from many ancient sources. Where is Snow’s OTHER empirical evidence proving Peter never founded the church at Rome? Show me the overwhelming evidence by Snow? You got that crucial evidence Radical? Debunk the unfounded tradtion?

What consensus? And show me the other historical PROOF from those who formed the ‘consensus’ Peter was NEVER in Rome and DIED elsewhere?

 

[Nicea325]

Hi, Nicea325,

If you listen to this guy for long, you’ll get the impression that Peter is just hanging on by a thread! My guess is that before another 30,000 iterations of Protestant splintering - Peter will be declared a ‘myth’ and Christ’s words - while not ‘poo-poohed’ will be simply relegated to the closet where metaphors are kept to gather dust and ignored.

He has no historical leg to stand on - ignores his own evidence when it does not point the way he wants and simply demonstrates that if you stand fast long enough you will be right. In this case, he is simply standing in quicksand and he like all of us has one less day today to be on this earth.

We really are accountable for what we say and do - and on such a broad path as the internet - where no one really knows how many are reading this material - there is a stiff price to pay for spreading scandal, falsehood and simply refusing to be honest. My appeal is simply to conscience to do the right thing and be forthright in presenting an opinion. There is precious little that I have seen from these characters. And, that to me is very sad.

God bless

Amazing at the stuff some people try to claim,teach,charge and want others to believe. Revisionism history is pathetic and is always debunked.Absolutely NOTHING Radical has posted is a revelation to me and thousands of other educated Catholics. Half of the stuff merely appears as commentaries by anti-Catholics with little to no evidence backing such absurdities. Funny how those who claim Peter was never in Rome or had any ties to the Church at Rome never can provide primary and empirical evidence by ECF’s teaching otherwise. My question is always simple:

If Peter never was in Rome or had no ties to the church there,then why it is stated over and over he and Paul died there? If he did not die at Rome,then why hasn’t any other ancient city ever made the claim going back nearly 2,000 years?