A
What is the name of that Church which was established in Rome by Sts. Peter & Paul which is currently headquartered at the Vatican?
- Status
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
M
MrS
Guest
:yup:
And don’t you think (
) that your founder, Henry, should also predate medieval times. You may adhere to many of the beliefs found in the only Church began by Christ… but that does not in any way make you the “original”, much less the One, True Catholic Church.Enjoy our Holy Days, but don’t expect us to give any honor to Henry’s birthday.
Trent was an answer by the Catholic Church to address the evils and the distortions of the Reformation.
The proposed union of many Anglicans to the One True Church (vis versa) is an answer addressing their acknowledgment that they (and you) have been wrong, duped, stubborn, or biased… or all four.
.
.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
:yup:
And don’t you think (
Enjoy our Holy Days, but don’t expect us to give any honor to Henry’s birthday.
Trent was an answer by the Catholic Church to address the evils and the distortions of the Reformation.
The proposed union of many Anglicans to the One True Church (vis versa) is an answer addressing their acknowledgment that they (and you) have been wrong, duped, stubborn, or biased… or all four.
**Our Church is some two thousand years old! See Tertullian, or Dorotheus of Tyre. The Archbishop claims that the brother of Christ, the apostle S.Simon , was martyred here! See your own historian Lingard who claims that Aristobulos, a friend of Pauls was our first Bishop again martyred!One of your historians writing in the Catholic Messenger, last year claimed that our Bishops, or one of them was at Nice. You should really study more before you ,‘discuss,’ saves embarrassment!
As for Trent? Couldn’t careless, why should I bother if you don’t? It’s your church you are denying not mine! If you are ashamed of it, you must live with it!
.
.**
M
MrS
Guest
You continue to “bark” up the wrong tree… and the wrong forest for that matter. Your (name removed by moderator)ut lacks in relevance, credibility, and history. But at least that author made you happy.
I can only pray that your anger will not continue to cloud reality.
.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
.
There is no church in Rome founded by St. Paul or St. Peter…
When Paul writes the Book of Romans, around 57 AD, there already is a congregation there. But Paul had never been there, and since Paul makes no mentioned of Peter, it’s likely he had never been there, either. Thus, the congregation there predates the presence of either Peter or Paul - thus neither could have founded it. Of course, Paul (and probably Peter) eventually visited it, and that congregation is still around, they have a really impressive building (never been there but I’ve seen lots of pictures of it). My sister visited there, too. I’d like to some day.
Thank you!
Pax
There is no church in Rome founded by St. Paul or St. Peter…
When Paul writes the Book of Romans, around 57 AD, there already is a congregation there. But Paul had never been there, and since Paul makes no mentioned of Peter, it’s likely he had never been there, either. Thus, the congregation there predates the presence of either Peter or Paul - thus neither could have founded it. Of course, Paul (and probably Peter) eventually visited it, and that congregation is still around, they have a really impressive building (never been there but I’ve seen lots of pictures of it). My sister visited there, too. I’d like to some day.
Thank you!
Pax
- Josiah
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
[/quote]
So! It’s not just about religion? It’s racist as well, ou don’t like the English? So much for yyour fine words!
[/quote]
So! It’s not just about religion? It’s racist as well, ou don’t like the English? So much for yyour fine words!
[/quote]
J
jmcrae
Guest
Nobody has ever seriously claimed that there was.
Yep - and a Bishop, too.
.
That’s correct.
They didn’t just “visit” - the whole leadership of the Church, including them, was taken captive by the pagans and taken to Rome, where they stayed in jail until the sentence of death could be carried out on them - St. Peter was crucified, and St. Paul had his head chopped off. When they knew that they were going to die, St. Peter appointed a successor to the office of Pope - his name was Linus, and he became both Pope and Bishop of Rome. When Linus, in his own turn, was taken away to be executed, he appointed another successor, whose name was Cletus. In his turn, he too was executed, and Clement (who was Pope during the time when St. John was writing the Book of Revelation) became his successor. This line of succession is still continuing on, even today - Pope Benedict XVI is the most recent person to be appointed to this role.
It was not until more than 300 years later that the Christian leadership was set free to return to Jerusalem, and by that time, there was nothing left for them in Jerusalem to return to, so they simply remained in Rome.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Thus, my response to the question of this thread, namely, "What is the name of the church established in Rome BY PETER AND PAUL.Josiah:
Nobody has ever seriously claimed that there was.
There was and is none.
.
R
rinnie
Guest
I LOVE BEING CALLED ROMAN CATHOLIC! I mean I follow the Church of Rome what else could I be called? Where the Pope Goes I go. What the Pope says I say. What the Pope does I do.////////////////// At least I try to anyway!
R
rinnie
Guest
The Church that they established in Rome is called the Roman Catholic Church.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
[/quote]
[/quote]
.
[/quote]
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Paul and Peter didn’t establish any church in Rome.
It predates the appearance of either of them in that city.
.
R
rinnie
Guest
Well thank goodness for the early Fathers of the Church then. And because of them, I go by their teachings and not yours. And according to St Irenaeus of Lyons you are wrong-go. And he said they did. Now who do you think I am going to listen to A St. Or You?
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
Ah. Would you quote for me St. Irenaeus of Lyons stating that the church in Rome was founded by St. Peter and St. Paul? And the evidence he provides? What date for this does he provide?
See, when Paul writes Romans - around 57 AD, it’s obvious the church ALREADY exists there but he’s never been there, thus it seems IMPOSSIBLE that he could have founded the church there. Since Paul never mentions Peter in that letter, and since the chronology of Peter’s life doesn’t place him there until AFTER that, well - Peter obviously couldn’t have founded the church there, either. Could you please quote St. Irenaeus of Lyons where he has evidence that Paul and Peter had been there long before 57 AD and they both had founded the church? Perhaps he gives the date, as well. I understand it’s generally thought the church there began in the early 40’s.
Now, if Peter and Paul didn’t found the church in the city of Rome, then obviously such a church has - and never did have - any name; they never founded one.
.
J
jmcrae
Guest
St. Irenaeus of Lyons was using a kind of short-hand - everyone understood what he meant by “the Church at Rome” - which is the Church that Christ established in Jerusalem, but which got kidnapped and taken to Rome in 67 AD or thereabouts - and which was first led by Sts. Peter and Paul, who both died in Rome and left their successors there - whom St. Irenaeus then proceeds to enumerate.
Here is what St. Irenaeus actually said:
- Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
- The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome dispatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Soter having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
A
AmericanJosiah
Guest
I’m not quite seeing where he stated that the church in Rome was founded by St. Paul and Peter. And I don’t see what date for that or evidence given…
But again, since when it writes to it, it obviously already existed and since Paul had never been there - it would seem problematic at best for him to have founded it. And since Paul in 57 AD never mentions Peter at all, and since the usual chronology for Peter places him in Rome LONG after the church was founded there - it seems problematic for him to have been the founder. Thus, I’m not sure how EITHER of them (much less both of them) are the founders of the church in that city.
And if they didn’t found any church there, it could have had no name. Then or now. See my point?
Generally, it’s thought the church there was founded in the early 40’s. Paul’s conversion was perhaps around 33 AD but he returns to Tarus for some 10 years, where it seems he stayed; his ministry doesn’t begin until around 43 AD. The Book of Acts records this ministry in some detail - with zero mention of going to Rome and founding a church there. In fact, it appears Paul first set foot in that city around 62 AD - perhaps 20 years too late to have been a founder of the church there. Peter is still in Antioch in 52 AD when the Jerusalem Council is held - so even if all the accepted chronology is wrong, and he immediately made an entirely unknown trip to Rome after that to go establsih a church in Rome, he’s about 10 years too late. And then one wonders why Paul, in his book to the Romans, never mentions Peter. And of course, Peter - in his two epistles from perhaps aorund the year 60 AD, never mention that, either.
So, where’s the evidence that the church in Rome was founded by Peter and Paul? When? And how does that fit into the biblical testimony? It seems to me, Paul could not have even BEEN there until 20 years after the fact (oddly writing to a church that didn’t exist yet), and Peter not likely before that. Both would have arrived about two decades after the church was established there, hardly making it possible for them to have establsihed it.
Thus, if they never established a church there, such could not have had a name. And could not now.
.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Right - and it’s a good point. But it doesn’t change anything about the line of succession. He is showing how the line of succession goes back to St. Peter - now, in his day, which was quite early on in Church history, there had only been 12 Popes, which is why he only names 12 of them. You can find the rest of them here. Point being, the Church that has its present-day headquarters in Rome is the same Church that Christ founded, when He appointed St. Peter as its first Pope.
The Church that is now headquartered in Rome (and has been, ever since the Church leadership was kidnapped and taken there in 67 AD or thereabouts) is the Catholic Church - the same Church that Christ founded on the Rock of Peter in Matthew 16:18-19.
C
choy
Guest
i can’t see why “Roman Catholic” would be a bad thing
some churches do identify themselves as a Roman Catholic Church on the sign outside. if the pirests and bishop identify themselves as that, why can’t i?
some churches do identify themselves as a Roman Catholic Church on the sign outside. if the pirests and bishop identify themselves as that, why can’t i?
M
MrS
Guest
You can.
However, consider this… a lot of people even call themselves part of the American Catholic Church. And that all “sounds” well and good.
After all, it is simply adding a name to Catholic that is not offensive.
but…browse their site and see just how offensive they really are. accus.us/
Now perhaps this is off topic… but the idea is just to convey what adding a name does. In this case it covers a lie…
In the case of Roman Catholic,… is just causes confusion.
.
- Status