Once there was a Pope named Peter?

Let Us Reason Ministries ^ | Mike Oppenheimer

[Salvation]

Oh, no, not this argument again. You were proven wrong once; why do you persist in re-presenting your erroroneus thoughts?

[Salvation]

On This Rock

 

WAS ST. PETER IN ROME?

 

St. Peter and Rome

 

Did the Apostle Peter Ever Visit Rome?

 

Occasionally Naive and Fearful, Yet Honest and Capable of Repentance (Profile of St. Peter)

 

Saint Peter As Seen by His Successor (extraordinary document from B16 on his preaching and papacy)

 

HOMILIES PREACHED BY FATHER ALTIER ON THE FEAST OF SAINTS PETER AND PAUL

 

Peter, Witness of the Resurrection (Papal preparations for Easter 2006)

 

The Fraternal Society of St. Peter on EWTN

 

Saint Peter and the Vatican, the Legacy of the Popes

 

Saint Peter and The Vatican - Legacy of the Popes

[Cronos]

Isn’t Peter always first in the list of apostles? As an apostle, Peter only wrote a small amount in the New Testament (James, and Jude were Jesus’ half brothers). While John wrote the second largest portion of the New Testament, Peter wrote only two books of the New Testament. Paul wrote at least 13 letters, including the only one to the Roman church. Peter had a far less influence over the whole church than Paul, which the majority was Gentile.

That would be an oversimplification --> Paul may have been the more prolific writer, but I would argue that Peter was more the man of action --> both equally doing God's work.

[Cronos]

well written post.

There is no doubt that by the middle of the 2nd century that a "bishop" of Rome existed, an offical whose authority was based on his connection with the "tradition" of Peter and Paul
Irenaeus in fact gives us the "lineage" of the "popes" of Rome, although --it may be--that the authority of the Church of Rome was at least originally informal and even collective

The centrality of Rome in the Empire was paralleled by the centrality of Rome in the place --> very true, we see that later on, the Patriarchs of Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria and Antioch had another, the Patriarch of Constantinople added. And why? Because by then, the city of Constaninople had surpassed Rome as the center of the Roman Empire

[Cronos]

Ask an Iraqi Christian -- Catholic or Orthodox or Nestorian
Gentle note, we do not call our brethern who are part of the Chaldean / Assyrian Church as Nestorian. Though the early Church of the East did shelter Nestorians, they do not suffer from that heresy, but have their basic dogma through Babai the great.

[kevinw]

Amen.

[Cronos]

One thing I’ve noticed in reading the RCC propaganda - it’s man centered. Poor God. If Mary or Peter hadn’t been up to the challenge, what would He have done?

Not really, the Catholic (as in the universal) Church is not the Church of Peter or the Church of Mary, it is the Church of Christ. We are dependent on only one Man, Jesus Christ. The Pope's role as human leader on earth is meant simply as that, like the most respected Apostle, Peter.

[Cronos]

If the church was built on Peter, why did he not act like a pope

you mean, like, why did he not travel the known world, preaching God?

because that's what the Popes do.

A lot of Protestant diatribes against the Papacy are based on the papacy of the middle ages, especially the corrupted Papacy of Alexander VI --> remember, the very fact that The Church has survived, INSPITE of such disgraced shephards, tells us that God leads it as a whole. The Pope is no more than God's instrument on earth.

[Cronos]

In reality, the apostle to the Gentiles as described by Peter and the others in Jerusalem was Paul, not Peter.

There were expatriate Jews all over the world. They are and have always been an enterprising people (remember that Jews were key bureaucrats even in the Persian Empire and even in the later Muslim Empires). There were Jewish communities in Alexandria (Egypt), and the one in the Elephantine island on the Nile were there for centuries. There were Jewish communities in the Centre of the Roman Empire -- Rome. Why, there were even Jews in India (Cochin) -- where St. Thomas (doubting Thomas) went to preach.

[pipeorganman]

Matthew 10:5-6 concerns the beginning of Jesus’ ministry. At the end of Chapter 9, Jesus sees that the multitudes have increased, coming to him to be healed of their infirmities. Seeing that the “harvest is great but the laborers are few”, in chapter 10, he “deputizes” the 12 Apostles and sends them forth to preach, to heal the sick and to cast out demons. He does limit their preaching, etc., to the lost sheep of the House of Israel.

However, this was only a temporary command, as Matthew 28:16-20 supercedes the command of Matthew 10:5-6.

***16 And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them. 17 And seeing them they adored: but some doubted. 18 And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying: All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. 19 Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world.***

We now see that Jesus has commanded the Apostles to teach all nations, not just the Israelites.

I also refer you to Acts 10 and 11:1-18. Peter is convinced through the vision given him and the subsequent events concerning Cornelius, that God had commanded that the Gentiles be evangelized. Through the vision, God again commands that all nations be taught the Gospel, superceding Matthew 10:5-6.

[aruanan]

There were expatriate Jews all over the world.

True. I'm not denying he was in Rome. It's just that the gentile church took off while the Jewish one still has not and will not until, as Paul described it, the full number of gentiles have come in (Romans 11:25).

[dangus]

>> Peter was not called the rock, Cephas means small hard pebble, <<

You just totally made that up.

[Manfred the Wonder Dawg]

If Alexander VI was corrupt, as you say, does that not destroy the RCC contention that all popes are God’s chosen, infallible in their official capacity (however ya’ll define EX CATHEDRA)?

If the pope is no more than God’s instrument on Earth, why does RCC doctrine go to such lengths to establish him an Apostle with world-wide control that may not even be questioned?

Excerpts from RCC doctrine:

Decrees of the First Vatican Council:

SESSION 3 : 24 April 1870 - Dogmatic Constitution on the Catholic Faith
4. If anyone

* does not receive as sacred and canonical the complete books of sacred scripture with all their parts, as the holy council of Trent listed them, or
* denies that they were divinely inspired :

let him be anathema.

“And so in the performance of our supreme pastoral office, we beseech for the love of Jesus Christ and we command,”

SESSION 4 : 18 July 1870 - First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ

For this reason it has always been necessary for every church—that is to say the faithful throughout the world—to be in agreement with the Roman church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body [48] .

# we promulgate anew the definition of the ecumenical council of Florence [49] ,
# which must be believed by all faithful Christians, namely that

* the apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold a world-wide primacy, and that
* the Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter,
o the prince of the apostles,
o true vicar of Christ,
o head of the whole church and
o father and teacher of all christian people.
Wherefore we teach and declare that,

* by divine ordinance,
* the Roman church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other church, and that
* this jurisdictional power of the Roman pontiff is both
o episcopal and
o immediate.
it follows from that supreme power which the Roman pontiff has in governing the whole church, that he has the right, in the performance of this office of his, to communicate freely with the pastors and flocks of the entire church, so that they may be taught and guided by him in the way of salvation.

Since the Roman pontiff, by the divine right of the apostolic primacy, governs the whole church, we likewise teach and declare that

* he is the supreme judge of the faithful [52] , and that
* in all cases which fall under ecclesiastical jurisdiction recourse may be had to his judgment [53] .
* The sentence of the apostolic see (than which there is no higher authority) is not subject to revision by anyone,
* nor may anyone lawfully pass judgment thereupon [54] .

So, then,

* if anyone says that
o the Roman pontiff has merely an office of supervision and guidance, and
+ not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole church, and this
+ not only in matters of
# faith and morals, but also in those which concern the
# discipline and government of the church dispersed throughout the whole world; or that
o he has only the principal part, but not the absolute fullness, of this supreme power; or that
o this power of his is not ordinary and immediate both over all and each of the churches and over all and each of the pastors and faithful:
let him be anathema.

Then there is the definition of the council of Florence:

* “The Roman pontiff is the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church and the father and teacher of all Christians; and to him was committed in blessed Peter, by our lord Jesus Christ, the full power of tending, ruling and governing the whole church.” [58]

we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

* when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
o that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
* he possesses,
o by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
* that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
* Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.

So then, should anyone, which God forbid, have the temerity to reject this definition of ours: let him be anathema.

[kidd]

Whenever I see a long Catholic bashing article, I usually skip to the replies to see if you’ve taken the time to review it.

Your replies are intelligent, respectful and well referenced.

You’ve saved me several hours of unnecessary reading. And I’ve learned a lot.

Thanks for your fine replies.

[dangus]

Matthew 10:5-6: “Jesus sent out these twelve 4 after instructing them thus, ‘Do not go into pagan territory or enter a Samaritan town. Go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’”

You really believe that this was meant to forbid the disciples from preaching the resurrection to the gentiles? How about this line: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations.”

But back on the subject:

How does any of what you wrote demonstrate Peter was in Iraq? The city of Babylon had been utterly destroyed, completely desolate.

That Paul was the founder of the Church at Rome is flatly false. Paul writes the Letter to the Romans to the those who are already Christians in Rome. But Paul plainly had never been to Rome (yet): “I do not want you to be unaware, brothers, 8 that I often planned to come to you, though I was prevented until now, that I might harvest some fruit among you, too, as among the rest of the Gentiles.”

[dangus]

Your great evidence is a blog? Given the tomb of Jesus, the ossuary of James, and all the other forgeries, you want us to take the word of a BLOGGER?

[dangus]

Look at what you’ve written; this time, you’ve actually gotten good sources, including a precise definition of ex cathedra. What’s confusing?

[Diego1618]

Does not the Scripture you quote relate to Jesus’ instruction to the disciples relate to the Galilean ministry? Taken absolutely, the Church would never have grown beyond Galilee, but the other Scriptures you offer tells us it had been extended to Asia, and not by Paul’s work alone.

Do you have any idea why the Apostle Paul was chosen? Do you have any idea why Timothy, Luke, Barnabas and the others were chosen also? Why didn't The Lord just leave everything to the twelve.....and send them off in twelve different directions?

The simple answer is.....He did.....but their mission [Matthew 10:5-6] was to the House of Israel. This did not include Rome. The Israelites had been scattered [Hosea 1:10] and sifted through the Nations [Amos 1:10]. Our Lord Himself, after telling the "Twelve" [Matthew 10:5] to go to the House of Israel, says that He was sent [Matthew 15:24] to The House of Israel (The Lost Sheep of Matthew 10). His Farewell to Peter [John 21:15-17] seals the deal: 15 So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs. 16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. He saith unto him, Feed my sheep. 17 He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.

The Apostle Paul was given wider latitude. He was to evangelize Gentiles, Kings and the Israelites [Acts 9:15]....but His mission was still to be segregated from that of Peter....and the other eleven [Galatians 2:7-8]. This is why you see Paul in and about Rome....Twice, but never see Peter or the other eleven there.

[Wonder Warthog]

LOL. And your post isn't Protestant propaganda of the worst sort??

In a whole section referring to Peter and Peter's revelation via. God the Father, Jesus would make a statement "You are rock, and on myself I'm going to build my church"? Ludicrous.

Of huge significance is the fact that Christ changes Simon bar-Jona's name from Simon to Cephas (Rock). Such a God-given change of name occurs VERY RARELY (I think only four times, Abram-Abraham, Sarai-Sarah, Jacob-Israel, and Simon-Cephas, but I'm away from reference material so can't check). ALL of the name changes happen when God makes a promise to the re-named individual.

Since that change of name occurs in the same sentence in which Christ pronounces on what (whom) he plans to build his church, it makes sense that the two are related.

Sorry, bub, but the Catholic interpretation just makes a lot more sense.

And that leaves out the whole other line of evidence of Christ's giving Cephas "the keys of heaven", which, in Biblical terms, meant that Christ had appointed Cephas as the steward of His Kingdom.

[Uncle Chip]

Then there is the archaeological evidence surrounding Peter's tomb underneath the high altar of the basilica.

You mean the absence of archeological evidence, don't you???

It's clearly a site that was venerated by Christians going back well before Constantine.

You mean venerated by "pagans", don't you, because the Vatican was built upon a pagan graveyard full of tombs of sorcerers and magicians.

It's kind of hard to spin graffiti reading Petros eni ("Peter is within").

The graffiti must be referring to "Peter rabbit" whose remains are there with a whole lot of other animals as the archeological evidence proved.