Skip to comments.Did the Apostle Peter Ever Visit Rome?
Posted on 10/27/2006 6:20:15 PM PDT by DouglasKC
click here to read article
St. Peter is buried under the basilica that bears his name on Vatican Hill.
I'm not a 100% sure, but I don't think this article disagrees with that.
Did you miss this one?
Nope, I saw it. Just thought I'd throw a new theory into the mix.
"The Roman Catholics claims Peter was the first pope of their church....Is either of these viewpoints correct; or is it just possible BOTH claims are wrong?"
Now I didn't read the whole article, but Peter was the first pope. Regardless of where he was, he was the first pope. It's not a viewpoint, it's a fact.
That's not exactly the conclusion of the article. But I understand your belief.
I don't have time to read it now, I have to go root for the "Cardinals". Hahaha - how ionic is that?
I don't believe it, I know it.
The word "pope" is defined as "the head of the Roman Catholic Church." Peter was the first temporal leader of Catholics. There is an unbroken succsession of popes following him.
Trying to redefine "pope" in a manner to exclude St. Peter is similar to the attempts to redefine "marriage".
Now, if some Christians want to claim that there was nothing special about Peter, compared to other Apostles, then go for it. But you can't try to redefine terms in order to do it. Peter was the first temporal leader of Catholics, the temporal leader of Catholics is called the pope, therfore Peter was the first pope.
There is a lot of debate about that outside of Rome.
Now, if some Christians want to claim that there was nothing special about Peter, compared to other Apostles, then go for it.
I believe all the apostles were special.
Peter was the first temporal leader of Catholics, the temporal leader of Catholics is called the pope, therfore Peter was the first pope.
Some do say that. Based strictly on biblical accounts though I would have to disagree.
In case you missed it, the whole issue is being researched over here
I copied and pasted this article and ran it through a line count... According to the count, this article is 392 lines long. Got a summary? :-)
The bottom line is...well...at the bottom line.
Douglas,be kind of careful how much weight you give the later scripture scholars. Since the enlightenment when the men who would be gods dedicated their efforts to purge the world of crowns and tiaras or monarchs and popes,we have seen waves of concerted efforts to destroy any God given authorities. Translating that objective to contemporary terms,they are now taking aim at sovereign nations and Christianity.
One of the tools of the enemy is to put out lots of false information or disinformation. Another is to infiltrate the organizations themselves and destroy them from within. I view everything written since the end of WWII,which incidentally,did not accomplish the dissolution of Christianity or nation states,with hard,cold eyes. I think their disappointment put them into high gear.
In these perilous times,I try to hold my tongue and my fingers and just keep striving to seek,speak and act in Truth and pray always.
Good seeing you again!
I myself would have said "OK,I am boss now and I am telling you that the Son of God told me that He would send me the Holy Spirit to help me guide you. And He did and you better start toeing the line,stop misbehaving and start loving one another and forgiving each other or you are going to Hell in a hand basket".
How would you have handled it?
Is this "Deja Vu".....all over again?
I think the article comes to a different conclusion than both sides in the other Peter thread. It's kind of long, but interesting.
Simon Magus is explained much more fully here than what we touched on with the other thread. This will be interesting.
Sorry about the "Tigers".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.