| St. Peter and Rome |
 |
| 11/15/04 |
Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
| St. Peter and Rome |
|
| 11/15/04 |
You posted in #331--"why are you lying to your own people"?
It certainly looks like the "you" in that post is addressed ad hominem to jo kus.
are you moderating this forum now?
I am moderating this conversation. An apology was posted at 338 so it is a non-issue.
Thank you
One has to think about the history that was taking place. The Jews, in most cases either converted or were persecutors of the Jewish Christian. As more Gentiles entered the church (and less Jews) a natural reaction of the Jewish leadership would have been to emphasize those Jewish leaders who have made outstanding contributions. It would put a better face on the church in witnessing to Jews if they had a Jewish person they could point to. What better person than Peter? Why emphasize Paul since Gentiles were entering the church? I certainly don't wish to minimize Peter's calling or how God used him in a mighty way; just that later people might have made him into something that he never intended.
Human nature is something that has never changed.
FWIW, this is the Vatican's position as well. Some Catholics don't hold to Vatican teachings when it comes to scripture.
Man, do you guys ever wrest the scriptures...
Jer 33:14 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will perform that good thing which I have promised unto the house of Israel and to the house of Judah.
Jer 33:15 In those days, and at that time
What days??? And what period of time???
, will I cause the Branch of righteousness to grow up unto David; and he shall execute judgment and righteousness in the land.
Has there been judgment, or righteousness in the land since the Catholic church was created??? Nope...The Branch of Righteousness is not the Catholic church
Jer 33:16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely:
Has Judah been saved??? Jerusalem has dwelt in safety for the last 2000 years???
and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, The LORD our righteousness.
Jerusalem is now called Lord our righteousness???
This hasn't happened in your lifetime, or the lifetime of your church...It's future, obviously...But it will happen, soon...
There has never been a Catholic sitting on the Throne of David...
Dan. 2:44 - Daniel prophesies an earthly kingdom that will never be destroyed. Either this is a false prophecy, or the earthly kingdom requires succession.
It is truly amazing that you ignore the context of a passage and pluck it out from the rest and make an erroneous application and expect people to believe it...And sadly, many do...
Dan 2:44 And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a kingdom, which shall never be destroyed: and the kingdom shall not be left to other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, and it shall stand forever.
How you could get a Catholic kingdom during the church age from that verse boggles my mind...You not only don't mention the prophecy on both sides of that verse, whoever authored this piece you posted doesn't have a clue about the prophecy...
I'll skip along here...
Eph. 3:21 - this divine word tells us that Jesus Christ's Church will exist in all generations. Only the Catholic Church can prove by succession such existence.
Couple a things here...No doubt your church has been around for some time...The more I learn about it, the more I am convinced it is not the church the bible speaks of...But it is a church...
Our Protestant brothers and sisters become uncomfortable with this passage because it requires them to look for a Church that has existed for over 2,000 years. This means that all the other Christian denominations (some of which have been around even less than one year!) cannot be the church that Christ built upon the rock of Peter.
I'm not uncomfortable at all...I'm a member of a church based on bible scripture that originated out of Antioch Syria, where people were first called Christians...And those manuscripts have been tracked back to about the 4 century...YOUR church follows (somewhat) manuscripts that came out of Africa...I'll stick with mine...
Eph. 3:10 - the wisdom of God is known, even to the intellectually superior angels, through the Church (not the Scriptures). This is an incredible verse, for it tells us that God's infinite wisdom comes to us through the Church. For that to happen, the Church must be protected from teaching error on faith and morals (or she wouldn't be endowed with the wisdom of God).
You have completely perverted this scripture by changing one word...
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known BY the church the manifold wisdom of God,
You have taken the word BY out of the scripture and replaced (added to it) by using the word 'through'...
Where the verse says the manifold wisdom of God 'might be known by the church', you changed to 'the manifold wisdom of God will be known thru the church...What a deception...
Just one more...
Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.
This is the continued perversion of the last rebuttal...
A mystery hidden for all ages...This is a good one...
Eph 3:3 How that by revelation he made known unto me the mystery; (as I wrote afore in few words,
Eph 3:4 Whereby, when ye read, ye may understand my knowledge in the mystery of Christ)
Eph 3:5 Which in other ages was not made known unto the sons of men, as it is now revealed unto his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit;
Eph 3:6 That the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel:
Eph 3:7 Whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.
Eph 3:8 Unto me, who am less than the least of all saints, is this grace given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ;
Eph 3:9 And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:
Eph 3:10 To the intent that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God,
Eph 3:11 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Eph 3:12 In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by the faith of him.
Eph. 3:9 - this, in fact, is a mystery hidden for all ages - that God manifests His wisdom through one infallible Church for all people.
This is a blatant lie...The scripture reveals the truth...
The mystery is the adoption of Gentiles into the Jewish inheritance...And it is revealed NOW...It is NOT hid for all ages, and it is certainly NOT that God manifests his wisdom thru the one fallible Catholic church...
It's a pity good, honest people that join the Catholic church fall for this stuff...
How, exactly, did you "resolve" the first century tomb with Peter's name on it?
The Roman church knows exactly who founded it, and how. It is no "myth," any more than Peter himself is a "myth".
You clearly don't understand typology at all.
The Davidic Kingdom foreshadows the "Kingdom of Heaven" which Jesus came to establish. That "Kingdom of Heaven" is precisely and exactly the Holy Catholic Church. It's really pretty simple.
Harley, would you kindly STOP spouting off about what the "Vatican's position" is? You aren't a Catholic; you aren't at all qualified to teach Catholic doctrine, not even as an amateur.
FWIW, the Scriptures are the only documents we have from the Apostolic era that we can be absolutely certain reveal what God wants us to know. All other sources are fallible and subject to human error.
That obviously isn't the Catholic position at all, since we recognize the solemn definitions of ecumenical councils and papal ex cathedra statements as infallible and not subject to human error.
Scripture we recognize as not merely preserved from error, but as inspired and God-breathed.
CHAPTER X. THAT THE BISHOP OF ROME IS TRUE SUCCESSOR OF S. PETER, AND HEAD OF THE MILITANT CHURCH.
I HAVE presupposed that S. Peter was Bishop of Rome and died such. This the opposite party deny; many of them even deny that he ever was at Rome; but I am not obliged to attack all these negatives in detail, because when I shall have fully proved that S. Peter was and died Bishop of Rome, I shall have sufficiently proved that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of S. Peter. Besides, all my proofs and my witnesses state in express terms that the Bishop of Rome succeeded to S. Peter, which is my contention, and from which again will follow a clear certainty that S. Peter was at Rome and died there.
And now here is my first witness, S. Clement, disciple of S. Peter, in the first letter which he wrote to the brother of the Lord; which is so authentic that Rufinus became the translator of it about twelve hundred years ago. Now he says these words: "Simon Peter, the chief apostle, brought the King of ages to the knowledge of the city of Rome, that it also might be saved. He being inspired with a fatherly affection, taking my hand in the assembly of the brethren, said: I ordain this Clement, Bishop, to whom alone I commit the chair of my preaching and doctrine." And a little further on: "to him I deliver the power of binding and loosing which was delivered to me by the Lord." And as to the authority of this epistle, Damasus in the Pontifical, in the life of Clement, speaks of it thus: "In the letter which was written to James you will find how to Clement was the Church committed by Blessed Peter." And Rufinus, in the preface to the book of the Recognitions of S. Clement, speaks of it with great honour, and says that he had turned it into Latin, and that S. Clement bore witness in it to his own institution, and said "that S. Peter had left him as successor in his chair." This testimony shows us both that S. Peter preached at Rome and that he was Bishop there. For if he had not been Bishop how would he have delivered to S. Clement a chair which he would not have held there?
The second, S. Irenaeus (iii. 3): To the greatest and oldest and most famous Church, founded by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul." And a little further on: "The blessed Apostles therefore, founding and instituting the Church, delivered to Linus the office of administering it as Bishop; to him succeeded Anacletus; after him, in the third place from the Apostles, Clement receives the episcopate.
The third, Tertullian (de Pr. xxxii.) : "The Church also of the Romans publishes,"-that is, shows by public instruments and proofs-" that Clement was ordained by Peter." And in the same book (xxxvi.): "Happy Church, into which the Apostles poured with their blood their whole doctrine!" -and he speaks of the Roman Church, "where Peter's passion is made like to the Lord's." Whereby you see that S. Peter died at Rome and instituted S. Clement there. So that joining this testimony to the others, it is seen that he was Bishop there and died teaching there.
The fourth, S. Cyprian (Ep. 55, ad Corn.): "They dare to sail off to the chair of Peter, and to the head Church, whence the sacerdotal unity has come forth;" and he is speaking of the Roman Church.
Eusebius (Chron. ann. 44) : "Peter, by nation a Galilaean, the first pontiff of Christians, having first founded the Church of Antioch, proceeds to Rome, where, preaching the Gospel, he continues twenty-five years bishop of the same city."
Epiphanius (ii. 27) : "The succession of bishops at Rome is in this order; Peter and Paul, Linus, Cletus, Clement, &c."
Dorotheus (in Syn.) : " Linus was Bishop of Rome after the first ruler, Peter."
Optatus of Milevis (de Sch Don.) : "You cannot deny that you know that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was first intrusted to Peter, in which Peter, head of all the Apostles, sat." And a little further on: " Peter sat first, to whom succeeded Linus, to Linus succeeded Clement."
S. Jerome (ad Dam.): " With the successor of the fisherman and the disciple of the cross do I treat : I am united in communion with thy Blessedness, in the chair of Peter."
S. Augustine (Ep 53, ad Gen.): " To Peter succeeded Linus, to Linus Clement."
In the Fourth General Council of Chalcedon (Act. iii.), when the legates of the Holy See would deliver sentence against Dioscorus, they speak in this fashion: "Wherefore, most holy and blessed Leo, of the great and older Rome, by us and by the present holy. synod, together with the thrice blessed and ever to be praised Apostle Peter, who is the rock and the foundation of the Catholic Church, has stripped him of the episcopal dignity and also ejected him from the priestly ministry." Give a little attention to these particulars; that the Bishop of Rome alone deprives him, by his legates and by the Council; that they unite the Bishop of Rome with S. Peter. For such things show that the Bishop of Rome holds the place of S. Peter.
The Synod of Alexandria, at which Athanasius was present, in its letter to Felix II., uses remarkable words on this point, and amongst other things, relates that, in the Council of Nice it had been determined that it was not lawful to celebrate any Council without the consent of the Holy See of Rome, but that the 'canons which had been made to that effect had been burnt by the Arian heretics. And in fact, Julius I., in the Rescript against the Orientals in Favour of Athanasius (CC. 2, 3), cites two canons of the Council of Nice which relate to this matter, which work of Julius I. has been cited by Gratian, four hundred years ago, and by Isidore nine hundred: and the great Father, Vincent of Lerius, makes mention of it a thousand years back. I say this because all the canons of Nice are not in existence, only twenty remaining: but so many grave authors cite others beyond the twenty, that we are obliged to believe what is said by those good Fathers of Alexandria above-named, that the Arians have got the greater part destroyed. For God's sake let us cast our eyes on ancient and pure Church of the first six centuries, and regard it from all sides. And if we find it firmly believes that the Pope was successor of S. Peter, what rashness will it be to deny it?
This, methinks, is a reason which asks no credit, but pays in good coin. S. Peter has had successors in his vicarship: and who has ever in the ancient Church had the reputation of being successor of S. Peter, and head of the Church, except the Bishop of Rome? In truth all ancient authors, whosoever they be, all give this title to the Pope, and never to others.
And how then shall we say it does not belong to him ? Truly it were to deny the known truth. Or let them tell us what other bishop is the head of the Church, and successor of S. Peter. At the Council of Nice, at those of Constantinople and Chalcedon, it is not seen that any bishops usurp the primacy for himself: it is attributed, according to ancient custom, to the Pope; no other is named in equal degree. In short, never was it said, either certainly or doubtfully, of any bishop in the first five hundred years that he was head or superior over the rest, except of the Bishop of Rome; about him indeed it was never doubted, but was held as settled that he was such. On what ground, then, after fifteen hundred years passed, would one cast doubt on this ancient tradition? I should never end were I to try to catalogue all the assurances and repetitions of this truth which we have in the Ancients' writings: but this will suffice just now to prove that the Bishop of Rome is the successor of S. Peter, and that S. Peter was and died Bishop at Rome.
This is not supported by the scripture, for example,
the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.
... and again, the Church was authorized by Christ to "bind and loose" (Mt 16, 18).
But the issue on hand is even simpler: the concept of Sola Scriptura includes the tenet of perspicuity of the scripture, -- that is, the tenet that the scripture is sufficiently clear to allow only one interpretation. Yet time and time again, Protestants discount clear verses like the "bind and loose" one, or "by works a man is justified; and not by faith only", but would offer their own fantastic explanations for verses that perhaps indeed allow several interpretations.
If you prefer seeing the Greek alphabet without transliteration, you, and every other reader might need to install Greek fonts on their computer. However, a great translation tool is Unbound Bible where you can view several versions in parallel.
2 Tim 3:14-17Anything else?
[14] su de mene en hois emathes kai epistôthês, eidôs para tinôn emathes,
[15] kai hoti apo brephous hiera grammata oidas, ta dunamena se sophisai eis sôtêrian
[16] dia pisteôs tês en Christôi Iêsou: pasa graphê theopneustos kai ôphelimos pros didaskalian, pros elegmon, pros epanorthôsin,
[17] pros paideian tên en dikaiosunêi, hina artios êi ho tou theou anthrôpos, pros pan ergon agathon exêrtismenos.
(source)
14. But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
15. And because from thy infancy thou hast known the holy scriptures, which can instruct thee to salvation, by the faith which is in Christ Jesus.
16. All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, 17. That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work.
2 Tim 2:21
[21] kai ha men eis timên ha de eis atimian: ean oun tis ekkatharêi heauton apo toutôn, estai skeuos eis timên, hêgiasmenon, euchrêston tôi despotêi, eis pan ergon agathon hêtoimasmenon. tas de neôterikas epithumias pheuge,
(source)
21. If any man therefore shall cleanse himself from these, he shall be a vessel unto honour, sanctified and profitable to the Lord, prepared unto every good work.
Titus 3:8
[8] Pistos ho logos, kai peri toutôn boulomai se diabebaiousthai, hina phrontizôsin kalôn ergôn proïstasthai hoi pepisteukotes theôi. Tauta [9] estin kala kai ôphelima tois anthrôpois:
(source)
8. It is a faithful saying: and these things I will have thee affirm constantly: that they, who believe in God, may be careful to excel in good works. These things are good and profitable unto men.
James 1:4
[4] ... hê de hupomonê ergon teleion echetô, hina ête teleioi kai holoklêroi, en mêdeni leipomenoi.
(source)
4. And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing.
Col 4:12
aspazetai humas Epaphras ho ex humôn, doulos Christou Iêsou, pantote agônizomenos huper humôn en tais proseuchais, hina stathête teleioi kai peplêrophorêmenoi en panti thelêmati tou theou
(source)
12. Epaphras saluteth you, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, who is always solicitous for you in prayers, that you may stand perfect, and full in all the will of God.
Yes, he did later in life, but not for his work in sorting out the canon. At any rate, the issue you raised was whether anyone proposed the apocryphal acts as canonical, and as far as I can tell, no.
The formal canon was promulgated in the African councils in early 5c, correct. We were discussing to what extent certain apocryphal acts were cionsidered for canonicity, and I referred to the earlier period for that particular reason.
The Vatican's position does not consider the Living Magisterium of the Church infallible?
Now they are trying to say that some grave in Rome with the name "Peter" on it is proof of that legendary 25 year Petrine Bishopric in Rome with upside down crucifixion under Nero. They can't find anything in their sacred Fathers, from Ignatious, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Tacitus, or Josephus, or anyone. Now they have been reduced to citing gravestones as evidence. Maybe if they dug up the grave, it would be empty and then what?
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.