St. Peter and Rome

Catholic Exchange.com ^ | 11-15-04 | Amy Barragree

[Salvation]

St. Peter and Rome

11/15/04

Dear Catholic Exchange:

Why did St. Peter establish the Church in Rome?

Ed

Dear Ed,

Peace in Christ!

We do not know why Peter went to Rome. The Church has always maintained, based on historical evidence, that Peter went to Rome, but has never taught why this happened. In speculating on this matter, there are two primary considerations.

First, at the time of Jesus and the early Church, the Roman Empire controlled the lands around the Mediterranean, a large portion of what is now Europe, and most of what is now called the Middle East. Rome was one of the biggest, most influential cities in the Western world. It was the center of political authority, economic progress, cultural expression, and many other aspects of life in the Roman Empire. This may have played a role in Peter’s decision to go to Rome.

Second, Jesus promised the Apostles that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide them. Scripture shows Peter following the promptings of the Holy Spirit throughout his ministry. It somehow fits into God’s providence and eternal plan that His Church be established in Rome. Peter may have gone to Rome for no other reason than that is where the Holy Spirit wanted him.

Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.

Among these was St. Irenæus of Lyons, a disciple of St. Polycarp who had received the Gospel from the Apostle St. John. Near the end of his life St. Irenæus mentioned, in his work Against Heresies (c. A.D. 180-199), the work of Peter and Paul in Rome:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Book 3, Chapter 1, verse 1).

The African theologian Tertullian tells us that Peter and Paul both died in Rome in Demurrer Against the Heretics (c. A.D. 200):

Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each.... [I]f you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority [i.e., in Carthage] derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [i.e., the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.

Tertullian was certainly not the only ancient author who testified that Peter was crucified in Rome. An ancient, orthodox historical text known as the "Acts of Saints Peter and Paul" elaborates on the preaching and martyrdom of the two Apostles in Rome. The dating of this document is difficult, but historians cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia placed its probable origins between A.D. 150-250.

One of the earliest thorough histories of the Church was Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea’s Ecclesiastical History. Most of this work was written before Constantine became emperor in A.D. 324, and some portions were added afterward. Eusebius quotes many previous historical documents regarding Peter and Paul’s travels and martyrdom in Rome, including excellent excerpts from ancient documents now lost, like Presbyter Gaius of Rome’s "Disputation with Proclus" (c. A.D. 198-217) and Bishop Dionysius of Corinth’s "Letter to Soter of Rome" (c. A.D. 166-174). Penguin Books publishes a very accessible paperback edition of Eusebius’s history of the Church, and most libraries will probably own a copy as well.

For more ancient accounts of Peter’s presence in Rome, see the writings of the Church Fathers, which are published in various collections. Jurgens’s Faith of the Early Fathers, volumes 1-3, contains a collection of patristic excerpts with a topical index which apologists find very useful (Liturgical Press). Hendrickson Publishers and Paulist Press both publish multi-volume hardcover editions of the works of the Church Fathers. Penguin Books and St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press publish a few works of the Fathers in relatively inexpensive paperback editions.

More treatments of Petrine questions may be found in Stephen K. Ray’s Upon This Rock (Ignatius); Jesus, Peter, & the Keys by Butler, Dahlgren, and Hess (Queenship); Patrick Madrid’s Pope Fiction (Basilica); and in the Catholic Answers tracts “Was Peter In Rome?” and “The Fathers Know Best: Peter In Rome.”

Please feel free to call us at 1-800-MY FAITH or email us with any further questions on this or any other subject. If you have found this information to be helpful, please consider a donation to CUF to help sustain this service. You can call the toll-free line, visit us at www.cuf.org, or send your contribution to the address below. Thank you for your support as we endeavor to “support, defend, and advance the efforts of the teaching Church.”

United in the Faith,

Amy Barragree
Information Specialist
Catholics United for the Faith
827 North Fourth Street
Steubenville, OH 43952
800-MY-FAITH (800-693-2484)

---

Editor's Note: To submit a faith question to Catholic Exchange, email faithquestions@catholicexchange.com. Please note that all email submitted to Catholic Exchange becomes the property of Catholic Exchange and may be published in this space. Published letters may be edited for length and clarity. Names and cities of letter writers may also be published. Email addresses of viewers will not normally be published.

[wmfights]

"Maybe if they dug up the grave, it would be empty and then what?"
________________________

The grave issue is really not indicative of anything. We don't know whose bones those might be, or how they got there. How many churches claimed to have pieces of wood from the cross Jesus Christ was crucified on?

What I find irritating is the lack of reason and credible evidence with the opposing view. I especially appreciate the compelling case that is made from Scripture.

[Uncle Chip]

It is quite instructive that with all the resources that they have available and have had for centuries, they can't come up with something credible. They are going to trust their eternal salvation to a gravemarker?. How many of those have been forged over the years?. My goodness.

It has all been a bluff, and everyone watching this is seeing it play out right before their eyes.

[annalex]

With apologies to stfassisi for mangling his very clear post, -- in an effort to please William.

2 Tim. 3:14 - Protestants usually use 2 Tim. 3:16-17 to prove that the Bible is the sole authority of God's word. But examining these texts disproves their claim. Here, Paul appeals to apostolic tradition right before the Protestants' often quoted verse 2 Tim. 3:16-17. Thus, there is an appeal to tradition before there is an appeal to the Scriptures, and Protestants generally ignore this fact.

But continue thou in those things which thou hast learned, and which have been committed to thee: knowing of whom thou hast learned them; (2 Tim 3:14)

2 Tim. 3:15 - Paul then appeals to the sacred writings of Scripture referring to the Old Testament Scriptures with which Timothy was raised (not the New Testament which was not even compiled at the time of Paul's teaching). This verse also proves that one can come to faith in Jesus Christ without the New Testament.

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. (2 Tim 3:15)

2 Tim. 3:16 - this verse says that Scripture is "profitable" for every good work, but not exclusive. The word "profitable" is "ophelimos" in Greek. "Ophelimos" only means useful, which underscores that Scripture is not mandatory or exclusive. Protestants unbiblically argue that profitable means exclusive.

2 Tim. 3:16 - further, the verse "all Scripture" uses the words "pasa graphe" which actually means every (not all) Scripture. This means every passage of Scripture is useful. Thus, the erroneous Protestant reading of "pasa graphe" would mean every single passage of Scripture is exclusive. This would mean Christians could not only use "sola Matthew," or "sola Mark," but could rely on one single verse from a Gospel as the exclusive authority of God's word. This, of course, is not true and even Protestants would agree. Also, "pasa graphe" cannot mean "all of Scripture" because there was no New Testament canon to which Paul could have been referring, unless Protestants argue that the New Testament is not being included by Paul.

2 Tim. 3:16 - also, these inspired Old Testament Scriptures Paul is referring to included the deuterocanonical books which the Protestants removed from the Bible 1,500 years later.

All scripture, inspired of God, is profitable to teach, to reprove, to correct, to instruct in justice, (2 Tim 3:16)

2 Tim. 3:17 - Paul's reference to the "man of God" who may be complete refers to a clergyman, not a layman. It is an instruction to a bishop of the Church. So, although Protestants use it to prove their case, the passage is not even relevant to most of the faithful.

2 Tim. 3:17 - further, Paul's use of the word "complete" for every good work is "artios" which simply means the clergy is "suitable" or "fit." Also, artios does not describe the Scriptures, it describes the clergyman. So, Protestants cannot use this verse to argue the Scriptures are complete.

That the man of God may be perfect, furnished to every good work. (2 Tim 3:17)

James 1:4 - steadfastness also makes a man "perfect (teleioi) and complete (holoklepoi), lacking nothing." This verse is important because "teleioi"and "holoklepoi" are much stronger words than "artios," but Protestants do not argue that steadfastness is all one needs to be a Christian.

[stfassisi should have said "holokleroi"]

And patience hath a perfect work; that you may be perfect and entire, failing in nothing. (James 1:4)

Titus 3:8 - good deeds are also "profitable" to men. For Protestants especially, profitable cannot mean "exclusive" here.

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. (Titus 3:8)

2 Tim 2:21- purity is also profitable for "any good work" ("pan ergon agathon"). This wording is the same as 2 Tim. 3:17, which shows that the Scriptures are not exclusive, and that other things (good deeds and purity) are also profitable to men.

[It should be noted that the words for "profitable" and "prepared" in 2 Tim 2 are different, but indeed, "unto every good work" is identical]

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.

Col. 4:12 - prayer also makes men "fully assured." No where does Scripture say the Christian faith is based solely on a book.

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.

2 Tim. 3:16-17 - Finally, if these verses really mean that Paul was teaching sola Scriptura to the early Church, then why in 1 Thess. 2:13 does Paul teach that he is giving Revelation from God orally? Either Paul is contradicting his own teaching on sola Scriptura, or Paul was not teaching sola Scriptura in 2 Tim. 3:16-17. This is a critical point which Protestants cannot reconcile with their sola Scriptura position.

Therefore, we also give thanks to God without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God, you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God, who worketh in you that have believed.

Is this better, or would there be anything else?

[annalex]

Yes, there were several councils in Africa, last in Carthage AD 419, all affirming the same canon. The Epistle to the Hebrews was causing the contention that time.

I am usually forced to argue that the Catholic Canon is substantially older than Trent, so I use the last council where it was reaffirmed in the antiquity, Carthage 419, but you are correct that for the practical purposes late 4th century is when it was.

[OLD REGGIE]

Cortinth is not in Roman bishopric. The letter is a demand, not an advice. Have you read it? The papal supremacy is likened there to Aaron pulling the larger stick from among the 12 tribal priests.

Yes, I have read it, every word. Have you?

First Chapter - first paragraph: The Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God sojourning at Corinth,

No demand. Not a demand at all. It was beseeching if anything.

[Diego1618]

Also it appears that Paul wrote his letter to the Romans in 57 AD from Corinth. Was it after that letter that he went back to Jerusalem, was arrested, and sent to Rome?

Yes....Paul arrived in Jerusalem [Acts 21:17] after returning from his third missionary journey. His arrest had been foretold [Acts 21:10-12] and his presence in Jerusalem caused a stir [27-40]. He appears before the crowd and with permission from the commander explains his case. The commander's entire demeanor changes when he learns of Paul's Roman citizenship [Acts 22:26-29].

Paul then appears before the Sanhedrin and a plot develops to kill him but the commander, knowing Paul to be a Roman citizen, called two of his Centurions [Acts 23:23] and a detachment of 200 soldiers....seventy horsemen...and 200 spear men to escort Paul to Caesarea! Not only does he get an escort fit for a king....but gets horses(plural) to ride along the way. Being a Roman counted for something!

On to the Governor (Felix) and Paul is then kept under guard in Herod's palace [Acts 23:35]. The trial before Felix begins and Paul again states his case. This goes on and on and on....two years pass [Acts 24:27]! it is now about 59 A.D. and Paul meets the new Governor, Porcius Festus. Festus learns of the details of the case, has Paul brought before him [Acts 25:6] gives Paul the option of a trial in Jerusalem and Paul makes his appeal to Caesar's court and Festus obliges (verse 12).

Paul appears before King Agrippa after the King had discussed Paul's case with Festus. Agrippa makes his profound statement in [Acts 26:32] "This man could have been set free....if he had not appealed to Caesar." Little did King Agrippa know that both God and Paul wanted Paul to go to Rome [Acts 19:21]. It is late 59 A.D./ early 60 A.D.

After many perils on the voyage to Rome (shipwreck etc.) he finally arrives in Rome [Acts 28:14-16] where he meets some Christians who have come to greet him....some Jewish elders who have not heard much about this new sect [verses 15-22], want to hear more....some believe and others don't. He preaches the gospel from his own home unhindered [Acts 28:30-31], writes four maybe six epistles and finally is released after two years. It is now 62 A.D. and he has not spoken of..... or seen Peter since the Jerusalem council 49 A.D.

During the first imprisonment (60/62 A.D.) evidently Timothy was with him [Hebrews 13:23] as he salutes everyone jointly with Timothy in Philippians 1:1 but during the second he writes to Timothy, telling him to go get Mark and bring to him his scrolls and parchments. He evidently had left them at Troas during his arrest and subsequent second Roman imprisonment, having no time to collect his personal belongings. In [2 Timothy 1:4] he recalls Timothy's tears....probably as he is being dragged off by Roman soldiers. The second imprisonment is thought to be about four years later (66 A.D.)

[annalex]

No demand. Not a demand at all

CHAPTER 57 -- LET THE AUTHORS OF SEDITION SUBMIT THEMSELVES.

Ye therefore, who laid the foundation of this sedition, submit yourselves to the presbyters, and receive correction so as to repent, bending the knees of your hearts. Learn to be subject, laying aside the proud and arrogant self-confidence of your tongue. For it is better for you that you should occupy a humble but honourable place in the flock of Christ, than that, being highly exalted, you should be cast out from the hope of His people.

Aliska found it for me. She thinks it is depressing. Maybe you can cheer her up?

[OLD REGGIE]

I may have missed it and if so I apologize but I think you could save much bandwidth if you simply linked to your source. stfassisi's arguments - here

[stfassisi]

Dear friend, Sorry for the late response,I,m very busy this week.
If you,re interested Perhaps you can TRY and grasp Covenants first ,then I can help show you how Typology is used in the Bible.

From Scott Hahn

Let's start with the word. Covenant comes from the Latin word, convenire ("to come together" or "to agree").

Today, we use the word "covenant" almost interchangeably with the word "contract."

But that's very misleading when we try to compare our notion of contract with the biblical notions of "covenant" expressed by the Hebrew word berith and the Greek word diatheke.

The difference between covenant and contract in the Old Testament and throughout the Bible is profound. It's so profound that we could almost say that it's the difference between prostitution (contract) and marriage (covenant). Or between owning a slave (contract) and having a son (covenant.)

There are two big differences between our notion of contract and the biblical notion of covenant.

First, contracts involve promises, covenants involve oaths.

When you enter into a contract, say, to buy a house, you make a promise to the seller, along the lines of: "I give you my word that I will pay you this amount of money for your house." The seller, in turn, makes a promise: "I give you my word that if you pay me the sum we have agreed upon, I will turn over to you the deed to my house."

The "word" you each pledge to the other is your name. And you each sign your name on the contract as a "sign" that you'll uphold your end of the bargain or keep your promise.

Covenants are much different. In a covenant, you elevate and upgrade your promise. Not only do you give your word, you also swear an oath, invoke a higher authority - you call God in as your witness.

Think of the oath we're most familiar with, the oath you swear before taking the witness stand in a courtroom: "I promise to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help me God."

You've promised, given your word to tell the truth. You've also asked God to help you keep your promise. It's not only you and the judge now. It's you, the judge and God. Now, if you lie under oath, you're not only liable to go to jail, you're liable to be punished by God. The flip side of asking for God's help in an oath is surrendering yourself to God's judgment. You say, in effect, "I'll be damned if I don't tell the truth."

In the old days, we used to have politicians swear on the Bible and the Bible would be opened to the Book of Deuteronomy, Chapter 28, where the blessings and the curses are recorded. We were asking them to swear to uphold the constitution or suffer the curses recorded in those pages.

Even in our highly secularized society, we retain elements of this older understanding of oaths. We make doctors, police officers, military personnel and public officials swear oaths. Why? Because we depend on them; we literally put our lives in their hands. We want them to swear to God that they'll do their jobs. We can't just take their word for it, we want them to know that they'll have to answer to a higher authority.

Incidentally, did you know that the word "oath" translates the Latin word sacramentum, where we get our word "sacraments"? In a future course, we'll look sacraments as oaths. But for now, just keep in mind, as we mentioned earlier, that the notion of covenant and oaths is crucial to understanding the sacraments and our relationship with God.

The second big difference between contracts and covenants is this: contracts exchange property, covenants exchange persons.

Contracts involve you promising to pay a certain sum of money and the person you're contracting with to deliver you a certain product or service.

Covenants are much different. When people enter into a covenant, they say: "I am yours and you are mine." In a contract, you exchange something you have - a skill, a piece of property, money. In a covenant you exchange your very being, you give your very self to another person.

Marriage is a covenant. The man swears an oath to the woman, "I'm yours forever." The woman swears an oath to the man, "I'm yours forever."

b. The Meaning of Covenant in the Bible

Now we're ready to see what how covenants function in the Bible.

We have examples of covenant-making throughout the ancient world. And there are some similarities between the kinds of covenants that, for instance, the ancient Hittites and others made and the covenants we find in the Bible.

You'll find for instance, that ancient covenants take a certain form: There's a kind of preamble that introduces the covenant, followed by a historical review of the relationship between the two parties; then a series of stipulations that spell out the obligations of the parties, along with a list of blessings and curses for upholding or breaking the covenant. Usually, the covenant is "ratified" in a solemn ceremony that involves a reading of the covenant document and eating and drinking. (If you want a very detailed analysis, try "The Meaning of Covenant" in the SalvationHistory.com Scripture Library.)

We want to focus here, not so much on how covenants are made, but what God is doing in making the covenants we find in the Bible.

What's God up to in making these covenants? He is forging sacred kinship bonds. He is saying to His people, "I will be their God and they shall be My people...I will be a Father to you and you shall be sons and daughters to Me" (see 2 Corinthians 6:16).

By His covenants, God is taking the "creatures" He made and raising them to the status of divine offspring, divine children. By His covenants, the Creator is fathering a family. The human race is being transformed from something physical and natural into something spiritual and supernatural. Humans are being changed from merely a species sharing common traits and characteristics into a divine brotherhood and sisterhood, a family of God.

The story line and the drama of the Bible all plays out against this backdrop of divine family-making.

The Bible begins with God's covenant with Adam and Eve (although the word covenant isn't used, as we'll see next week). By the final pages of the Bible, we see that the New Covenant He made in Jesus has embraced the entire world.

Remember all those details of the Bible that seemed so hard to figure out - the laws and commandments, the ritual rules; the oaths that God swears to His people and His people swear to Him; the historical episodes of sin and betrayal and repentance and forgiveness; the punishments and deliverance; the psalms and wisdom teachings, the prophecies of a new and final covenant redemption?

They all make sense when you understand them as part of God's divine plan to make all men and women into His sons and daughters through the covenants, which are all summed up in the New Covenant, where God sends us "a Spirit of adoption, through which we can cry, Abba, 'Father!'" (see Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5; Ephesians 1:5).



God makes six major Covenants in the Bible

1. Adam and Eve (Genesis 1:26-2:3)
2. Noah and his family (Genesis 9:8-17)
3. Abraham and his descendants (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1-14; 22:16-18)
4. Moses and the Israelites (Exodus 19:5-6; 3:4-10; 6:7)
5. David and the Kingdom of Israel (2 Samuel 7:8-19)
6. Jesus and the Church (Matthew 26:28; 16:17-19)

It's important to know these covenants well - what God promises and what is required of those who enter into the covenants.

b. The Character of the Biblical Covenants

Now we'll highlight some of the special characteristics of each of these covenants.

* the covenant mediator (the person God makes the covenant with) and his covenant role (whom the mediator represents);

* the blessings promises in the covenant;

* the conditions (or curses) of the covenant;

* the "sign" by which the covenant will be celebrated and remembered.

* the "form" that God's family as a result of the covenant.

The Covenant with Adam (Genesis 1:26-2:3)
The word "covenant" isn't used, but as we'll see in detail in our next lesson, the story of Adam and Eve is told in "covenantal" language. Adam is the covenant mediator in his role as husband. God promises blessings - that their union will be fruitful and their offspring will fill the earth and rule over it. God establishes a sign by which the covenant will be remembered and celebrated - the Sabbath, the seventh day of rest.

And God imposes one condition that they must keep to fulfill their obligation under the covenant - that they not eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. And God attaches a curse for disobedience - that they will surely die. By this covenant, God's family assumes the form of the marriage bond between husband and wife.

The Covenant with Noah (Genesis 9:8-17)
The word "covenant" is used in the case of Noah, as God promises never again to destroy the world by flood. The covenant is made with all humanity, through the mediator, Noah, in his role as the father of his family.

The covenant includes blessings to Noah and his family (that they will be fruitful and fill the earth) and conditions that must be obeyed (not to drink the blood of any animals, not to shed human blood). The sign of the covenant is the rainbow in the sky. By this covenant, God's people assumes the form of a domestic household, an extended family.

The Covenant with Abraham (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1-14; 22:16-18)
God makes God swears to give Abraham a great land and to bless his descendants, who will become a great nation. God makes the covenant with the mediator Abraham in his representative role as chieftain. God promises the blessings of land and great nationhood for his descendants, and through them to bless all the nations of the earth.

The sign of the covenant is the mark of circumcision. Circumcision is also the condition that Abraham and his descendants must obey in order to keep the covenant. By this covenant, God's family is takes a "tribal" form.

The Covenant with Moses (Exodus 19:5-6; 3:4-10; 6:7)
By this covenant, made with the mediator Moses in his representative role as the judge and liberator of Israel, God swears to be Israel's God and Israel swears to worship no other but the Lord God alone. The blessings promised are that they will be God's precious and chosen people.

The conditions of the covenant are that they must keep God's Law and commandments.
The covenant sign is the Passover, which each year commemorates Israel's birth as a nation. By this covenant, God's family assumes the form of a "holy nation, a kingdom of priests."

The Covenant with David (2 Samuel 7:8-19)
God promises to establish the mediator David's "house" or kingdom forever, through David's heir, who will also build a temple to God's name. To David in his role as king, God promises to make David's son His son, to punish him if he does wrong but never take away his royal throne.

"Your house and you kingdom shall endure forever" and through the blessings of this kingdom God promises to give wisdom to all the nations. The sign of the covenant will be the throne and Temple to be built by David's son, Solomon. By this covenant, God's family grows to take the form of a royal empire, a national kingdom.

The New Covenant of Jesus (Matthew 26:28; 16:17-19)
The sixth and final covenant made by the mediator Jesus, who by His Cross and Resurrection assumes the role of royal high priest and fulfills all the promises God made in the previous covenants.

The prophets, especially Isaiah and Jeremiah, had taught Israel to hope for a Messiah who would bring "a new covenant," through which God's law would be written on men's and women's hearts (see Jeremiah 31:31-34; Hebrews 8:8-12).

The conditions of the covenant are that men and women believe in Jesus, be baptized, eat and drink His flesh and blood in the Eucharist, and live by all that He taught. The Eucharist is the sign of the New Covenant. By this covenant, God establishes His family in is final form as a universal (katholicos or 'catholic' in Greek) worldwide kingdom, which Jesus calls His Church.

[stfassisi]

Thank you,
Its a great site and saves me lots of time.
I,m not into the PRIDE thing Dear Friend.

[Lil Flower]

search for those Keys apparently given to Peter

Matthew 16:17-19 "Blessed are you,Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of Heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven."

Apparently given to Peter? Really?

Both sides will agree that Scripture is superior

Interesting.....

[annalex]

Ah, yes.

In general, ScriptureCatholic is a very good resource against the Protestant superstitions.

[Aliska]

No, no, no. I didn't find that depressing. It's something else. Please, don't try to cheer me up, nobody can do anything about it.

[stfassisi]

We don,t have to look long and hard for scriptural interpretations. The choice is clear- One Church and 2000 years of clear interpretations VS 40,000 plus denominations and thousands of interpretations.
Answer is- 1 Holy Spirit NOT 40,000 Holy Spirits

[OLD REGGIE]

Aliska found it for me. She thinks it is depressing. Maybe you can cheer her up?

Sorry, I'd like to but I'm afraid it wasn't a "demand letter" from a Supreme Pontiff.

[annalex]

LET THE AUTHORS OF SEDITION SUBMIT THEMSELVES, etc., doesn't look like a demand letter to you?

How would a Biblical Unitarian pope word it?

[stfassisi]

I'm a member of a church based on bible scripture that originated out of Antioch Syria

Please tell us All what Church is this?

[stfassisi]

My guess is you,re a Maronite?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09683c.htm

[wmfights]

"...but you are correct that for the practical purposes late 4th century is when it was."
________________________________

Hey, we agree on something! ;-)

I think Athansius must have been something else. He was also prominent at the Nicene Council.

[HarleyD]

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.

Excuse me. I forgot. I thought you guys once made an BIG error from the Chair of Peter with the "paying for indulgences to get people out of purgatory" thingy, but perhaps that was a honest mistake instead. Oh well, it all boils down to the meaning of "infallible" I suppose. Let's sweep this under the rug.