Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Uncle Chip
Justin and Irenaeus have more to say about the facts of Simon Magus's bishopric in Rome than they do anything about that foolishness of Peter's mythical bishopric there.

Irenaeus says flatly that Peter and Paul established the church at Rome.

Do I really need to post the quote again?

327 posted on 12/17/2006 4:37:02 PM PST by Campion ("I am so tired of you, liberal church in America" -- Mother Angelica, 1993)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 216 | View Replies ]


To: Campion
Irenaeus says flatly that Peter and Paul established the church at Rome. Do I really need to post the quote again?

No, but I am clearly not the only one who doesn't believe Irenaeus on this point and neither do honest Catholic scholars like Richard P. McBrien who writes in Lives of the Popes: The Pontiffs from St Peter to Benedict XVI:

"Although Catholic Tradition, beginning in the late second and third centuries, regards St. Peter as the first bishop of Rome, and therefore, as the first pope, there is no evidence that Peter was involved in the initial establishment of the Christian community in Rome (indeed what evidence there is would seem to point in the opposite direction) or that he served as Rome's first bishop . . . He often shared his position of prominence with James and John . . . However, there is no evidence that before his death Peter actually served the Church of Rome as its first bishop, even though the "fact" is usually taken for granted by a wide spectrum of Catholics and others." [Harper, S.F. 2005, pp 25,29]

353 posted on 12/18/2006 3:35:26 AM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 327 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson