Posted on 03/04/2007 8:21:23 AM PST by Iscool
Isn't it true that the first time that we hear about this legendary Petrine Bishopric is when Eusebius invents it out of whole papyrus in the 4th century and from Eusebius the legend grew?
One would think that every writer of Roman history from Josephus to Tacitus to Clement of Rome to Justin Martyr to Irenaeus to Hippolytus --- all of whom should have provided atleast some detail regarding such a legendary Bishopric. But they have nothing to say about it at all. Isn't it true that it never happened as even Catholic authors have stepped forward to now admit.
Actually, the first conversion was as the result of the ministry of St. Peter.
In the verse you cited from Acts 9, Saul had just gotten healed by Annanias. Paul did not begin his ministry to the Gentiles until Acts 13 (Acts 13:2 While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.").
In fact, Peter received a vision from God in Acts 10:10-16. He then had his encounter with Cornelius (Acts 10:17-48). He then shared what had happened in Joppa with the Church in Jerusalem...When they heard this they were silenced. And they glorified God, saying, "Then to the Gentiles also God has granted repentance unto life." (Acts 11:18). The point is that had this not happened, it is very unlikely that Saul (who became known as Paul in Acts 13), would have ever ministered to any Gentiles.
There was a early Bishopric in Rome....and I know you are very aware of it's namesake. He was also called Simon....Simon Magus [Acts 8:9-24].....or "Simon Pater" as he became known.
What is simply amazing is that these Romans we deal with on these threads everyday do not think anyone else knows about it!
LOL!
She's not going to answer until you stop beating your wife ...
Personally I don't know. Why do you say "invent". Is there evidence to the contrary or what? I mean real evidence, not Dan Brown evidence.
If you work for salvation, you are telling Jesus that he owes you something for your good works. I tell him thank you for his gift by faith because he paid my debt for me.
I highly doubt that there is any Catholic here who would say that they are saved by works. If there is one, that one doesn't know his catechism very well.
The fundamental difference is that we Catholics say that we are saved by grace. Most Protestants say that they are saved by faith. There is a difference.
God gives us the saving grace (He calls us). We respond sacramentally by being baptized. The Holy Spirit works in us, we respond. But it is initially by grace.
Phil 2:12 Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, so now, not only as in my presence but much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling;
Note what that verse says: work out your own salvation.
But, in order to comprehend the relationship, you see the next verse:
Phil 2:13 for God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.
God works within you (v13). You then cooperate with God (v12) to "work out your own salvation."
This cooperation is a necessary thing, as God gives us all free will.
Consider what St. Paul said to the Church in Corinth: For we are God's fellow workers (1 Cr 3:9)
There are many, many times where Christians are called, in scripture, to do something. Walk by the Spirit, mortify the flesh, confess sins, and so on. The Holy Spirit gives us the grace to desire that; we cooperate through taking the appropriate actions, and we grow in grace (See 1 Pet 3:18).
But your consistent implication that Catholics believe that we are saved by works sounds like a broken record. Catholics do not believe we are saved by works. We do believe we are saved by grace.
Okay. I appreciate the hostile witness thing, but isn't (see? notice the leading question?) it going a bit far to expect Tacitus to say anything about whether Peter was there or not? I mean it's been a few decades, but I don't recall that kind of detailed interest on his part.
Similarly for Josephus. I'm not syaing they didn't I'm just saying that I don't see them taking that detailed an interest. It's a new idea to me. And, on the off-chance that my perception is not unreasonable, the ommission would not be remarkable.
I think maybe you dropped a clause in our last paragraph, but in any event, THIS particular one would not thing what you say one would think.
Isn't it true that it never happened as even Catholic authors have stepped forward to now admit.
I don't do history much, but I'd be interested in some names/sources here if it wouldn't be a nuisance.
I don't know why it is, but a lot of those who disagree with us don't seem interested in what we actually teach and think. They just know it's wrong, whatever it is.
On the other thread that would not die I said repeatedly,"Grace is a gift, merit is a gift. it's ALL gift!" Here I have made the analogy of the child who buys her father a birthday present which He doesn't need and uses his money to buy it AND gets him to drive her to the store.
I don't know how to make it clearer. And even if the point should be made on this thread, in a few days there will be another thread asserting as a matter of common knowledge that Catholics think they can buy their way out of hell fire and into God's good graces.
The resolutely uninformed and persistent nature of the attacks lends credence to my hunch that our interlocutors are victims of the father of lies.
bookmark
I think it has all become something akin to a mantra.
Saying the same thing over and over and over. This coupled with ignoring of any reasonably argued position to refute the mantra.
Now I know now why a priest once told me that hearing and listening were two different ways of receiving. Listening trumps it every time.
Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.1.1 (189 AD)
2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.
3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spoke with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.
Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 3.2.2-3 (189 AD)
For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter.
Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics, 32 (200 AD)
Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood! where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's! where Paul wins his crown in a death like John's where the Apostle John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil, and thence remitted to his island-exile!
Tertullian, The Prescription against Heretics, 36 (200 AD)
Then both Peter and Paul were led away from the presence of Nero. And Paul was beheaded on the Ostesian road.
And Peter, having come to the cross, said: Since my Lord Jesus Christ, who came down from the heaven upon the earth, was raised upon the cross upright, and He has deigned to call to heaven me, who am of the earth, my cross ought to be fixed head down most, so as to direct my feet towards heaven; for I am not worthy to be crucified like my Lord. Then, having reversed the cross, they nailed his feet up.
Acts of Peter and Paul, (200 AD)
"Marcus, my son, salutes you." Mark, the follower of Peter, while Peter publicly preached the Gospel at Rome before some of Cæsar's equites, and adduced many testimonies to Christ, in order that thereby they might be able to commit to memory what was spoken, of what was spoken by Peter, wrote entirely what is called the Gospel according to Mark. As Luke also may be recognised by the style, both to have composed the Acts of the Apostles, and to have translated Paul's Epistle to the Hebrews.
Clement of Alexandria, Fragment of Cassiodorus
All of the above are considerably older than Eusebius' History.
Hope that helps!
Peter's encounter was meant to show Peter that God was now going to save gentiles. Peter was the minister of the circumcision.
Gal 2:7 But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as [the gospel] of the circumcision [was] unto Peter;
Gal 2:8 (For he that wrought effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles:)
Gal 2:9 And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we [should go] unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Mercy! This thread is still here?
I say "invent" because when you look at where and when it begins to grow it does so from the pen of Eusebius in the 4th century.
And he provides no citations for anything that he proclaims. He just says it as if by saying it it should then just become true. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia admits that what he says on this matter cannot be trusted, but it was trusted for 1500 years by gullible church goers .
Is there evidence to the contrary or what? I mean real evidence, not Dan Brown evidence.
Sure, there is plenty of evidence. It is called "silence". Historians and early church fathers cannot testify against something that never happened and was never asserted until 200 years after their death. They just don't report on it because there was nothing to report on.
No details are ever provided by those who should have said something. Luke was there in Rome circa 60 AD and he says nothing about Peter being there, nor does Josephus, Tacitus, Justin Martyr, Clement of Rome, Hippolytus --- all those who should have said something as they wrote from Rome and about Rome and to Romans.
Where is there a record of Peter's decrees from that famous sacerdotal chair --- there are none. Weren't his words important enough to record? Or maybe he was silent for all those years and had nothing to say. And he must also have done nothing during all that time in Rome as well, because even the ante-Nicene writers provide no details of this supposed magnificent Bishopric --- only that he was there, according to them. And even of that they provide no details as if they themselves are not really sure.
Evidently we have not debunked all the falsehoods in the article enough!
Grace is unmerited favor. That means that you can't do anything for it. We have received a pardon from the God of creation. When a criminal is pardoned, it doesn't mean that he didn't do the crime. He is just not going to be punished for it. That is grace. The grace you speak of is not grace at all.
I don't say you think you can buy your way out but you are trying to work your way in. What would you think if you bought a gift for someone and when you gave it to the person someone came up and said, look what we have given you. They are trying to take some of the credit away from the giver of the gift and they had nothing to do with it. That's what you are doing. You are taking a partial credit for Jesus' gift but you can't.
Try opening your Bible. It's called 1 Peter and 2 Peter.
Hey, that's how I buy presents for hubby!
And when the new Catechism, and the corrected version, were published I assume you read each of them cover to cover. Further, I assume you represent the universe of Catholics.
Why the sarcasm? I was a young child when the Catechism first came out. I have read the most current version of the Catechism. And yes - I did read it cover to cover. And you weren't asking about the whole universe, I was giving you my experience and never represented anything more.
Jesus also extended his minitry to the Gentiles. I'm not understanding why you say He only ministered to the Jews.
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.