Replies

*St. Clement was a friend of St. Paul, as mentioned in Philippians 4:3:" “And I intreat thee also, true yokefellow, help those women which laboured with me in the gospel, with Clement also, and with other my fellowlabourers, whose names are in the book of life.” Clement went to Rome with Paul and was ordained a Bishop by Peter. According to Tertullian, Linus became Bishop of Rome after Peter was martyred, then Cletus became Bishop of Rome. When Cletus died in about 91 AD, Clement was made Bishop of Rome. He was, therefore, the fourth Pope.

But what does this prove??? How do we know this is the same Clement Paul referred to???

All we really know is that your church claims to have some letters, or copies of letters said to have been written centuries ago by 'your church fathers'...There's no proof that these letters weren't written much later by who knows who...

There are two sets of the same letters by Ignatius...One talks about the Catholic church and one doesn't...Curious, eh???

***You will also note that St. Cyprian says the “primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair.”

**You will note that St. Irenaeus wrote - in AD 190 - concerning “the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles.” So, from earliest Christianity, the Church at Rome was seen to have primacy.

You guys would be in a heap of hurt if it was proven that Peter was never in Rome...Irenaeus here seems to put Peter and Paul as equals...And since supposedly Peter and Paul were both in Rome, and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentile church, why was not Paul in the apostolic succession...He should have been the 2nd pope...And John the 3rd...What's up with that???

I could use the same argument on you and challenge you to prove the Scriptures are valid. We believe the Scriptures are valid because we trust - in my case the Catholic Church, because it was the entity which decided, at the Council of Hippo in 393 AD, the First Council of Carthage in 397 AD, and the Second Council of Carthage in 419 AD, which books and letters being circulated would be included in the Canon. Who tells you which books are sacred and do you trust that the authors are who you think they are?

You guys would be in a heap of hurt if it was proven that Peter was never in Rome...Irenaeus here seems to put Peter and Paul as equals...And since supposedly Peter and Paul were both in Rome, and Paul was the Apostle to the Gentile church, why was not Paul in the apostolic succession...He should have been the 2nd pope...And John the 3rd...What's up with that???

Aha. Just what we've been saying. The only justification that you can possibly have for not being Catholic is to prove that its basis is false. You cannot prove that your basis is correct, we've adequate testimony to that. So, you are reduced to attacking us. Possibly somewhere in here, a little voice will get through to you. We're not the enemy. We are the Church of Christ. We really really want you to come home, oh prodigal one.