Posted on 01/31/2008 5:45:17 PM PST by Manfred the Wonder Dawg
And this illustrates why the "traditional" Protestant practice of yanking verses out of context is ridiculous. The Bible is NOT completely consistent. And it was never intended to be, except on matters of doctrine (and you Protestants manage to confuse the issue on THAT, too).
The truth is -that Saint Peter being in Rome was completely agreed upon until the Reformation
This coupled with the fact that the eastern Churches would have used mass propaganda against the west during the schism if there was even a shred of evidence that Peter was never in Rome , once again this shows us that the reformers were not grounded in truth.
And just who agreed upon it. For centuries the magisterium declared that the evidence of Peter's 25 year episcopacy in Rome was so settled in history as to be indisputable, until it turned out to be all made up out of whole cloth by Jerome and Eusebius. I was raised on that myth but now the Vatican has backed way off of it, to such an extent that all it is left with is "that Peter was in Rome, once upon a time" ---
Well -- whoopy doo. So you build your church on a one- time visit??? If that is the case then all those other cities that Peter visited have just as much claim to being the Church of St Peter as the Vatican does.
This coupled with the fact that the eastern Churches would have used mass propaganda against the west during the schism if there was even a shred of evidence that Peter was never in Rome,
The EOC had their own propaganda campaign going on trying to prove that Peter was the first Pope of Antioch. So they also were blinded in that matter.
once again this shows us that the reformers were not grounded in truth.
All that the reformers said is "let's revisit the matter to examine the evidence that the Vatican claims that it has." That is something that everyone should do, reformer and non-reformer alike. The evidence has turned out to be contrary to what the Vatican claimed.
The source of the Peter in Rome myth was traced to the Acts of Peter that began circulating in the 2nd century AD which a lot of church fathers foolishly thought to be credible.
And now the Vatican through Pope Paul VI and a misguided archeologist has you all convinced that the bones of a 5'6" skeleton of a man who died in his sixties found under St Peter's Basilica are the bones of a that 6+foot former fisherman apostle who died in his eighties. And the skull of that short skeleton does not match the supposed skull of Peter on display and worshipped for centuries by the deluded faithful at St Johns Lateran.
You should call your church the Church of the Perpetually Gullible.
Perhaps you do not realize that Leucius who was surnamed Charinus was friends with the apostle Saint John and he probably heard that Peter was in Rome from Saint John himself
Keep searching, Dear Brother,eventually, if you're honest with yourself you will become a Catholic someday!
I wish you a peaceful Blessed Day!
Are you referring to this Leucius Charinus:
Leucius, called Leucius Charinus by the Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople in the ninth century, is the name applied to a cycle of what M. R. James termed "Apostolic romances"[1] that seem to have had wide currency long before a selection were read aloud at the Second Council of Nicaea (787) and rejected. Leucius is not among the early heretical teachers mentioned by name in Irenaeus' Adversus haereses (ca. 180), but wonder tales of miraculous Acts in some form were already in circulation in the second century.[2] None of the surviving manuscripts are as early as that.
The fullest account of Leucius is that given by Photius (Codex 114), who describes a book, called The Circuits of the Apostles, which contained the Acts of Peter, John, Andrew, Thomas, and Paul, that was purported to have been written by "Leucius Charinus" which he judged full of folly, self-contradiction, falsehood, and impiety (Wace); Photius is the only source to give his second name, "Charinus". Epiphanius (Haer. 51.427) made of Leucius a disciple of John who joined his master in opposing the Ebionites, a characterization that appears unlikely, since other patristic writers agree that the cycle attributed to him was Docetist, denying the humanity of Christ. Augustine knew the cycle, which he attributed to "Leutius", which his adversary Faustus thought had been wrongly excluded from the New Testament canon by the Catholics. Gregory of Tours found a copy of the Acts of Andrew from the cycle and made an epitome of it, omitting the "tiresome" elaborations of detail he found in it.
The "Leucian Acts" are as follows: The Acts of John The Acts of Peter The Acts of Paul The Acts of Andrew The Acts of Thomas The Leucian Acts were most likely redacted at a later date to express a more orthodox view. Of the five, the Acts of John and Thomas have the most remaining Gnostic content. [wikipedia]
>> The very first mention of Peter in Rome anywhere in any writings comes from the apocryophal Acts of Peter apparently written by Leucius Charinus that was circulating at least by 150 AD. <<
St. Clement and Ignatius both make references that are pretty hard to deny refer to Peter being in Rome. And then there’s that whole tomb of St. Peter, built in the mid-2nd century. (Not to be confused with the tomb of Simon Barzilla, falsely ascribed to Simon Barjonah, in Jerusalem.)
>> I’m surprised that there hasn’t been a move somewhere in the Vatican for the sainthood of this Leucius Charinus, as he was probably the one who got it all started. <<
That’s the sort of statement which makes you come off as simply contemptuous. Besides, Leucius’ Acta are regarded as largely romantic (in the classical sense), not dogmatic or deceitful, despite certain gnostic tendencies.
“Are you referring to this Leucius Charinus”
I’m referring to the Leucius named by Saint Irenaues
This guy.
http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/actsjohn.htm
Read their statements again. Neither of them place Peter in Rome.
Irenaeus's statement does put Peter there in Rome but only when Paul was there as well. But Irenaeus was also writing after the works of Leucius Charinus [the Acts of Peter] were circulating. He may have believed them and Leucius Charinus to be credible, especially since he lists a whole lot of gnostic teachers and their false beliefs, but does not list Leucius Charinus or the Acts as being among them.
We do know that Hippolytus was taken in by the fiction [romance] of Leucius Charinus and his Acts of Peter. So the church fathers were not immune from gullibility.
>> We do know that Hippolytus was taken in by the fiction [romance] of Leucius Charinus and his Acts of Peter. So the church fathers were not immune from gullibility. <<
How do you mean that? I know Augustine though the source to be St. Peter, but I can hardly imagine that the believed the cross actually spoke, for instance. How do you mean Hippolytus to be “taken in?”
>> Neither of them place Peter in Rome <<
Read their statements again. They refer to him in a manner that’s hard to reckon he was elsewhere. Notice the deliberate wording I made: “St. Clement and Ignatius both make references that are pretty hard to deny refer to Peter being in Rome.”
You trust them to give witness that the Bible is the word of God though, because the the scriptures are not signed by the Apostles.
You’re going to continue to paint yourself into a corner by using this type of argument.
Strip away all of the consistent writings and beliefs of the Early Church fathers and you’re left with nothing to trust,only you're own imagination becomes truth!
I’ll pray for you.
"(...and you Protestants manage to confuse the issue on THAT, too)."
And you Catholics manage to label all non-Catholics as Protestant. (Deliberate misstatement. I know this is not so.)
Protestants would not accept me as one of their own. Why would you label me as one?
In the Old Testament God did not become flesh to dwell among us.
God was the rock long before Jesus called Peter “a rock,” so any statement does not, nor could it change the absolute truth of who is the eternal rock of ages that the church is built on.
According to this article then, Jesus the Christ (who HAS the authority) turns and grants certain authority to Peter by calling him "the Rock".
Ditto.
I ask any who believe Roman Catholic doctrine to read this prayerfully with an honest interest in Truth from God and not be content with tales from men.
I ask that anyone who does NOT recognize the God-granted authority of the Roman Catholic Church to read this thread prayerfully with an honest interest in Truth from God and not be content with tales from non-Catholic men.
Where is YOUR apparent interest in learning the Truth of Roman Catholic dogma? It was the Roman Church and her councils which gave form to the Scriptures by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
There were Jews in Rome.
I don't trust them in that way at all. I only trust them as far as what they say lines up with the facts of scripture and verifiable history -- and in many cases with each other with whom they often disagree.
You’re going to continue to paint yourself into a corner by using this type of argument.
Not when the brush I use is the one left us by the author[s] of the Holy Scriptures.
Strip away all of the consistent writings and beliefs of the Early Church fathers and you’re left with nothing to trust,only you're own imagination becomes truth!
Ahhh -- there's the rub -- "all of the consistent writings and beliefs" -- consistent with what??? your later magisterial fiction or consistent with scripture and verifiable history.
Thank you for the confirmation --
Please recall the dream of Peter:
"26 But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself." 27 Talking with him, Peter went inside and found a large gathering of people. 28 He said to them: "You are well aware that it is against our law for a Jew to associate with a Gentile or visit him. But God has shown me that I should not call any man impure or unclean."
-Acts 10:26-28
Good point. Protestants love to point at a Pope's errors and declare "Fallability!", thereby showing their lack of understanding of that term. (Hint: Infallability is NOT impeccability.)
Christ almost seems taken aback that Peter of all the apostles should give the correct answer. Peter seems so much less reliable than the other apostles, lying, cowardly, fickle and faith-challenged Peter. But God uses the weakness of men to show the Power and Glory of God.
That said, they could apply the same standard to their own leaders that they seem to expect from the Catholics.
From the Catechism
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__PL.HTM
The Relationship Between Tradition and Sacred Scripture
One common source. . .
80 “Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture, then, are bound closely together, and communicate one with the other. For both of them, flowing out from the same divine well-spring, come together in some fashion to form one thing, and move towards the same goal.”40 Each of them makes present and fruitful in the Church the mystery of Christ, who promised to remain with his own “always, to the close of the age”.41
. . . two distinct modes of transmission
81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”42
“and [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching.”43
82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone. Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honoured with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”44
Apostolic Tradition and ecclesial traditions
83 The Tradition here in question comes from the apostles and hands on what they received from Jesus’ teaching and example and what they learned from the Holy Spirit. the first generation of Christians did not yet have a written New Testament, and the New Testament itself demonstrates the process of living Tradition.
Tradition is to be distinguished from the various theological, disciplinary, liturgical or devotional traditions, born in the local churches over time. These are the particular forms, adapted to different places and times, in which the great Tradition is expressed. In the light of Tradition, these traditions can be retained, modified or even abandoned under the guidance of the Church’s Magisterium.
Like it or not ,dear Brother, there is no historical consistency in the various forms protestantism.
All you can say is..”I DID IT MY WAY”!
Here is part of Hippolytus's account of Simon Magus. While most of it comes from the writings of Justin Martur and Irenaeus, and later history, the boldened part comes from neither, but from the apocryphal Acts of Peter which tell of a mythical battle between Simon Peter and Simon Magus in Rome, all invented out of whole cloth apparently by Leucius Charinus.
Book VI/CHAP. XV.--SIMON'S DISCIPLES ADOPT THE MYSTERIES; SIMON MEETS ST. PETER AT ROME; ACCOUNT OF SIMON'S CLOSING YEARS.
"The disciples, then, of this (Magus), celebrate magical rites, and resort to incantations. And (they profess to) transmit both love-spells and charms, and the demons said to be senders of dreams, for the purpose of distracting whomsoever they please. But they also employ those denominated Paredroi. And they have an image of Simon (fashioned) into the figure of Jupiter, and (an image) of Helen in the form of Minerva; and they pay adoration to these." But they call the one Lord and the other Lady. And if any one amongst them, on seeing the images of either Simon or Helen, would call them by name, he is cast off, as being ignorant of the mysteries. This Simon, deceiving many in Samaria by his sorceries, was reproved by the Apostles, and was laid under a curse, as it has been written in the Acts. But he afterwards abjured the faith, and attempted these (aforesaid practices). And journeying as far as Rome, he fell in with the Apostles; and to him, deceiving many by his sorceries, Peter offered repeated opposition. This man, ultimately repairing to . . . (and) sitting under a plane tree, continued to give instruction (in his doctrines). And in truth at last, when conviction was imminent, in case he delayed longer, be stated that, if he were buried alive, he would rise the third day. And accordingly, having ordered a trench to be dug by his disciples, he directed himself to be interred there. They, then, executed the injunction given; whereas he remained (in that grave) until this day, for he was not the Christ. This constitutes the legendary system advanced by Simon, and from this Valentinus derived a starting-point (for his own doctrine."
Hippolytus apparently believed the tale told by the apocryphal Acts of Peter were true regarding Peter's confrontation with him in Rome. Yes he was taken in by it as many church fathers were, including Eusebius and Jerome later.
Is it true that a statue of Simon Magus is enshrined in St Peter's Basilica??? Can you explain the reason for that???
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.