Replies

Come on, Adiaireton8, please post those sacred words of "the Ante-Nicene Fathers" that demonstrate conclusively the foundation of Holy See upon the 25 year bishopric of Peter in Rome and his upside down crucifixion by Nero. You will be doing us all a great favor as we will finally see, once and for all, the truth of that most questionable faith that has arisen from Rome.

Consider it an "ecumenical" effort that will bring us all, separated brethren, and faithful saints, and even unbelievers, together as one. Post those holy words of sacred Tradition for us all to see. And hold back nothing. Our faith can withstand the truth no matter how painful. We need to be thorough but brief.

Meanwhile I will be in silent meditation most of the day with "the Fathers" as well. I have been up for days in "silent" study of all the evidence from St. Luke to St. Jerome. Thank you for recommending them. They have opened up my eyes and I'm sure they will open the eyes of others and ears, all of their arguments from silence notwithstanding.

If I don't hear back from you, and even if I do, I will begin preparing my own list of the words of "the Fathers" regarding Peter's 25 year Bishopric in Rome, with upside down crucifixion there under Nero, of course. And then we can compare our works on this forum so we don't leave any of "the Fathers" out of this great ecumenical pursuit of our day, so that we "all may be one" and on the same page.

One question before I return to my "silent" patristic meditations, are the Syriac Fathers considered part of the "Sacred Tradition of the Church"??? You see in my study of "the Fathers", I found that some Syriac Fathers say that Peter was the Bishop of Antioch until 67 AD . Now we have Peter in three places at once -- in Rome, in Babylon, and in Antioch. How did St Jerome miss this? Are these fathers part of the "Sacred Tradition of the Church"? Are they Nihil Obstated and Imprimatured? Should I be reading them or just discard them? or what? I'm sure you will be able to explain, if not satisfactorially, atleast rhetorically.

Once again, thank you for pointing me to "the Fathers", the warm greeting of the brethren when I joined this thread has inspired me to return the favor. This great work that we will post here will answer a lot of questions, but of course, raise a lot more as well. But that's life.

Come on, adaire, adaire ya. Let's see documented facts, from the earliest through the AnteNicene period. No more rhetoric. Post your "Fathers'" words, so that we can all see what you choose to trust rather than the Scriptures themselves.

The nature of your comments throughout this thread suggests to me that you are much more interested in defending your own position than in engaging in an honest and respectful pursuit of truth. For that reason, I'm not going to engage in this discussion with you. There are preconditions for rational discourse, and they include a sincere desire for truth (rather than pushing one's ideology no matter what the facts), and a certain level of respect for one's interlocutor. Unfortunately, in my opinion, on this thread at least, and with me in particular, you have not met those conditions. If in the future I detect a different attitude, I'll be glad to dialogue with you.

-A8

"Once again, thank you for pointing me to "the Fathers", the warm greeting of the brethren when I joined this thread has inspired me to return the favor. This great work that we will post here will answer a lot of questions, but of course, raise a lot more as well. But that's life."
______________________________

I can't tell you how much I'm enjoying this discussion and the obvious scholarship involved. However, I keep wondering why would the Church in Rome not have corrected the error in recognizing who founded the church there. They would have known who was their founder, or did this begin so many years after the fact no one was left who could refute it?