The road to Emmaus and the reality of the Eucharist

You can celebrate any holiday however you wish and call it whatever you wish. You are your own church and have all its authority. Likewise you can determine whatever doctrine you wish, believe anything you wish about Jesus, believe any soteriology you wish, believe what you wish about scripture and interpretation. You can figure it all out for yourself and call it The Church of Believerism if you wish.

Or you can study Christian history and honestly study what the Church Jesus established teaches, join Her and become a Christian, part of the Mystical Body of Christ in communion with the Saints.

This is the choice I faced almost 20 years ago, and it is yours also.

May God bless you and guide you with a gentle hand.

“Early Christian history” is actually “early Catholic history” since what this world call “Christianity” is Catholic.

Yes, that is Christianity - the Church that Christ established and continues to this day. It includes its scriptures - so you have to throw them out also and find outside sources for Jesus' life, teaching, death and resurrection, if your requirement is non-Church sources..

"History" and "journalism" did not exist for these times. This is what you have: the Church's canon, the writings of the Church Fathers/theologians, the Church Councils. In these you see the Church, its establishment, development, arguments, decisions, etc. Prayerful read and study these.

This is Christianity. It is not Judaism or some sixteenth century innovation, but the Church established by Christ.

is it ok to… Which holidays are ok to celebrate…

I'll venture an answer on this one:

I believe you could choose to celebrate whatever holidays or anniversaries you wish, so long as it is not participating with worshipers of same or worshipping a different god yourself. You could take some old greek holiday that involves cherry blossoms, for example, and celebrate God's gift of cherries, say some prayers thanking God, etc. All on your own, I believe, so long as you don't practice idolatry or worship with pagans. It could be your own little practice if you wish.

You could also say a prayer of thanks each time you go through a door - I even recommend this at times. The various ways you wish to develop your spiritual practice is your choice, within certain boundaries of course.

Another example: if you found yourself in another culture that had a worship day to another god, you could teach them the Christian faith (assuming you know it) and who Christ is, using analogies or such… See Paul's sermon on Mars Hill for example.

Now, if you think you should not observe a Holy Day of Obligation of the Church or create a new one, that's a different matter.

hng: If Joseph Smith’s Mormon writings do not prove the book of Mormon

Again, false analogy

J Smith theorems date from the 1800s talking about historical matters that date from the time of Christ or earlier, each of which were against the proven, accepted history of the day and each of which are false (no genetic proof for semites in pre-C Americas, the book of Abe being the Book of the dead) in fact, his position of trying to re-write accepted history and denying it with no proof to the contrary is similar to your position here
The viewpoint is accepted history that Peter was in Rome (* - see below, in any case this has no bearing on the dogma or doctrine of the Church), held continuously since Apostolic times, shown archaeologically and no doubts raised for over 1500 years -- there is zero proof to reject 1500+ years of accepted fact. At the most you can say you doubt that Julius Caesar went to England, you can say you doubt Peter went to Rome, you cannot prove these wild, J. Smith-type denials of history.

As I said above, J Smith's view was exactly like what you are espousing:

Accepted history was rejected by him with no proof to the contrary
All he said was that he rejected accepted history because it was not his -- which is similar to your rejection, without proof, of all the history undisputed for 1500+ years

To prove that Peter was in Rome, there is adequate historical evidence

Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]
Origen: The Scism of the Donatists AD 367 "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all"
Refer to William A. Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers which gives over 30 proofs from that time that the leader of the apostles went to the Capital of the Empire. As leading apostle, his role was there in the heartland of the Empire to spread the Word of God.
1. Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200) , “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”
2. Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200) “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” -- Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome
3. Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110 Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you -- Peter was in Rome as leader
4. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190),“while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.”
5. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190) indicates that Linus was Peter’s successor,that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. These were the first 4 bishops of Rome
6. Clement of Alexandria Sketches “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
7. Lactantius The Death of the Persecutors AD 318 “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
8. Dionysius of Corinth "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"
9. in excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, bodies have been found from the 1st century such that Pope Paul VI announced that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that around the tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew this, hence validating history
Prove to me that he did not go to Rome when all historical evidence points that he did
Of course, to add, the fact that Peter went to Rome is not a doctrinal issue -- he ordains Linus as his successor as bishop of Rome, who ordained Cletus who ordained Clement etc. right down to today.

overwhelming Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.

Among these was St. Irenæus of Lyons, a disciple of St. Polycarp who had received the Gospel from the Apostle St. John. Near the end of his life St. Irenæus mentioned, in his work Against Heresies (c. A.D. 180-199), the work of Peter and Paul in Rome:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Book 3, Chapter 1, verse 1).

The African theologian Tertullian tells us that Peter and Paul both died in Rome in Demurrer Against the Heretics (c. A.D. 200):

Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each.... [I]f you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority [i.e., in Carthage] derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [i.e., the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.

Tertullian was certainly not the only ancient author who testified that Peter was crucified in Rome. An ancient, orthodox historical text known as the "Acts of Saints Peter and Paul" elaborates on the preaching and martyrdom of the two Apostles in Rome. The dating of this document is difficult, but historians cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia placed its probable origins between A.D. 150-250.

One of the earliest thorough histories of the Church was Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea’s Ecclesiastical History. Most of this work was written before Constantine became emperor in A.D. 324, and some portions were added afterward. Eusebius quotes many previous historical documents regarding Peter and Paul’s travels and martyrdom in Rome, including excellent excerpts from ancient documents now lost, like Presbyter Gaius of Rome’s "Disputation with Proclus" (c. A.D. 198-217) and Bishop Dionysius of Corinth’s "Letter to Soter of Rome" (c. A.D. 166-174). Penguin Books publishes a very accessible paperback edition of Eusebius’s history of the Church, and most libraries will probably own a copy as well.

Also, do remember that the claim to the Papacy does not hinge on how many times or how long Peter was in Rome. The Papacy is based on Christ anointing Peter. Linus was appointed successor, and we recognize him as the second Pope.

The Papacy is similar to the Presidency. The claim is not based on residency or location, it is claimed on authority.

Remember that even if the Pope moves out of the city of Rome, even if it gets destroyed, The Church continues, under the grace of God

Rome is an historical place, there is ample evidence and tradition that St. Peter was (a) appointed by Our Lord to be his vicar and (b) was in Rome. However, none of this ultimately matters, because the Church can exist without Rome the city, and even, for a time and not ideally, without the Pope. It does not cease to exist, for example, between the time of the death of a pope and the installation of his successor.

The Body of Christ is formed by all of us, including the saints, that is, those who went before us and are now the clouds of witnesses, and if someone were to smite the shepherd, the flock might be scattered - but it would eventually be gathered together again.

As for Rome, it is sacred because of the blood of martyrs, it is symbolic, it has been vitally important for centuries - but it is not the Church, and the Church does not depend upon Rome for its existence.

This is not about faith or not -- you are stating that history is false -- just like those who state that the apostles were gay. Like their theories, yours too holds no water

In fact your theories are like Joseph Smith's

Rejecting accepted history with no proof for why you reject it
similar to your rejection without proof, of all the history undisputed for 1500+ years

To prove that Peter was in Rome, there is adequate historical evidence

Clementine Homilies 17:19 [A.D. 221]
Origen: The Scism of the Donatists AD 367 "You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head—that is why he is also called Cephas [‘Rock’]—of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all"
Refer to William A. Jurgens' The Faith of the Early Fathers which gives over 30 proofs from that time that the leader of the apostles went to the Capital of the Empire. As leading apostle, his role was there in the heartland of the Empire to spread the Word of God.
1. Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200) , “How happy is that church . . . where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [referring to John the Baptist, both he and Paul being beheaded].”
2. Tertullian, in The Demurrer Against the Heretics (A.D. 200) “this is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrnaeans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John; like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter.” -- Clement was the fourth bishop of Rome
3. Ignatius of Antioch's Letter to the Romans (A.D. 110 Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you -- Peter was in Rome as leader
4. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190),“while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church.”
5. Irenaeus, in Against Heresies (A.D. 190) indicates that Linus was Peter’s successor,that next in line were Anacletus (also known as Cletus), and then Clement of Rome. These were the first 4 bishops of Rome
6. Clement of Alexandria Sketches “When Peter preached the word publicly at Rome, and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been for a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed.”
7. Lactantius The Death of the Persecutors AD 318 “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”
8. Dionysius of Corinth "You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time"
9. in excavations under the high altar of St. Peter’s Basilica, bodies have been found from the 1st century such that Pope Paul VI announced that the actual tomb of the first pope had been identified conclusively, that his remains were apparently present, and that around the tomb were inscriptions identifying the place as Peter’s burial site, meaning early Christians knew this, hence validating history
Prove to me that he did not go to Rome when all historical evidence points that he did
Of course, to add, the fact that Peter went to Rome is not a doctrinal issue -- he ordains Linus as his successor as bishop of Rome, who ordained Cletus who ordained Clement etc. right down to today.

overwhelming Historical evidence does show that Peter did go to Rome and exercised his authority as head of the Apostles from there. The earliest Christians provided plenty of documentation in this regard.

Among these was St. Irenæus of Lyons, a disciple of St. Polycarp who had received the Gospel from the Apostle St. John. Near the end of his life St. Irenæus mentioned, in his work Against Heresies (c. A.D. 180-199), the work of Peter and Paul in Rome:

Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church (Book 3, Chapter 1, verse 1).

The African theologian Tertullian tells us that Peter and Paul both died in Rome in Demurrer Against the Heretics (c. A.D. 200):

Come now, if you would indulge a better curiosity in the business of your salvation, run through the apostolic Churches in which the very thrones of the Apostles remain still in place; in which their own authentic writings are read, giving sound to the voice and recalling the faces of each.... [I]f you are near to Italy, you have Rome, whence also our authority [i.e., in Carthage] derives. How happy is that Church, on which the Apostles poured out their whole doctrine along with their blood, where Peter endured a passion like that of the Lord, where Paul was crowned in a death like John’s [i.e., the Baptist], where the Apostle John, after being immersed in boiling oil and suffering no hurt, was exiled to an island.

Tertullian was certainly not the only ancient author who testified that Peter was crucified in Rome. An ancient, orthodox historical text known as the "Acts of Saints Peter and Paul" elaborates on the preaching and martyrdom of the two Apostles in Rome. The dating of this document is difficult, but historians cited in the Catholic Encyclopedia placed its probable origins between A.D. 150-250.

One of the earliest thorough histories of the Church was Bishop Eusebius of Cæsarea’s Ecclesiastical History. Most of this work was written before Constantine became emperor in A.D. 324, and some portions were added afterward. Eusebius quotes many previous historical documents regarding Peter and Paul’s travels and martyrdom in Rome, including excellent excerpts from ancient documents now lost, like Presbyter Gaius of Rome’s "Disputation with Proclus" (c. A.D. 198-217) and Bishop Dionysius of Corinth’s "Letter to Soter of Rome" (c. A.D. 166-174). Penguin Books publishes a very accessible paperback edition of Eusebius’s history of the Church, and most libraries will probably own a copy as well.

There is no way to show you that your unproven fantasies are devoid of facts. I ask you to give proof for your rejection of all historical facts that have been accepted for 1500+ years and you have none

I don't think you understand at all that history is not based on your personal whims and fantasies.