11 Reasons the Authority of Christianity Is Centered on St. Peter and Rome

stpeterslist ^ | December 19, 2012

[NYer]

Bl. John Henry Newman said it best: “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.” History paints an overwhelming picture of St. Peter’s apostolic ministry in Rome and this is confirmed by a multitude of different sources within the Early Church. Catholic Encyclopedia states, “In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure.” Protestantism as a whole seeks to divorce Christianity from history by rending Gospel message out of its historical context as captured by our Early Church Fathers. One such target of these heresies is to devalue St. Peter and to twist the authority of Rome into a historical mishap within Christianity. To wit, the belief has as its end the ultimate end of all Catholic and Protestant dialogue – who has authority in Christianity?

 

Why is it important to defend the tradition of St. Peter and Rome?
The importance of establishing St. Peter’s ministry in Rome may be boiled down to authority and more specifically the historic existence and continuance of the Office of Vicar held by St. Peter. To understand why St. Peter was important and what authority was given to him by Christ SPL has composed two lists – 10 Biblical Reasons Christ Founded the Papacy and 13 Reasons St. Peter Was the Prince of the Apostles.

The rest of the list is cited from the Catholic Encyclopedia on St. Peter and represents only a small fraction of the evidence set therein.

 

The Apostolic Primacy of St. Peter and Rome

It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

St. Peter’s residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.

 

1. The Gospel of St. John

That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ’s prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — “And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God” (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.

 

2. Salutations, from Babylon

St. Peter’s First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: “The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark” (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; “Oracula Sibyl.”, V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).

 

3. Gospel of St. Mark

From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.

 

4. Testimony of Pope St. Clement I

Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5):

“Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory”.

He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom “among us” (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.

 

5. Testimony of St. Ignatius of Antioch

In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: “I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive” (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.

 

6. Taught in the Same Place in Italy

Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says:

“You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).

 

 

7. Rome: Founded by Sts. Peter and Paul

Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as “the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul” (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.

 

8. St. Peter Announced the Word of God in Rome

In his “Hypotyposes” (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: “After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them” (see above).

 

9. Rome: Where Authority is Ever Within Reach

Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says:

“If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John.”

In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter’s crucifixion. “The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross”. As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is “no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber”; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, “to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood” (Against Marcion 4.5).

 

10. Come to the Vatican and See for Yourself

The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his “Dialogue with Proclus” (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: “But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church”.

By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to “the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there” (i.e. at Rome).

 

11. Ancient Epigraphic Memorial

There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment (“Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat”, ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter’s death in Rome.

The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.

[Elsie]

... what you RECEIVE from your wafer handler is NOT; in any way, shape or form; Christ's FLESH or His BLOOD.

[CynicalBear]

>>As an observant Jew, he would never have eaten blood or anything he thought had blood in it.<<

That’s why so many left because they thought, like the Catholics do, that it was the literal, physical flesh and blood. The apostles knew better and stayed.

[metmom]

Let's not forget that this "problem" is not at all a recent one but, according to the book by St. Peter Damien Book of Gomorrah http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/929551/posts, it has been an ongoing problem for well over a thousand years. Do I think the current administration is addressing it?

Well, I'm sure skeptical. I find it hard to believe that they're really serious about it.

The other thing that's disturbing is that they didn't do anything about it until the negative publicity from the victims by the SECULAR media forced their hand.

Thank God for people with the courage and integrity to stand up to the Catholic church's bullying (threatening them with ex-communication in some cases) and refusing to be victimized any more.

It does not speak well of the church or its leadership that that's what it took to maybe end it.

They say they are, we'll see, but to pretend that it is no big deal and others are doing it does nothing to help the credibility of a church that claims it alone is THE church Jesus established. As a matter of fact, it does immense harm to HIS name and further proves that Catholicism cannot be the one, true church.

Taking God's name in vain has more meaning than just using it as a swear word.

The damage done to the name of God by these men will have to be answered for. I would not want to be in their shoes trying to explain to God why they were complicit in the abuse and did not obey His Scripture (which the church claims its responsible for) and put a stop to it.

[metmom]

Do "not even [to] eat with such a person" Is not the communion "host" devoured in a manner that could be called eating?

Excellent point.

[Cronos]

The gays and the liberals say Thank God for people with the courage and integrity to stand up to the Catholic church's bullying (threatening them with ex-communication in some cases) and refusing to be victimized any more.

[Cronos]

The One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians) has been Christ’s Bride, His One true Church for 2000 years, while the rest has withered away. Whatever strange beliefs you and the others (the non-Trinitarians, the Unitarians, the Jehovah’s Witnesses) that are part of r posse, those strange beliefs will die out - as have others.

[Cronos]

Quite incorrect. if you read in the Bible, starting from John 6:30, we read

30 So they asked him, “What sign then will you give that we may see it and believe you? What will you do?
31 Our ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness; as it is written: ‘He gave them bread from heaven to eat.’
32 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, it is not Moses who has given you the bread from heaven, but it is my Father who gives you the true bread from heaven.
33 For the bread of God is the bread that comes down from heaven and gives life to the world.”
34 “Sir,” they said, “always give us this bread.”
35 Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.
36 But as I told you, you have seen me and still you do not believe.

They asked Him for a sign, saying that Moses gave them manna in the desert. If Jesus (according to them) was aspiring to the level of Moses, He should do something as big as that.

and Jesus says something strange to them -- He says Moses didn't give you bread, My father did, and bread that comes down from heaven. Then He says that HE is the bread of life, HE is the manna -- and manna was to be eaten.

The people around Him made the same mistake you did, which is to think he was speaking as a metaphor.

Yet Jesus REPEATED the same thing, saying

48 I am the bread of life. 49 Your ancestors ate the manna in the wilderness, yet they died.
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which anyone may eat and not die.
51 I am the living bread that came down from heaven. Whoever eats this bread will live forever. This bread is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.”

And now the crowd is openly rebellious saying “How can this man give us his flesh to eat?”
And

53 Jesus said to them, “Very truly I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
54 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.
55 For my flesh is real food and my blood is real drink.
56 Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me, and I in them.
57 Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.
58 This is the bread that came down from heaven. Your ancestors ate manna and died, but whoever feeds on this bread will live forever.

Note -- Jesus doesn't clear up the Metaphor, like he did in Matt. 16:5–12

5 When they went across the lake, the disciples forgot to take bread.
6 “Be careful,” Jesus said to them. “Be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
7 They discussed this among themselves and said, “It is because we didn’t bring any bread.”
8 Aware of their discussion, Jesus asked, “You of little faith, why are you talking among yourselves about having no bread?
9 Do you still not understand? Don’t you remember the five loaves for the five thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
10 Or the seven loaves for the four thousand, and how many basketfuls you gathered?
11 How is it you don’t understand that I was not talking to you about bread? But be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and Sadducees.”
12 Then they understood that he was not telling them to guard against the yeast used in bread, but against the teaching of the Pharisees and Sadducees.

So, Jesus DOES indicate when it is a metaphor and when it isn't.
In this case, look at the reaction of his DISCIPLES, people who had heard his teachings for so long and followed him

60 On hearing it, many of his disciples said, “This is a hard teaching. Who can accept it?”...

66 From this time many of his disciples turned back and no longer followed him.

You cannot say that this was just bread and wine of that this is a metphor for coming and having faith in the Lord or some kind of metphor for believing in Christ because of the reaction of the Jews and the very language -- to eat one's flesh and drink the blood means to do violence on some one. You see it even in Hindi where a threat is "Mein tera Khoon pie jaongaa" or "I will drink your blood" -- and this is among vegetarians! To drink a persons blood means a serious threat of injury.So, if you believe that this was just a metphor, you mean to say that Christ is rewarding people for crucifying Him?!! That's nonsensical, sorry.

You cannot even say it was a metaphor by incorreclty comparing it to John 10:9 (I am the gate/doorway) or John 15:1 (I am the true vine) is because this is not referenced in the entire verse in the same way as John 6 which shows the entire incident from start to finish of Jesus saying His body is to be eaten, repeating it and seeing his disciples go and not correcting them (as he did in Matthew 16).

Even in the literal sense -- Christ says he is the gateway to heaven and the vine such that we get nourishment with him as the connecting path. But John 6 is much much more than mere symbolism as He categorically states that "For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed" (John 6:55).

Even at the end of John 6, Jesus rebukes those who think of what He has said as a metaphor by emphasising that

61 Aware that his disciples were grumbling about this, Jesus said to them, “Does this offend you?
62 Then what if you see the Son of Man ascend to where he was before!
63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you—they are full of the Spirit[e] and life.
64 Yet there are some of you who do not believe.”

Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying

John 8:15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one.
16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me.

[Cronos]

Only those that ... have a personal relationship with Jesus are Christians

Nowhere in the Bible do we find the apostles or others asking the question, "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?" What we DO read is in Galatians 4:8-9 you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God,...

Participating in the Eucharist with the High Priest Jesus Christ means a personal relationship with Him -- how much personal can it be when we consume of His Body?

What we DO read is a community coming together to God -- "For as in one body we have many parts, and all the parts do not have the same function, so we, though many, are one body in Christ and individually parts of one another" (Rom 12:4-5)

What Jesus does say is

• Matt. 24:13

  13But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved.

• Matt 25:31-46 34Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:
  35For I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in:
  36Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Jesus says that if you endure to the end you get salvation, that if you helped your fellow man you inherit the kingdom of God (you get salvation) --> note these are HIS own words

• 1 Pet. 3:20-21: " It (Baptism )saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ"

• Note -- also in Acts 16:31 we are told to believe and you will be saved -- so Faith is definitely one of the things needed, yet as you see above, it is not ONLY faith. Remember -- James says "even the demons believe - and shudder" -- it is not faith ALONE that saves

  Jesus said it is not faith ALONE. We are saved by God's GRACE. Full-stop.

  by baptism we are born again and we grow in having day to day interaction with knowing and loving God. We meet Him during the Eucharist, we participate in His mass, we pray to Him

[metmom]

The gays and the liberals say Thank God for people with the courage and integrity to stand up to the Catholic church's bullying (threatening them with ex-communication in some cases) and refusing to be victimized any more.

Well, I guess then conservative Catholics will not say...."Thank God for people with the courage and integrity to stand up to the Catholic church's bullying (threatening them with ex-communication in some cases) and refusing to be victimized any more."

Better to just make the victims and their families shut up and take it.

[Cronos]

4th century? The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal" and was first used to describe the Church in 107 AD in the Letter to the Smyrnaeans that Ignatius of Antioch wrote to the Christians in Smyrna (present day Turkey) where he wrote See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

[metmom]

Nowhere in the Bible do we find the apostles or others asking the question, "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?" What we DO read is in Galatians 4:8-9 you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God,...

How is knowing God and being known by Him not personal nor a relationship?

[CynicalBear]

>>“I am the bread of life. Whoever comes to me will never go hungry, and whoever believes in me will never be thirsty.<<

So you take the literal meaning of the bread. Have you ever been hungry after eating the bread and wine? Why do you need to do it over and over? Have you ever been thirsty after? Do you no longer eat or drink? I realize that Catholics like to switch mid thought but you can’t have it both ways.

>>Jesus repeats the rebuke against just thinking in terms of human logic (Calvin's main problem) by saying<<

Yes He does. And it’s human logic to not see the spiritual aspect of the bread and wine. Jesus was rebuking those who saw only the human/carnal aspect of the physical flesh and blood and not understanding that it was the spiritual aspect not the physical aspect He was talking about. Those disciples that “turned back” were thinking just like Catholics do today in that it was the literal flesh and blood of Christ. Until Catholics understand that it’s not the physical/literal but the spiritual they will never enjoy the true peace of the assurance of salvation.

[CynicalBear]

>>I would not want to be in their shoes trying to explain to God why they were complicit in the abuse and did not obey His Scripture (which the church claims its responsible for) and put a stop to it.<<

Revelation 18:1 And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2 And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

3 For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5 For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6 Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7 How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8 Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9 And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

10 Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

[CynicalBear]

>>How is knowing God and being known by Him not personal nor a relationship?<<

» John 17:23: Christ Himself prays to His Father: "I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one."

» Romans 8:10: Paul tells us, "If Christ is in you, the body is dead because of sin."

» Galatians 2:20: Paul speaks of himself and all true Christians: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me."

» Ephesians 3:17-18: Referring to the "inner man," Paul mentions that he prays "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith."

» I John 3:24: John writes: "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us."

Galatians 3:27 For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

2 Corinthians 1:22 Who hath also sealed us, and given the earnest of the Spirit in our hearts.

That indicates a rether personal relationship. Catholics who follow RCC teaching will never understand those verses.

Romans 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

[Syncro]

The gays and the liberals say Thank God for people with the courage and integrity to stand up to the Catholic church's bullying (threatening them with ex-communication in some cases) and refusing to be victimized any more.

Even those perverted and leftists agree?

Good for them, a stopped clock is right a couple of times a day.

So let's see. You think it is alright for the Catholic church to threaten excommunication to those that disagree with their allowing pedophiles to continue on with their horrible sins of sexually molesting young children?

You agree they should continue to be victimized?

Or do you agree with the bolded area above?

The post certainly couldn't be referring to the homosexual and liberal pedophile priests can it?

I'm sure they liked the idea of, when being caught, being moved to another area to continue with their perversions with a fresh new group of innocent children who they could use as their sex toys.

How despicable.

That's EXACTLY how the church dealt with it until they got caught doing it.

[Syncro]

The One Holy Apostolic and Catholic Church (Catholic, Orthodox, Orientals, Assyrians) has been Christ’s Bride, His One true Church for 2000 years.

There was no Catholic church 2000 year ago.

Believers/followers of Jesus were known as Christians.

It was centuries later that it started.

Ex post facto doesn't apply here, re-writing history in that way doesn't speak well for Catholic credibility.

The bride of Christ, His one true church stated back then with born again followers of Jesus and the teachings of those that God used the Holy Spirit to speak His Truth.

[wesagain]

Indeed sister!

[Syncro]

Only those that ... have a personal relationship with Jesus are Christians

Nowhere in the Bible do we find the apostles or others asking the question, "Do you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ?"

Why would you think it was? LOL, how much time did you use up searching for that question?

Gal 2:20--I have been crucified with Christ. It is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me

John 14:23 "Whoever loves me (Jesus) will obey my teaching. My Father will love him and my Father and I will come to him and live with him."

Personal relationship with Jesus. How much more personal could it get then Him LIVING in you and He and the Father living WITH you?

Just pray and it can happen to anyone who is sincere.

[Syncro]

First this:

we grow in having day to day interaction with knowing and loving God. We meet Him during the Eucharist

Christians are with Him 24/7 as He lives in us and we in Him. He never leaves or forsakes us.

He wants us close to Him ALWAYS, not meeting him in a Catholic ritual occasionally.

Therefore we do NOT have to meet him in Catholic ritual to commune with Him. It rocks to be so close to God. As he wishes. How cool is that?

4th century? The term "catholic" is derived from the Greek word καθολικός (katholikos) meaning "universal"

My point exactly.

I of course was speaking of the big C Catholic church which started about 3 centuries later.

It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast

Fine with me if Catholics want to go by extra-Biblical writings.

I will follow the Bible and not the traditions of men.

History can't be backed up, it is what it is and cannot be rewritten to satisfy an overbearing denomination that doesn't recognize Biblical Christianity and denies it exists outside of the Catholic church.

Ironically, it exists more outside Catholicism then in it.