Posted on 01/06/2013 3:56:49 PM PST by 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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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).
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).
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).
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.
Catholics love their labels.
Catholic Chauvinism...never even knew there was a such a thing till I joined Free Republic
Catholics are fairly thin down here...our comparative bunch in Dixie would likely be Church of Christ
they actually used to say they were the only way
my dad..a Southern Baptist used to say that you could tell a Church of Christ man cause he had a Bible in one hand and a drink or his **** in the other
to be fair COC down here...the Lipscomb/Abilene Christian sort are not so much that way anymore
And you IGNORE the scripture (#180) I posted that PROVES He didn't?
Jesus mediates in a way that no other man can because he is God-incarnate. In that sense, there can be only one mediator, who is our redeemer. But we grow up with mediators between God and us: our parents, our relatives and friends, and the members of our Church. I do not think we are angels-incarnate, who only have to open our ears to hear the voice of God. Adam fell and because of that we are blind, deaf and and numb, and even dumb because our language is never good enough to communicate Perfectly with our fellow human beings. We enjoy the grace of God, or ought to, but we use our spiritual gifts as clumsily as we do our physical ones. Friend we need all the help we can get, to train us up in the faith so they we can learn to walk without stumbling. In short, we need mediators and God also provides them: the angels, and the saints, living and dead, who care for us even when we do not care for ourselves.
ROTFLMAO . . .
It's non-Catholics who generate labels because they rely on Self Alone and have no anchor but their SelfPeople who are guided by the Holy Spirit don't reach thousands upon thousands of different conclusions like the Holy Spirit not being part of the Trinity, Christ telling a little white lie to the thief on the cross, Christ not being fully God, and Christ not being fully human with all of them still claiming to be Christian.
This nation has been overwhelmingly Protestant Christian since it was founded and has ended up exactly where Protestantism was destined to lead from it's beginnings; to total relativism with each person being their own highest authority in all matters. That's not being led by the Holy Spirit, that's being led by the same convenient spirit that led Eve and establishes Self Alone based Self Worship.
Protestantism - 600–800 million
Estimates of the total number of Protestants are very uncertain, partly because of the difficulty in determining which denominations should be placed in the category. It seems however clear that Protestantism is the second largest major group of Christians after Catholicism by number of followers. Often that number is put at 800 million.[8] Some sources, which put the number at 800 million, include also Anglicanism (see below) within Protestantism.[9][10]
Historical Protestantism - 350 million
Baptist churches - 100 million[11]
Southern Baptist Convention - 16.3 million[12]
National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc. - 8.5 million[13]
National Baptist Convention of America, Inc. - 3.1 million[13]
Nigerian Baptist Convention - 2.5 million[13]
Progressive National Baptist Convention - 2.5 million[13]
Baptist General Convention of Texas - 2.3 million[13]
Baptist Union of Uganda - 1.5 million[13]
American Baptist Churches USA - 1.4 million[13]
Brazilian Baptist Convention - 1.3 million[13]
Baptist Bible Fellowship International - 1.2 million[14]
Baptist Community of the Congo River - 1 million[13]
National Primitive Baptist Convention of the U.S.A. - 1 million[14]
National Missionary Baptist Convention of America - 1 million
Myanmar Baptist Convention - 0.9 million[13]
Samavesam of Telugu Baptist Churches - 0.8 million[15]
Korea Baptist Convention - 0.8 million[13]
Baptist Convention of Kenya - 0.8 million[13]
Myanmar Baptist Convention - 0.7 million[13]
Council of Baptist Churches in Northeast India - 0.6 million[16]
Cooperative Baptist Fellowship - 0.5 million[13]
Nagaland Baptist Church Council - 0.5 million[13]
Baptist Convention in Tanzania - 0.5 million[13]
Orissa Evangelical Baptist Crusade - 0.5 million[13]
Baptist General Association of Virginia - 0.5 million[13]
National Baptist Convention (Brazil) - 0.4 million[13]
Church of Christ in Congo–Baptist Community of Congo - 0.4 million[17]
Convention of Philippine Baptist Churches - 0.3[13]
American Baptist Association - 0.3 million[18]
Union of Baptist Churches in Rwanda - 0.3 million[13]
Association of Baptist Churches in Rwanda - 0.3 million[13]
Garo Baptist Convention - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Community of Western Congo - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Missionary Association of America - 0.2 million[19]
Conservative Baptist Association of America - 0.2 million[20]
National Association of Free Will Baptists - 0.2 million[21]
Canadian Baptist Ministries - 0.2 million[13]
National Baptist Convention of Mexico - 0.2 million[13]
Manipur Baptist Convention - 0.2 million[13]
Convention of Baptist Churches of the Northern Circars - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Community in Central Africa - 0.2 million[13]
Baptist Convention of Malawi - 0.2 million[13]
Lutheranism - 75 million[22]
Evangelical Church in Germany - 24.5 million[23]
Church of Sweden - 6.7 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Tanzania - 5.6 million[24]
Ethiopian Evangelical Church Mekane Yesus - 5.3 million[24]
United Evangelical Lutheran Churches in India - 4.5 million[25]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in America - 4.5 million[24]
Church of Denmark - 4.5 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland - 4.4 million[24]
Batak Christian Protestant Church - 4.2 million[24]
Church of Norway - 4.0 million[24]
Christian Protestant Church in Indonesia - 3.6 million[24]
Malagasy Lutheran Church - 3.0 million[24]
Lutheran Church–Missouri Synod - 2.5 million[26]
The Lutheran Church of Christ in Nigeria - 1.9 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Papua New Guinea - 0.9 million[24]
Evangelical Church of the Lutheran Confession in Brazil - 0.7 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Namibia - 0.7 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Southern Africa - 0.6 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in the Republic of Namibia - 0.4 million[24]
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod - 0.4 million[27]
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Slovakia - 0.4 million[24]
The Indonesian Protestant Church - 0.4 million[24]
The Protestant Christian Church - 0.4 million[24]
Evangelical Church of the Augsburg Confession in Austria - 0.3 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Cameroon - 0.2 million[24]
Church of Iceland - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Brazil - 0.2 million[28]
Simalungun Protestant Christian Church - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church in Zimbabwe - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical Lutheran Church of Latvia - 0.2 million[24]
Evangelical-Lutheran Church in Hungary - 0.2 million[24]
Union of Protestant Churches of Alsace and Lorraine - 0.2 million[24]
The Lutheran Council of Great Britain - 0.2 million[24]
Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church - 0.2 million[24]
Methodism - 75 million
United Methodist Church - 12 million[29]
African Methodist Episcopal Church - 2.5 million[30]
Methodist Church Nigeria - 2 million[31]
Church of the Nazarene - 2 million[32]
Methodist Church of Southern Africa - 1.7 million[33]
Korean Methodist Church - 1.5 million[34]
African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church - 1.5 million[35]
The Salvation Army - 1.4 million [36]
United Methodist Church of Ivory Coast - 1 million[37]
Free Methodist Church - 0.9 million[38]
Christian Methodist Episcopal Church - 0.9 million[39]
Methodist Church Ghana - 0.8 million[40]
Methodist Church in India - 0.6 million[41]
Methodist Church in Kenya - 0.5 million[42]
Wesleyan Church - 0.4 million[43]
Evangelical Free Church of America - 0.4 million[44]
Methodist Church of Great Britain - 0.3 million[45]
Methodist Church in Brazil - 0.2 million[46]
Reformed churches - 75 million
Presbyterianism - 40 million
Presbyterian Church of East Africa - 4.0 million[47]
Presbyterian Church of Africa - 3.4 million[48]
Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.) - 3.0 million[49]
United Church of Canada - 2.8 million[50]
Church of Christ in Congo–Presbyterian Community of Congo - 2.5 million[51]
Presbyterian Church of Korea - 2.4 million[52]
Presbyterian Church of Cameroon - 1.8 million[53]
Church of Central Africa, Presbyterian - 1.3 million[54]
Church of Scotland - 1.1 million[55]
Presbyterian Church of the Sudan - 1.0 million[56]
Presbyterian Church in Cameroon - 0.7 million[57]
Presbyterian Church of Brazil - 0.7 million [58]
Evangelical Presbyterian Church, Ghana - 0.6 million[59]
United Church of Christ in the Philippines - 0.5 million[60]
Presbyterian Church of Nigeria - 0.5 million[61]
Uniting Presbyterian Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[62]
Presbyterian Church of Pakistan - 0.4 million[63]
Presbyterian Church in Ireland - 0.3 million
Uniting Church in Australia - 0.3 million[64]
Presbyterian Church in America - 0.3 million[65]
Presbyterian Church of Korea - 0.3 million[66]
Presbyterian Church in Rwanda - 0.3 million[67]
Presbyterian Church in Taiwan - 0.3 million[68]
Continental Reformed churches - 30 million
Church of Jesus Christ in Madagascar - 3.5 million[69]
United Church of Zambia - 3.0 million[70]
Protestant Church in the Netherlands - 2.5 million[71]
Swiss Reformed Church - 2.4 million[72]
Evangelical Church of Cameroon - 2.0 million[73]
Protestant Evangelical Church in Timor - 2.0 million[74]
Dutch Reformed Church - 1.1 million
Christian Evangelical Church in Minahasa - 0.7 million[75]
United Church in Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands - 0.6 million[76]
Protestant Church in Western Indonesia - 0.6 million[77]
Evangelical Christian Church in Tanah Papua - 0.6 million[78]
Protestant Church in the Moluccas - 0.6 million[79]
Reformed Church in Hungary - 0.6 million[80]
Reformed Church in Romania - 0.6 million[81]
Uniting Reformed Church in Southern Africa - 0.5 million[82]
Toraja Church - 0.4 million[83]
Reformed Church of France - 0.4 million[84]
Lesotho Evangelical Church - 0.3 million[85]
Evangelical Christian Church in Halmahera - 0.3 million[86]
Christian Church of Sumba - 0.3 million[87]
Karo Batak Protestant Church - 0.3 million[88]
Reformed Church in America - 0.3 million[89]
Christian Reformed Church in North America - 0.3 million[90]
Christian Reformed Church of Nigeria - 0.3 million[91]
Reformed Church in Zambia - 0.3 million[92]
Kalimantan Evangelical Church - 0.2 million[93]
Javanese Christian Churches - 0.2 million[94]
Indonesia Christian Church - 0.2 million[95]
Church of Christ in the Sudan Among the Tiv - 0.2 million[96]
Church of Lippe - 0.2 million[97]
Evangelical Church of Congo - 0.2 million[98]
Evangelical Church of Gabon - 0.2 million[99]
Christian Evangelical Church of Sangihe Talaud - 0.2 million[100]
Central Sulawesi Christian Church - 0.2 million[101]
Evangelical Reformed Church in Bavaria and Northwestern Germany - 0.2 million[102]
Congregationalism - 5 million
United Church of Christ - 1.2 million[103]
Evangelical Congregational Church in Angola - 0.9 million[104]
United Congregational Church of Southern Africa - 0.5 million[105]
Anabaptism and Free churches - 5 million
Schwarzenau Brethren/German Baptist groups - 1.5 million[106]
Mennonites - 1.5 million
Plymouth Brethren - 1 million[107]
Moravians - 0.7 million[108]
Amish - 0.2 million
Hutterites - 0.2 million
Quakers - 0.4 million
Waldensians - 0.05 million
Modern Protestantism - 274 million[citation needed]
Pentecostalism - 130 million
Assemblies of God - 60 million
International Circle of Faith - 11 million[109]
Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee)- 9 million
International Church of the Foursquare Gospel - 8 million
Apostolic Church - 6 million
Church of God in Christ - 6.5 million[110]
United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
The Pentecostal Mission - 2.5 million
Christian Congregation of Brazil - 2.5 million
Universal Church of the Kingdom of God - 2 million
Church of God of Prophecy - 1 million
God is Love Pentecostal Church - 0.8 million
Nondenominational evangelicalism - 80 million
Calvary Chapel - 25 million
Born Again Movement - 20 million
Association of Vineyard Churches - 15 million
Christian and Missionary Alliance - 4 million[111]
True Jesus Church - 2.5 million
Church of God (Anderson, Indiana) - 1.2 million
African initiated churches - 40 million
Zion Christian Church - 15 million
Eternal Sacred Order of Cherubim and Seraphim - 10 million
Kimbanguist Church - 5.5 million
Church of the Lord (Aladura) - 3.6 million[112]
Council of African Instituted Churches - 3 million[113]
Church of Christ Light of the Holy Spirit - 1.4 million[114]
African Church of the Holy Spirit - 0.7 million[115]
African Israel Church Nineveh - 0.5 million[116]
Seventh-day Adventist Church - 17 million
Restoration Movement - 7 million
Churches of Christ - 5 million
Christian churches and churches of Christ - 1.1 million[14]
Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) - 0.7 million[117]
Oneness Pentecostalism - 6 million
United Pentecostal Church International - 4 million
Pentecostal Assemblies of the World - 1.5 million
Anglicanism - 85 million
Anglican Communion - 80 million[119]
Church of England - 25.0 million[120]
Church of Nigeria - 18.0 million[121]
Church of Uganda - 8.1 million[122]
Anglican Church of Kenya - 5.0 million[123]
Episcopal Church of Sudan - 4.5 million[124]
Church of South India - 4 million[125]
Anglican Church of Australia - 3.9 million[126]
Episcopal Church in the United States - 2.4 million[127]
Anglican Church of Southern Africa - 2.3 million[128]
Anglican Church of Tanzania - 2.0 million[129]
Anglican Church of Canada - 2.0 million[130]
Church of North India - 1.5 million[131]
Anglican Church of Rwanda - 1.0 million[132]
Church of the Province of Central Africa - 0.9 million[133]
Anglican Church of Burundi - 0.8 million[134]
Church in the Province of the West Indies - 0.8 million[135]
Church of the Province of the Indian Ocean - 0.5 million[136]
Church of Christ in Congo–Anglican Community of Congo - 0.5 million[137]
Church of Pakistan - 0.5 million[138]
Church of Ireland - 0.4 million[139]
Church of the Province of West Africa - 0.3 million[140]
Church of the Province of Melanesia - 0.2 million[141]
Continuing Anglican movement and independent Anglican churches - 1.5 million
Traditional Anglican Communion - 0.4 million[142]
Church of England in South Africa - 0.1 million[143]
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denominations_by_number_of_members
Yeah, LOL, it's not the people who generate new labels for themselves every time someone gets upset at a church supper who love labels, oh noes, it's those Catholics who love labels.
Rather than fight the heresy, anarchy, and anti-Christ behavior in their own ranks, though, they join with others who deny Christ is God, deny the Holy Spirit is part of the Trinity, Judiaziers exactly like Paul contended with, and even those who call everything about Christ and Christianity a scam, to attack Catholicism in order to divert attention from fact that what they preach leads to division and away from Christ.
All those now very liberal leftist churches now ordaining women and queers, approving of abortion, agreeing that queers should marry one another, and so on were preaching the same anti-Catholic trash not too long ago and where did it lead them? It glossed over the corruption in their own ranks and lead them to going along to get along with the increasingly pagan society they love to be part of. They hate the Catholic Church because it won't agree with mass infanticide, queers marrying one another, ordaining queers, and all the other things that the "mainline" churches agree with and even some of the so-called Evangelicals agree with.
All the anti-Catholic trash is misdirection to aid the corrupting of non-Catholic Christian churches and keep them from uniting with Catholics on common shared goals to stop the anti-Christ society in it's tracks, and it always has been.
I find nothing in Calvin's writings that would suggest such a thing. Could you please provide an example?
As for “semi-pelegianism”, the modern “big box churches seems to have gone past the “holiness”phase to methodism/evangelicalism to full-blown pelagianism.
Your statement isn't far from the truth. Augustine called anything that aligned itself with "free will" Pelagianism. While there are plenty of Protestant churches today that would fit that category, I would also suggest reading what the Council of Trent had to say. They also went down this same path.
So there are different churches in different countries that have different names.
It proves what?
Can you demonstrate that they have doctrinal differences? Or significant doctrinal differences - along the order of differences between say, Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodox?
>> “. But we grow up with mediators between God and us: our parents, our relatives and friends, and the members of our Church” <<
.
Typical fantasy that one would expect from a catholic.
There are no mediators but Yeshua.
>> “ and the saints, living and dead” <<
Now we’re into science fiction.
Catholic conservatives: A traditionalist avant-garde
The Rites of the Catholic Church [Catholic Caucus]
One and Many Churches (origins of the Church)
THE RITES OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH -- There are many!
(Cardinal) Newman on Rites and Ceremonies
"Catholics love their labels."In response to this:ROTFLMAO . . .
It's non-Catholics who generate labels because they rely on Self Alone and have no anchor but their Self
Like many Catholic "teachers," this author broad brushes all Christians outside of the Catholic church as Protestants.What was it that Reagan said? Oh yeah, "There you go again."Catholics love their labels.
The millions of born again Christians seem to be a thorn in your side. It seems to be that relying on Jesus and seeing Him as an anchor to their lives is their lot in life.
Maybe it was Rash of you to putin that statement and thus prove the Catholic labeling obsession?
Broadbrush X2.
Or paganism or necromancy.
Yes .. the Bible, which was compiled by the Catholic Church.
Is Peter the 'rock'?
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Look at the scene
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
Promises to Peter
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Finally, after the resurrection, Jesus appeared to his disciples and asked Peter three times, "Do you love me?" (John 21:15-17). In repentance for his threefold denial, Peter gave a threefold affirmation of love. Then Christ, the Good Shepherd (John 10:11, 14), gave Peter the authority he earlier had promised: "Feed my sheep" (John 21:17). This specifically included the other apostles, since Jesus asked Peter, "Do you love me more than these?" (John 21:15), the word "these" referring to the other apostles who were present (John 21:2). Thus was completed the prediction made just before Jesus and his followers went for the last time to the Mount of Olives.
Immediately before his denials were predicted, Peter was told, "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again [after the denials], strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32). It was Peter who Christ prayed would have faith that would not fail and that would be a guide for the others; and his prayer, being perfectly efficacious, was sure to be fulfilled.
Who is the rock?
Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18). Disputes about this passage have always been related to the meaning of the term "rock." To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
Look at the Aramaic
When Matthew’s Gospel was translated from the original Aramaic to Greek, there arose a problem which did not confront the evangelist when he first composed his account of Christ’s life. In Aramaic the word kepha has the same ending whether it refers to a rock or is used as a man’s name. In Greek, though, the word for rock, petra, is feminine in gender. The translator could use it for the second appearance of kepha in the sentence, but not for the first because it would be inappropriate to give a man a feminine name. So he put a masculine ending on it, and hence Peter became Petros.
Furthermore, the premise of the argument against Peter being the rock is simply false. In first century Greek the words petros and petra were synonyms. They had previously possessed the meanings of "small stone" and "large rock" in some early Greek poetry, but by the first century this distinction was gone, as Protestant Bible scholars admit (see D. A. Carson’s remarks on this passage in the Expositor’s Bible Commentary, [Grand Rapids: Zondervan Books]).
Some of the effect of Christ’s play on words was lost when his statement was translated from the Aramaic into Greek, but that was the best that could be done in Greek. In English, like Aramaic, there is no problem with endings; so an English rendition could read: "You are Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church."
Consider another point: If the rock really did refer to Christ (as some claim, based on 1 Cor. 10:4, "and the Rock was Christ" though the rock there was a literal, physical rock), why did Matthew leave the passage as it was? In the original Aramaic, and in the English which is a closer parallel to it than is the Greek, the passage is clear enough. Matthew must have realized that his readers would conclude the obvious from "Rock . . . rock."
If he meant Christ to be understood as the rock, why didn’t he say so? Why did he take a chance and leave it up to Paul to write a clarifying text? This presumes, of course, that 1 Corinthians was written after Matthew’s Gospel; if it came first, it could not have been written to clarify it.
The reason, of course, is that Matthew knew full well that what the sentence seemed to say was just what it really was saying. It was Simon, weak as he was, who was chosen to become the rock and thus the first link in the chain of the papacy.
Everyone honest and not trying to hide from the facts knows that overall non-Catholic Christianity in this country has degenerated into tens of thousands of different doctrines that cannot all be true which means they're almost all, in essence, Self Worship.
The only non-Catholic group I know for sure is resisting the tide is the SBC because they expect both members and member churches stick to their creed in order to call themselves Southern Baptists rather than preaching whatever they like to go along and get along with whatever is popular in thier neighborhood.
All the churches and all the people who brush off adherence to creeds and denominations have dissolved into Self Alone Self Worship. That's crystal clear from the fact that people here on FR will gladly join with those they pretend to totally disagree with on matters of Faith and Morals as long as those other people help them attack Catholics to hide their own lack of any real belief they're willing to stand up for.
Is Easter a pagan holiday?
Is going to church to meet with fellow Christians a useless pagan ritual?
Is Christmas a pagan holiday?
Is the Holy Spirit seperate from Christ and the Father, not part of the Trinity?
Are people going to Hell for attending church on Sunday rather than Saturday?
Is Christ a false god and all of Christianity a scam?
Are you going to Hell for using the name for Christ that's in the KJV of the Bible rather than Yeshua?
Are you going to Hell if you don't keep the Jewish holidays as they were kept prior to Christ?
Is Jesus Christ a false god and all of Christianity a false religion scam?
All of that and a great deal more anti-Christian garbage is espoused by one or more of the regular anti-Catholic posters here, and not a bit of it is ever even mentioned by their fellow anti-Catholics.
The anti-Catholic crowd has a set of convienent, self serving, Self Alone Self Worship beliefs that they change to suit their agenda and the posting name they're using at the moment. Jabbering the right words and quoting Scripture is meaningless since the Scripture clearly says that even Satan can quote Scripture. Most of the anti-Catholic crowd don't believe a single thing they say, it's just part of their propaganda routine. If they believed what they said they'd contest their fellow anti-Catholics when they were in error and spewing anti-Christian lies rather than ignoring those lies and heresies.
As long as someone spews hatred for Catholics the anti-Catholic propagandists don't care what they believe, how they slander Christ, and what sort of lies they tell. The anti-Catholic propagandists only care about spreading divisions among Christians, especially between conservative Christians and Catholics, because the greatest fear the anti-Catholic propagandists have is seeing all real Christians joining together to resist the anti-Christ society.
have a nice day
I guess some folks aren’t quite bright enough to realize that if they’re not part of a Protestant or Protestant derived religion that post doesn’t apply to them. I know it’s an extremely advanced concept, but “if you ain’t in the group mentioned, it doesn’t apply to you.”.
And typical refusal to define terms from a fundy. As though their meaning were self evident. What do you mean by “mediator?” Time out to consult a dictionary.
All of that and not one source from scripture showing where whoever said any of those things was countered by scripture. Isn’t that interesting.
The very same Peter that Christ shortly after in the same conversation said to Peter: Matthew 16: “23 But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me, Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the things that be of God, but those that be of men.”
Then there is God’s statement in Isaiah 44:8, "Is there any God besides Me, or is there any other Rock? I know of none."
1 Cor. 10:4, "and all drank the same spiritual drink, for they were drinking from a spiritual rock (petras) which followed them; and the rock (petra) was Christ."
God says there is no other Rock and Paul says in 1 Cor. That Christ is the Rock. All that verbeage to get to an erroneous conclusion when all we had to do was listen to God.
>> “Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles...” <<
.
The favored apostle was John, “the disciple that the Lord Loved”
.
Yeshua humorously called Peter “hard pebble,” a name that he had been called all of his life because it was the nature of his personality.
YHVH was called the Rock in Exodus 33:22, and again in Deuteronomy 32, several times, and again in Samuel 2:2, and again in Samuel 22 several times, and in Samuel 23:3 is called “the Rock of Israel, and in Psalm 18 several times, and Psalm 28, 31, and 42, and then Psalm 62,71,and 78, and then Psalm 89, 92, 94, and 95, and then in Isaiah 8 Yeshua is called a stone of stumbling, and the Rock of offense, and in Isaiah 17, the Rock of thy strength, and Isaiah 51, the Rock whence ye are hewen, then in Romans 9 he is again the Rock of offense, and in 1Corinthians 10:4 the Rock is identified as Christ, and in 1Peter the rock of offense again.
We know who the Rock is, and it sure is not Peter.
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.