Papal Sanctification Expedited

[mzungu]

http://nytimes.com/2005/05/13/international/europe/13cnd-pope.html?hp&ex=1116043200&en=10f1b3ebe37b8d01&ei=5094&partner=homepage

i read some things in a new yorker article about pope benedict xvi (cardinal ratzinger) that shed light on why zat may have supported him. i'm curious to know more specifically, but for the moment I'll just post this article. apparently, the stickler for church rules and tradition breaks the rules and tradition as one of his first acts, waiving the five year waiting period on sainthood (john paul ii reduced it to two for mother teresa).

[Zat0pek]

apparently, the stickler for church rules and tradition breaks the rules and tradition as one of his first acts, waiving the five year waiting period on sainthood (john paul ii reduced it to two for mother teresa).

As you point out yourself by reference to JPII waiving it for Mother Teresa, the pope as the authority to do just that. He violates no rule and no tradition in the process. It is a rule that he has the authority to waive; ergo, in exercising the authority to waive it, he doesn't violate it.

[Zat0pek]

i read some things in a new yorker article about pope benedict xvi (cardinal ratzinger) that shed light on why zat may have supported him. i'm curious to know more specifically

Pick up copies of some of Scott Hahn's recent works such as Scripture Matters and The Lamb's Supper and check out the bibliographies in them. Ratzinger's writings are the most heavily cited secondary sources, by far. He is simply a brilliant theologian and scholar.

[jrun]

Pretty interesting how one can be elected to be part of God's elect, or saints.

[Zat0pek]

Pretty interesting how one can be elected to be part of God's elect, or saints.

Actually, in this instance, it Saints because we are all already saints.

[xcrider]

Actually, in this instance, it Saints because we are all already saints.
What is the significance of that? Is it just an honorary thing such as a hall of fame(seriously) or nobel prize? I understand it is a much more important thing than that to Catholics, but what is the significance?

[Jwaksman]

It's such a silly process. They have to prove that he performed a miracle? That he healed someone? How can you possible document something like that? It's easy to get away with when talking about people from 1000 years ago, but in today's day and age I'm pretty sure it would have been front page news if John Paul II had given a blind man sight....

[jrun]

It's such a silly process. They have to prove that he performed a miracle? That he healed someone? How can you possible document something like that? It's easy to get away with when talking about people from 1000 years ago, but in today's day and age I'm pretty sure it would have been front page news if John Paul II had given a blind man sight....

Miracles come in various forms and sizes. Even so, the word is tossed carelessly around nowadays.

[Zat0pek]

I'm pretty sure it would have been front page news if John Paul II had given a blind man sight....

You just revealed profound ignorance of this subject.

It is blasphemy to even suggest that it is the Saint that performed the miracle. That is the sole province of God.

Easiest way to explain it is this: Let's say you want a raise from your boss, and you have spoken to your boss about it. You articulate why you think you deserve it. Your boss has said he will consider it and he will get back with you. There is someone else at work - say, the bosses administrative assistant - upon whom the boss relies and in whom he has great trust. You go to the administrative assistant, plead your case for the raise and ask them to help you persuade the boss. They agree you have a good point and promise to talk to the boss about it for you as well. They do. The boss agrees and you get the raise.

The boss is God. The administrative assistant is the saint. You are you.

That, at its most basic, is seen as the function of the saints, specially trusted underlings. Think about the extraordinary life of Mother Teresa. Logic would tell you that God would be especially pleased with her, someone whose opinions would get special consideration. This is why Catholics seek the intercession of saints on certain matters. It is a big part of Marian doctrine; who better to help influence Christ than his own mother? "Hey, Mary, talk to your kid for me, would you? I'm really desparate here and need all the help I can get." Doesn't mean that Christ will agree with them or do what is requested - He is Christ, after all - but it never hurts to seek a little help from someone's specially trusted servants.

That DOES NOT mean that God loves them more, because that is not true. It means that they have earned a special trust. Likewise, many non-Catholics labor under the delusion that Catholics can only reach God through some intermediary like a saint. Hogwash. In my example, you went directly to your boss, and you may well have gotten the raise without the intercession on the part of the administrative assistant.

Ever heard the comment that there would be a "special place in Heaven" for someone of unusually strong faith and selflessness, someone who had suffered a great deal on Earth? That's the idea behind a Saint.

[Jwaksman]

I don't get what you're arguing here. Saints need to do miracles. Whether they're from some "God" or not is irrelevant to my point. I'm saying, where are the miracles? Where are the cured blind men? Wouldn't that make the evening news if it happened?

[mzungu]

as i understand it, zat's point is that god performs miracles through the person of the saint or at the wish of the saint, not that the saint has his/her own powers.
however, in the article, it is suggested otherwise:
"He then read a letter, signed May 9, in which he asked the Vatican Congregation for the Causes of Saints, Cardinal Jose Saraiva Martins, to waive the usual five-year waiting period between the time of a person's death and when the process for beatification, a key step toward sainthood, can begin.

John Paul had waived that five-year period once: for Mother Teresa, who died in 1997, and the beatification process began less than two years later. She was beatified in 2003.

After John Paul II died on April 2 at age 84, an estimated three million people thronged to Rome in the six days before his funeral, many waving signs demanding "Santo subito!" or "Sainthood now!" Many cardinals took up the cause, and there have been various reports of possible miracles attributed to John Paul, one necessity for being proclaimed a saint. Among them came from an Italian cardinal, Francesco Marchisano, who said his vocal chords had been paralyzed by a medical error.

"One day I found myself at lunch with the pope, and I explained to him - I showed him - that I couldn't talk," Cardinal Marchisano said in a telephone interview. "He came over to me and he caressed my throat, like a brother, like the father that he was."

"After that I did seven months of therapy and I was able to speak again," he said. Asked if it was because of a miracle, he said: "It could be. All the saints have powers."

Pope Benedict made the announcement on the anniversary of the assassination attempt against John Paul II in St. Peter's Square in 1981. During his 26-year papacy, John Paul elevated 482 people to sainthood, more than all his predecessors combined."

Notice that Cardinal Marchisano is careful not to definitively attribute a miracle to JPII, but he suggests it and he directly says that "[a]ll the saints have powers."

Also, in the re-written article text above (re-written from earlier today), it states not that Ratzinger himself waived the waiting period, but that he is asking for it to be waived by the vatican congregation for saints. JPII was the first to ask for this change, according to the earlier article. I would very much like to see David Hume exhumed (no pun intended) to be the advocatus diaboli in the papal sanctification procedures. Hume was very, very skeptical about miracles, whether in the past or present, arguing that if miracles are events occurring through a rare or exceptional, non-natural causality (i.e. they could be any event, but the cause has to be supernatural, and they cannot occur in this way as a rule--my finger could point at the monitor, and that would be a miracle if it occurred through god's causality; bob dole getting it up would not be a miracle if it occurred through viagra, but it would be a miracle if it occurred through a supernatural cause), then we cannot possibly know that a miracle occurred at all, since supernatural causality (let alone any causality, for hume) is necessarily outside of natural events and therefore outside of the senses. we cannot see a supernatural cause. but since all knowledge of matters of fact derives from sense evidence and feeling, according to hume, there can be no knowledge of a matter of fact of a miracle. Moreover, the immense number of experiences occurring in the normal way constitutes such a huge body of evidence against the occurrence via miracle as to very strongly suggest the utter implausibility of such an occurrence.

[jaygray]

Christopher Hitchens was called by the Vatican as a devil's advocate against Mother Theresa during her beatification. (I am definitely a fan of his writing). I was frankly persuaded, to a degree, by what he wrote/said, such that what I had formerly thought -- that she was absolutely worthy of universal acclaim -- was somewhat overblown. Whether she was really worthy, I don't know, but sometimes popular acclaim becomes a thing in and of itself. I had, I admit, been suaded by that, beforehand, and am now skeptical of acclaim given to anyone, especially when it demands such a speedy process. The church is blessedly or notoriously immune (depending on your point of view) to this kind of thing, when it comes to doctrine or teaching. I am not a fan of the tossing aside of this immunity when it comes to beatification.

[jrun]

This is why Catholics seek the intercession of saints on certain matters. It is a big part of Marian doctrine; who better to help influence Christ than his own mother? "Hey, Mary, talk to your kid for me, would you? I'm really desparate here and need all the help I can get."


I understand your beliefs. However, I find error in them according to Scripture. It's as simple as this:

1 Timothy 2:5 - For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

---
Mary herself needed a Savior...her own earthly son (spiritual Father), Jesus Christ. Mary has no power to grant anything. God chose her to give birth to Jesus. Yes, we should honor her for her faith and belief, but that's the extent. I understand your analogy about the administrative assistant, however, it makes no sense to go to the 'middle man', so to speak, to get answers/results. Go directly to the Boss or Source. And the idea of petitioning Mary is not the same thing as asking an earthly brethren to pray for you...why? Because that person is still (or should be) going directly to the Source.....God.

[jrun]

Ever heard the comment that there would be a "special place in Heaven" for someone of unusually strong faith and selflessness, someone who had suffered a great deal on Earth? That's the idea behind a Saint.

Only God is a rewarder of His elect. In the Bible we know we want to hear "well done my good and faithful servant" when we pass this body. We also know that He rewards His children (believers in Christ) for their good works. This is the test for any rewards in heaven. Not a man or man-made institution voting on a person's life. If one truly understood the Scriptural nature behind the word 'saint', one would realize man has no say whatsoever in the matter.

[TrackDaddy]

Let the congregation say "Amen" to the last two posts.

Well said, J.

[mzungu]

for once, a relatively balanced perspective on the papal justification, from baptistpress.org--1) RC argument for pope is dependent on Matthew 16, on Paul's function, church tradition, and writings of the church fathers, 2) protestant position against pope is based solely on scripture, according to protestants (BUT THIS SEEMS A BIT INCOHERENT, SINCE THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY ALL AGREE IN DENYING REVELATION AFTER CHRIST, and THUS WRITINGS OF CHURCH FATHERS, RIGHT?)
“Evangelicals do not find any biblical warrant for the office of the papacy or the elaborate structure of the Roman Catholic Church,” Daniel Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in Wake Forest, N.C., told Baptist Press.

“Further, the Catholic system's emphasis on merit, works salvation and veneration of Mary and the saints are issues that those committed to ‘sola scriptura’ could never endorse or affirm,” Akin continued. “While we can appreciate the moral stand on life and marriage of the papacy, we will resolutely maintain that our High Priest is Jesus Christ in whom we have direct access to the true and living God.”

Mark DeVine, associate professor of theology at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Kansas City, Mo., noted, “As Protestants and evangelicals, we deny any special authority to the pope or any other religious leader. We insist that all things be tested by Scripture. We accept the authority of Scripture over all human authority –- as evangelicals and even more so as Protestants. We stand under the Word of God.”

Ratzinger, 78, who took the papal name of Pope Benedict XVI, succeeds Pope John Paul II, who died April 2 at age 84 after a 26-year pontificate.

Pope Benedict XVI is the first pope from a German-speaking land since Victor II held the office from 1055-57. He also is the second-oldest man to ascend to the position, three months younger than Clement XII when he was chosen in 1730. The last pope to adopt the name Benedict, which comes from the Latin for "blessing," was an Italian cardinal, Giacomo della Chiesa, who held the office from 1914-22.

Ken Keathley, associate professor of theology at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and associate dean of graduate studies, noted that Roman Catholics base the doctrine of the papacy “on the belief that the bishop (or in evangelical terminology, the pastor) of Rome inherits the position and authority of the Apostle Peter. This, Catholics believe, makes the Roman bishop the ‘Father’ or ‘Pope’ over all other bishops and their respective churches.

“In contrast,” Keathley told BP, “Baptists affirm the authority and autonomy of the local church under the lordship of Christ through the guidance of His Spirit.

“History demonstrates that the consolidation of authority into the hands of one person, no matter how well meaning that person may be, can result in the abuse of power,” he said.

Keathley added, however, “Cardinal Ratzinger, the recently elected pope, has taken the name Benedict XVI. He oversaw the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith, which in centuries past was the infamous Office of the Inquisition. His namesake, Benedict XV, strongly advocated peaceful relations between nations during the chaotic years of World War I. Evangelicals pray that the new pope will similarly promote peace while standing firm on moral issues.”

Christendom had no pope at the time of Christ’s death and resurrection. Nor did the pope’s authority ever extend to the various branches of Eastern Orthodoxy in subsequent centuries.

The papacy’s development spanned several centuries, with the first dates attached to the papacy, as recounted in the Westminster Dictionary of Church History, revolving around Pope Leo the Great in the fifth century.

“The Petrine doctrine of papal supremacy was clearly stated by Pope Leo the Great (440-461) and defended in the writings of certain church fathers, in particular Augustine (d. 430) and Gregory the Great (d. 604), who himself became pope in 590 and whose firm leadership set the tradition of papal guidance in both dogma and church organization,” the Westminster volume states.

By the middle of the 11th century, the election of a pope had become “firmly vested in a college of cardinals,” the Westminister volume notes.

However, the papacy often faced turbulent times, such as “the establishment of rival pontiffs in Roman and France” from 1378-1418, according to the Westminster volume, in a rift initially created by a French king and later resolved by a series of church councils.

Today, Catholic doctrine holds that the pope is “the representative (vicar or vicegerent) of Christ on earth, and that his solemn official pronouncements on matters of faith and morals are infallible, safeguarded from error by God,” the Westminster volume states.

Stephen Wellum, associate professor of theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky., noted, “The main biblical text that is appealed to [for papal succession] is Matthew 16. However this text, while acknowledging the foundational role of Peter and the apostles, says nothing about Peter's successors, the infallibility of those successors or their exclusive authority.

“What the New Testament shows instead is that Peter is the first to make the formal confession of who Jesus is and that he is at best a 'first among equals,' but in no way does this text establish papal authority and apostolic succession,” Wellum told BP. “This is certainly borne out in the New Testament where Jesus, among the apostles, did not leave one superior authority over the others, but left a group of 12 who were equal in governing authority, and from them comes the authoritative Scripture which unpacks for us the full revelation of the Lord Jesus Christ (see Hebrews 1:1-3 and Eph 2:20).

“That is why Baptists argue that the foundation of the church is Christ Jesus Himself, rooted in his inspired, infallible and inerrant Word, and it is that Word which demands our allegiance, loyalty and commitment,” Wellum said.

“Much of the Roman Catholic argument is tied, not to Scripture, but to church tradition,” he added. “But as with all church tradition, it must be evaluated in terms of Scripture itself. As important as the Roman Catholic Church is and as important as the pope is in the Roman Catholic Church, the papacy's claim to be the vicar of Christ on earth has no biblical support.”

R. Albert Mohler Jr., president of Southern Seminary, noted in his weblog two days after Pope John Paul’s death: “For evangelicals, the crucial question comes with the institution of the papacy itself. After all, the Reformation of the 16th century required a rejection of papal power and authority, and the Reformers soon came to understand the papacy as an unbiblical office that inevitably compromised the authority and sufficiency of Scripture....

“Furthermore, this office is then invested with claims to spiritual and temporal power that are combined with claims of apostolic succession and serve as foundational pillars for the comprehensive claims of the Roman Catholic Church,” Mohler wrote, noting, “The Protestant rejection of the papacy was no small matter, though some liberal Protestants and careless evangelicals seem to have forgotten why.”

Mohler maintained that evangelicals “simply cannot accept the legitimacy of the papacy and must resist and reject claims of papal authority. To do otherwise would be to compromise biblical truth and reverse the Reformation.” With the death of Pope John Paul II, he added, “... evangelicals are confronted with a sensitive question: Can we recognize genuine virtues in a man who for over a quarter of a century held an office we must expressly reject?”

[mzungu]

New York TIMES: Op-Ed Columnist
Liberal Bible-Thumping

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
Published: May 15, 2005
Even aside from his arguments that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and that St. Paul was a self-hating gay, the new book by a former Episcopal bishop of Newark is explosive.

John Shelby Spong, the former bishop, tosses a hand grenade into the cultural wars with "The Sins of Scripture," which examines why the Bible - for all its message of love and charity - has often been used through history to oppose democracy and women's rights, to justify slavery and even mass murder.

It's a provocative question, and Bishop Spong approaches it with gusto. His mission, he says, is "to force the Christian Church to face its own terrifying history that so often has been justified by quotations from 'the Scriptures.' "

This book is long overdue, because one of the biggest mistakes liberals have made has been to forfeit battles in which faith plays a crucial role. Religion has always been a central current of American life, and it is becoming more important in politics because of the new Great Awakening unfolding across the United States.

Yet liberals have tended to stay apart from the fray rather than engaging in it. In fact, when conservatives quote from the Bible to make moral points, they tend to quote very selectively. After all, while Leviticus bans gay sex, it also forbids touching anything made of pigskin (is playing football banned?) - and some biblical passages seem not so much morally uplifting as genocidal.

"Can we really worship the God found in the Bible who sent the angel of death across the land of Egypt to murder the firstborn males in every Egyptian household?" Bishop Spong asks. Or what about 1 Samuel 15, in which God is quoted as issuing orders to wipe out all the Amalekites: "Kill both man and woman, child and infant." Hmmm. Tough love, or war crimes? As for the New Testament, Revelation 19:17 has an angel handing out invitations to a divine dinner of "the flesh of all people."

Bishop Spong, who has also taught at Harvard Divinity School, argues that while Christianity historically tried to block advances by women, Jesus himself treated women with unusual dignity and was probably married to Mary Magdalene.

Christianity may have become unfriendly to women's rights partly because, in its early years, it absorbed an antipathy for sexuality from the Neoplatonists. That led to an emphasis on the perpetual virginity of Mary, with some early Christian thinkers even trying to preserve the Virgin Mary's honor by raising the possibility that Jesus had been born through her ear.

The squeamishness about sexuality led the church into such absurdities as a debate about "prelapsarian sex": the question of whether Adam and Eve might have slept together in the Garden of Eden, at least if they had stayed longer. St. Augustine's dour answer was: Maybe, but they wouldn't have enjoyed it. In modern times, this same discomfort with sex has led some conservative Christians to a hatred of gays and a hostility toward condoms, even to fight AIDS.

Bishop Spong particularly denounces preachers who selectively quote Scripture against homosexuality. He also cites various textual reasons for concluding (not very persuasively) that St. Paul was "a frightened gay man condemning other gay people so that he can keep his own homosexuality inside the rigid discipline of his faith."

The bishop also tries to cast doubt on the idea that Judas betrayed Jesus. He notes that the earliest New Testament writings, of Paul and the source known as Q, don't mention a betrayal by Judas. Bishop Spong contends that after the destruction of Jewish Jerusalem in A.D. 70, early Christians curried favor with Roman gentiles by blaming the Crucifixion on Jewish authorities - nurturing two millennia of anti-Semitism that bigots insisted was biblically sanctioned.

Some of the bishop's ideas strike me as more provocative than persuasive, but at least he's engaged in the debate. When liberals take on conservative Christians, it tends to be with insults - by deriding them as jihadists and fleeing the field. That's a mistake. It's entirely possible to honor Christian conservatives for their first-rate humanitarian work treating the sick in Africa or fighting sex trafficking in Asia, and still do battle with them over issues like gay rights.

Liberals can and should confront Bible-thumping preachers on their own terms, for the scriptural emphasis on justice and compassion gives the left plenty of ammunition. After all, the Bible depicts Jesus as healing lepers, not slashing Medicaid.

[Zat0pek]

Eh, what the heck. I usually stay out of these discussions, but here's some grist for the mill.



Sometimes I don't know what to think about the Bible. Should we take it literally or symbolically?

It depends on the intent of the particular biblical author. If he intended what he wrote to be taken literally, then we should take it literally. If he meant for it to be taken symbolically, then that's how we should take it. Although this principle is easy to state, it isn't always easy to apply.

Some things in the Bible, such as the parables of Jesus, are clearly symbolic, but what about other things, such as Christ's words about the Eucharist? Are they to be taken literally or symbolically? Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, many Lutherans, and many Anglicans take them literally. Evangelicals, Fundamentalists, and other Protestants do not. (ZAT EDIT: This points out that in this instance - and there are many other instances - Catholics take scripture literally and Protestants do not).

Yet all Christians claim Christ's words, as well as the tenor of the New Testament, support their belief, and all claim to know what Christ intended when he spoke them. How do we decide who's right?

Based on literary and historical analysis, scholars often can determine how the biblical writer wanted his words to be understood. This is why in studying Scripture we should familiarize ourselves with its literary and historical background.

Still, scholarship alone can't solve all of our interpretative problems. There are scholars, for instance, who affirm the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist and those who deny it, just as there are those who think the New Testament teaches distinctively Catholic beliefs and those who don't. Because of the possibility (and frequency) of such scholarly impasses, the Catholic Church insists that Christ established the Magisterium--the teaching authority of the Church--to propound biblical truth infallibly. The authentic explanation of the biblical message has been left neither to our own meager interpretive abilities, nor to the greater, yet still finite, exegetical skills of scholars, but has been safeguarded by God himself.



How can you say that Peter had authority over other Church leaders when he referred to himself as only their "fellow elder" (1 Pet. 5:1). This proves Peter did not see himself as having any "primacy" in the Church. He was just a presbyter.

No, it doesn't. To assert that Peter had no primacy is to ignore the clear passages to the contrary, such as Matthew 16:18-19, Luke 22:33, John 21:15-17, and Galatians 1:18. The answer to your question is found within the very context you cite. Peter says, "Clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another, for God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that he may exalt you in due time" (1 Pet. 5:5).

By humbly calling himself a "fellow elder" Peter was not implying he was merely equal in authority to the presbyters of the Church; rather, he was practicing something he enjoined on others. This self-effacement is the virtue of humility which Jesus calls all Christians to cultivate: "Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave" (Matt. 20:26-27).

Peter elsewhere reminds his readers that he is an "apostle of Jesus Christ" and as such had authority to preach and teach in the name of the Lord (cf. Luke 10:16). The very facts that Peter sent his epistles to instruct and guide the Church, and that the Church revered them as inspired, inerrant Scripture is sufficient testimony that Peter possessed an authority above that of a presbyter.

The sort of humility in dealing with the Church is evident throughout the apostolic writings. The lowest level of priestly minister was the deacon. The apostles ordained men to this office originally to distribute food to the needy and to wait on tables (Acts 6:1-6). Yet Paul, the great and eloquent writer of about half of the New Testament, describes himself as a mere deacon on several occasions (1 Cor. 3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25).

If you're going to be consistent in claiming that Peter had no special authority above that of a presbyter, you'll be forced to conclude that Paul was only a deacon and therefore had no authority over bishops, priests, or other deacons. But nobody would make such a patently unbiblical assertion. Paul, like Peter, presents himself in a humble, unassuming way--"I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God" (1 Cor. 15:10), "To me the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given" (Eph. 3:8)--but such humility does not indicate that Paul did not have jurisdiction over others. After all, he said rather pointedly, "Although I have the full right in Christ to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love" (Phi. 8-9). Only people in authority can issue orders.

[Zat0pek]

I converse with Protestants who say the power to forgive sins has been given to all Christians. Why do Catholics say it has been given only to priests?

Because Christ was talking only to the apostles when he gave the power to forgive sins (John 20:21-23). Only a small number of disciples were present, for they were in an enclosed room (20:19). In fact, one disciple, Thomas, was not even there and had to have a special encounter with Jesus (20:24ff). This shows it was not all the disciples generally who received the power to absolve, but only the core group of the disciples--the apostles.

Confirmation for the fact that only clergy can absolve is found in James 5:14-15, where the sacrament of holy anointing is discussed: "Is any among you sick? Let him call for the presbyters [priests] of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil . . . and if he was committed sins, he will be forgiven." In the sacrament of anointing we see forgiveness tied to the clergy, therefore how much more will it be when we are dealing with the sacrament of confession itself.

III. DISCUSSION OF THE THREE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF PROTESTANTISM

A. Sola Scriptura ("Bible Alone")

The belief in the Bible as the sole source of faith is unhistorical, illogical, fatal to the virtue of faith, and destructive of unity.

It is unhistorical. No one denies the fact that Christ and the Apostles founded the Church by preaching and exacting faith in their doctrines. No book told as yet of the Divinity of Christ, the redeeming value of His Passion, or of His coming to judge the world; these and all similar revelations had to be believed on the word of the Apostles, who were, as their powers showed, messengers from God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm). And those who received their word did so solely on authority. As immediate, implicit submission of the mind was in the lifetime of the Apostles the only necessary token of faith, there was no room whatever for what is now called private judgment. This is quite clear from the words of Scripture: "Therefore, we also give thanks to God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) without ceasing: because, that when you had received of us the word of the hearing of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), you received it not as the word of men, but (as it is indeed) the word of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)" (I Thessalonians 2:13). The word of hearing is received through a human teacher and is believed on the authority of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm), who is its first author (cf. Romans 10:17). But, if in the time of the Apostles, faith consisted in submitting to authorized teaching, it does so now; for the essence of things never changes and the foundation of the Church and of our salvation is immovable.

Again, it is illogical to base faith upon the private interpretation of a book. For faith consists in submitting; private interpretation consists in judging. In faith by hearing the last word rests with the teacher; in private judgment it rests with the reader, who submits the dead text of Scripture to a kind of post-mortem examination and delivers a verdict without appeal: he believes in himself rather than in any higher authority. But such trust in one's own light is not faith. Private judgment is fatal to the theological virtue of faith. John Henry Newman says "I think I may assume that this virtue, which was exercised by the first Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), is not known at all amongst Protestants now; or at least if there are instances of it, it is exercised toward those, I mean their teachers and divines, who expressly disclaim that they are objects of it, and exhort their people to judge for themselves" ("Discourses to Mixed Congregations", Faith and Private Judgment). And in proof he advances the instability of Protestant so-called faith: "They are as children tossed to and fro and carried along by every gale of doctrine. If they had faith they would not change. They look upon the simple faith of Catholics as if unworthy the dignity of human nature, as slavish and foolish". Yet upon that simple, unquestioning faith the Church was built up and is held together to this day.

Where absolute reliance on God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) word, proclaimed by his accredited ambassadors, is wanting, i.e. where there is not the virtue of faith, there can be no unity of Church. It stands to reason, and Protestant history confirms it. The "unhappy divisions", not only between sect and sect but within the same sect, have become a byword. They are due to the pride of private intellect, and they can only be healed by humble submission to a Divine authority.

B. Sola Fide (Justification by "Faith Alone")

See the separate article JUSTIFICATION (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08573a.htm).

C. Priesthood of All Believers The "universal priesthood (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12409a.htm) of believers" is a fond fancy which goes well with the other fundamental tenets of Protestantism. For, if every man is his own supreme teacher and is able to justify himself by an easy act of faith, there is no further need of ordained teachers and ministers of sacrifice and sacraments. The sacraments themselves, in fact, become superfluous. The abolition of priests, sacrifices, and sacraments is the logical consequence of false premises, i.e. the right of private judgment and justification by faith alone; it is, therefore, as illusory as these. It is moreover contrary to Scripture, to tradition, to reason. The Protestant position is that the clergy had originally been representatives of the people, deriving all their power from them, and only doing, for the sake of order and convenience, what laymen might do also. But Scripture speaks of bishops, priests, deacons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04647c.htm) as invested with spiritual powers not possessed by the community at large, and transmitted by an external sign, the imposition of hands, thus creating a separate order, a hierarchy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07322a.htm). Scripture shows the Church starting with an ordained priesthood as its central element. History likewise shows this priesthood living on in unbroken succession to the present day in East and West, even in Churches separated from Rome. And reason requires such an institution; a society confessedly established to continue the saving work of Christ must possess and perpetuate His saving power; it must have a teaching and ministering order commissioned by Christ, as Christ was commissioned by God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm); "As the Father has sent me, I also send you" (John 20:21). Sects which are at best shadows of Churches wax and wane with the priestly powers they subconsciously or instinctively attribute to their pastors, elders, ministers, preachers, and other leaders.

[Zat0pek]

I. INSTITUTION OF A SUPREME HEAD BY CHRIST





The proof (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12454c.htm) that Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) constituted St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) head of His Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. MATTHEW 16:17-19







In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) to the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm). In response to his profession of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) in the Divine Nature (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10715a.htm) of his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) thus addresses him:


Blessed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm) art thou, Simon Bar-Jona (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm): because flesh and blood hath not revealed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) it to thee, but my Father (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) who is in heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm). And I say to thee: That thou art Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm); and upon this rock I will build my Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), and the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm) of the kingdom of heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm). And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm): and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm).

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) are manifestly personal to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm). His profession of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). This is evident from the words of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). He pronounces on the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm), distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02599b.htm), declaring that his knowledge (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm) regarding the Divine Sonship (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm) sprang from a special revelation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) granted to him by the Father (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) (cf. Matthew 11:27).

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:


Thou art Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm).

The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) who is the rock of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07176a.htm) qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm) viewed as God's Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) (see THE CHURCH (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), I).

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) teaches plainly that in the future the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) will be the society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) will be built on Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm).

The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm) and New Testaments (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14530a.htm) the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Osee 8:1; 9:15; 1 Cor. 3:9-17, Eph. 2:20-2; 1 Tim. 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; I Peter 2:5). Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) is to be to the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) what the foundation is in regard to a house.

He is to be the principle of unity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm), of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm); of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) remains unshaken by the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation.

(Cont.)

[Zat0pek]

"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."It is through her union with Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm), Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) continues, that the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm):


The gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it.

There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15179a.htm), and increase. The promise (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14526a.htm) prophecy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm) (Isiah 28:16) and Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm), of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) with Himself in an altogether singular manner.

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) to bestow on Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) the keys (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm) of the kingdom of heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm).

The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:


And I will lay the key (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08631b.htm) of the house of David (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04642b.htm) upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.

In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) words are a promise (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) that He will confer on Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) supreme power to govern the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.

"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) ratification.

(Cont.)

[Zat0pek]

Objections. The meaning of this passage does not seem to have been challenged by any writer until the rise of the sixteenth-century heresies (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12700b.htm). Since then a great variety of interpretations have been put forward by Protestant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) controversialists. These agree in little save in the rejection of the plain sense of Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) words. Some Anglican (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01498a.htm) controversy tends to the view that the reward promised (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) to St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) consisted in the prominent part taken by him in the initial activities of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), but that he was never more than primus inter pares among the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). It is manifest that this is quite insufficient as an explanation of the terms of Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) promise (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm).

JOHN 21:15-17







The promise (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) made by Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm). The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13722a.htm)): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".

The scene stands in striking parallelism with that of Matthew 16. As there the reward was given to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) after a profession of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) which singled him out from the other eleven, so here Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) demands a similar protestation, but this time of a yet higher virtue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15472a.htm): "Simon, son of John (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm), lovest (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09397a.htm) thou Me more than these"? Here, too, as there, He bestows on the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) an office which in its highest sense is proper to Himself alone. There Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) had promised (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) to make Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) the foundation-stone of the house of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm): here He makes him the shepherd of God's flock (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) to take the place of Himself, the Good Shepherd.

The passage receives an admirable comment from St. Chrysostom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08452b.htm):


He saith to him, "Feed my sheep". Why does He pass over the others and speak of the sheep to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm)? He was the chosen one of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), the mouth of the disciples (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm), the head of the choir. For this reason Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) went up to see him rather than the others. And also to show him that he must have confidence now that his denial had been purged away. He entrusts him with the rule [prostasia] over the brethren. . . . If anyone should say "Why then was it James (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08280a.htm) who received the See (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm) of Jerusalem (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm)?", I should reply that He made Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) the teacher not of that see (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05001a.htm) but of the whole world.

["Hom. 88 (87) in Joan.", 1. Cf. Origen, "In Ep. ad Rom.", 5:10; Ephraem Syrus "Hymn. in B. Petr." in "Bibl. Orient. Assemani", 1:95; Leo I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm), "Serm. iv de natal.", 2].




Even certain Protestant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) commentators frankly own that Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) undoubtedly intended here to confer the supreme pastorate on Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm). But other scholars, relying on a passage of St. Cyril of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04592b.htm) ("In Joan." 12:1), maintain that the purpose of the threefold charge was simply to reinstate St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) in the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) commission which his threefold denial might be supposed to have lost to him. This interpretation is devoid of all probability. There is not a word in Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm) or in patristic tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) to suggest that St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) had forfeited his Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) commission; and the supposition is absolutely excluded by the fact that on the evening of the Resurrection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) he received the same Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) powers as the others of the eleven. The solitary phrase of St. Cyril (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04592b.htm) is of no weight against the overwhelming patristic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) authority for the other view. That such an interpretation should be seriously advocated proves how great is the difficulty experienced by Protestants (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) regarding this text.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

CONCLUSION







The position of St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) after the Ascension (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm), as shown in the Acts of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01117a.htm), realizes to the full the great commission bestowed upon him. He is from the first the chief of the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) band -- not primus inter pares, but the undisputed head of the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) (see THE CHURCH (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), III).

If then Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), as we have seen, established His Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) as a society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) subordinated to a single supreme head, it follows from the very nature of the case that this office is perpetual, and cannot have been a mere transitory feature of ecclesiastical life. For the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) must endure to the end the very same organization which Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) established. But in an organized society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) it is precisely the constitution which is the essential feature. A change in constitution transforms it into a society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) of a different kind. If then the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) should adopt a constitution other than Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) gave it, it would no longer be His handiwork. It would no longer be the Divine kingdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) established by Him. As a society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) it would have passed through essential modifications, and thereby would have become a human (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09580c.htm), not a Divine institution. None who believe (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02408b.htm) that Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) came on earth to found a Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), an organized society (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14074a.htm) destined to endure for ever, can admit the possibility of a change in the organization given to it by its Founder (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm).

The same conclusion also follows from a consideration of the end which, by Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) declaration, the supremacy of Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) was intended to effect. He was to give the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) strength to resist her foes, so that the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) should not prevail against her. The contest with the powers of evil (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04764a.htm) does not belong to the Apostolic (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) age alone. It is a permanent feature of the Church's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) life. Hence, throughout the centuries the office of Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) must be realized in the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm), in order that she may prevail in her age-long struggle. Thus an analysis of Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) words shows us that the perpetuity of the office of supreme head is to be reckoned among the truths (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15073a.htm) revealed (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13001a.htm) in Scripture (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13635b.htm). His promise (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12453a.htm) to Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) conveyed not merely a personal prerogative, but established a permanent office in the Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). And in this sense, as will appear in the next section, His words were understood by Latin (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09022a.htm) and Greek (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm) Fathers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06001a.htm) alike.

[Biscuit_AQ]

very nice, and fascinating reading. Fun fact, I am for the time being non religous, but do attend a catholic college. funny how life works out.

[TrackDaddy]

Zat...I'm on my way to worship.

I disagree in regard to the the application of scripture posted and intent of Christs' charge and in regard to the Kingdom.

I'll address it as soon as kind.

Thanks.

[KenA55]

Fascinating posts, Zat0pek. Despite being raised Catholic I didn't necessarily get that sort of an in-depth and all-at-once justification for such dogma, perhaps an advantage more open and readily available to the interested adult convert vs. what was taught in Catechism classes geared towards the young.

I've always had some issue with the notion advanced by some fundamentalist Christian teachers that absolute literal interpretation of scripture must be the sole basis for judgement- putting the tool ahead of the Maker of that tool it occurs to me. Nevertheless a very worthy tool.

Simultaneously I've been troubled with the Catholic tradition of placing overwhelming judgement into the hands of Church hierarchy, in regards to matters of individual judgement in the day-to-day operations of human spiritual existence.

Both of the above, when advanced to an extreme, risk running afoul with and diminishing the Trinitarian nature of God as Spirit, as presented in Christian scripture. Any Church, in presenting the notion of possessing the sole true conduit to the Divine, risks denial of the Spirit, no small risk in Christ's own words. Denying the possibility of God's own hand directing of the way of the individual man is denial of the Spirit.

And lastly, if any are interested in granting the possibility of such direction in my case, a truly collosal leap admittedly, I would simply pass this one thing on- what appears symbolic on Earth may be literal reality in Heaven, and what appears to be literal on Earth may be no more than symbolic reflections of literal Heavenly realities. The scriptures are actually written for creatures who are being led to believe in their own physical isolation from one another and from God. Never forget that one thing.

[Zat0pek]

I disagree in regard to the the application of scripture posted and intent of Christs' charge and in regard to the Kingdom.

So. . .you interpret it differently? I thought you were a literalist? ;)

Happy Pentecost!

[Zat0pek]

Here's some more, while I'm on a roll. This is long, but I will post it all. Not sure how many posts it will take. Only point here is the underpinnings of Peter's charge from Christ, his move to Rome and his standing as the first "pope" though not yet known by that term by the earliest Christians.

PETER
I. UNTIL THE ASCENSION OF CHRIST



Bethsaida. St. Peter's true and original name was Simon, sometimes occurring in the form Symeon. (Acts 15:14; II Peter 1:1). He was the son of Jona (Johannes) and was born in Bethsaida (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02536a.htm) (John 1:42, 44), a town on Lake Genesareth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14716b.htm), the position of which cannot be established with certainty, although it is usually sought at the northern end of the lake. The Apostle Andrew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm) was his brother, and the Apostle Philip (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11799a.htm) came from the same town.

Capharnaum. Simon settled in Capharnaum (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03309a.htm), where he was living with his mother-in-law in his own house (Matthew 8:14; Luke 4:38) at the beginning of Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) public ministry (about A.D. 26-28). Simon was thus married, and, according to Clement of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm) (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), had children. The same writer relates the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) that Peter's wife suffered martyrdom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09736b.htm) (ibid., VII, xi ed. cit., III, 306). Concerning these facts, adopted by Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) (Hist. Eccl., III, xxxi) from Clement (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm), the ancient Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) literature which has come down to us is silent. Simon pursued in Capharnaum (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03309a.htm) the profitable occupation of fisherman in Lake Genesareth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14716b.htm), possessing his own boat (Luke 5:3).

Peter meets Our Lord. Like so many of his Jewish (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08399a.htm) contemporaries, he was attracted by the Baptist's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm) preaching of penance (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11618b.htm) and was, with his brother Andrew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm), among John's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm) associates in Bethania (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02532a.htm) on the eastern bank of the Jordan (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08501a.htm). When, after the High Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm) had sent envoys for the second time to the Baptist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm), the latter pointed to Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) who was passing, saying, "Behold the Lamb of God", Andrew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm) and another disciple (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm) followed the Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to his residence and remained with Him one day. Later, meeting his brother. Simon, Andrew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm) said "We have found the Messias (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm)", and brought him to Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), who, looking upon him, said: "Thou art Simon the son of Jona: thou shalt be called Cephas, which is interpreted Peter". Already, at this first meeting, the Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) foretold the change of Simon's name to Cephas (Kephas; Aramaic Kipha, rock), which is translated Petros (Lat., Petrus) a proof that Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) had already special views with regard to Simon. Later, probably at the time of his definitive call to the Apostolate with the eleven other Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) actually gave Simon the name of Cephas (Petrus), after which he was usually called Peter, especially by Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) on the solemn occasion after Peter's profession of faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05752c.htm) (Matthew 16:18; cf. below). The Evangelists (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05645a.htm) often combine the two names, while St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) uses the name Cephas.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

Peter becomes a disciple. After the first meeting Peter with the other early disciples (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm) remained with Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) for some time, accompanying Him to Galilee (Marriage at Cana), Judaea, and Jerusalem, and through Samaria back to Galilee (John 2-4). Here Peter resumed his occupation of fisherman for a short time, but soon received the definitive call of the Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to become one of His permanent disciples (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05029a.htm). Peter and Andrew (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01471a.htm) were engaged at their calling when Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) met and addressed them: "Come ye after me, and I will make you to be fishers of men". On the same occasion the sons of Zebedee were called (Matthew 4:18-22; Mark 1:16-20; Luke 5:1-11; it is here assumed that Luke refers to the same occasion as the other Evangelists). Thenceforth Peter remained always in the immediate neighbourhood of Our Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). After preaching the Sermon on the Mount and curing the son of the centurion in Capharnaum, Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) came to Peter's house and cured his wife's mother, who was sick of a fever (Matthew 8:14-15; Mark 1:29-31). A little later Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) chose His Twelve Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) as His constant associates in preaching the kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm).

Growing prominence among the Twelve. Among the Twelve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) Peter soon became conspicuous. Though of irresolute character, be clings with the greatest fidelity, firmness of faith, and inward love to the Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm); rash alike in word and act, he is full of zeal and enthusiasm, though momentarily easily accessible to external influences and intimidated by difficulties. The more prominent the Apostles become in the Evangelical narrative, the more conspicuous does Peter appear as the first among them. In the list of the Twelve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) on the occasion of their solemn call to the Apostolate, not only does Peter stand always at their head, but the surname Petrus given him by Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) is especially emphasized (Matthew 10:2): "Duodecim autem Apostolorum nomina haec: Primus Simon qui dicitur Petrus. . ."; Mark 3:14-16: "Et fecit ut essent duodecim cum illo, et ut mitteret eos praedicare . . . et imposuit Simoni nomen Petrus"; Luke 6:13-14: "Et cum dies factus esset, vocavit discipulos suos, et elegit duodecim ex ipsis (quos et Apostolos nominavit): Simonem, quem cognominavit Petrum . . ." On various occasions Peter speaks in the name of the other Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) (Matthew 15:15; 19:27; Luke 12:41, etc.). When Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) words are addressed to all the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), Peter answers in their name (e.g., Matthew 16:16). Frequently the Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) turns specially to Peter (Matthew 26:40; Luke 22:31, etc.). Very characteristic is the expression of true fidelity to Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), which Peter addressed to Him in the name of the other Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), after He had spoken of the mystery of the reception of His Body and Blood (John 6:22 sqq.) and many of His disciples had left Him, asked the Twelve (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) if they too should leave Him; Peter's answer comes immediately: "Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. And we have believed and have known, that thou art the Holy One of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm)" (Vulg. "thou art the Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm), the Son of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm)"). Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) Himself unmistakably accords Peter a special precedence and the first place among the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), and designates him for such on various occasions. Peter was one of the three Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) (with James and John) who were with Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) on certain special occasions the raising of the daughter of Jairus from the dead (Mark 5:37; Luke 8:51); the Transfiguration of Christ (Matthew 17:1; Mark 9:1; Luke 9:28), the Agony (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01224a.htm) in the Garden of Gethsemani (Matthew 26:37; Mark 14:33). On several occasions also Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) favoured him above all the others; He enters Peter's boat on Lake Genesareth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14716b.htm) to preach to the multitude on the shore (Luke 5:3); when He was miraculously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) walking upon the waters, He called Peter to come to Him across the lake (Matthew 14:28 sqq.); He sent him to the lake to catch the fish in whose mouth Peter found the stater to pay as tribute (Matthew 17:24 sqq.).

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

Peter becomes Head of the Apostles. In especially solemn fashion Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) accentuated Peter's precedence among the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), when, after Peter had recognized Him as the Messias (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm), He promised that he would be head of His flock. Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) was then dwelling with His Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) in the vicinity of Caesarea Philippi (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03135a.htm), engaged on His work of salvation. As Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) coming agreed so little in power and glory with the expectations of the Messias (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm), many different views concerning Him were current. While journeying along with His Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) asks them: "Whom do men say that the Son of man (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14144a.htm) is?" The Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) answered: "Some John the Baptist (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08486b.htm), and other some Elias (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05381b.htm), and others Jeremias (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08334a.htm), or one of the prophets (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12477a.htm)". Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) said to them: "But whom do you say that I am?" Simon said: "Thou art Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm), the Son of the living God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14142b.htm)". And Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) answering said to him: "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter [Kipha, a rock], and upon this rock [Kipha] I will build my church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) [ekklesian], and the gates of hell (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07207a.htm) shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven". Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) the Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10212c.htm) (Matthew 16:13-20; Mark 8:27-30; Luke 9:18-21). By the word "rock" the Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) cannot have meant Himself, but only Peter, as is so much more apparent in Aramaic in which the same word (Kipha) is used for "Peter" and "rock". His statement then admits of but one explanation, namely, that He wishes to make Peter the head of the whole community of those who believed in Him as the true Messias; that through this foundation (Peter) the Kingdom of Christ would be unconquerable; that the spiritual guidance of the faithful was placed in the hands of Peter, as the special representative of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). This meaning becomes so much the clearer when we remember that the words "bind" and "loose" are not metaphorical, but Jewish juridical terms. It is also clear that the position of Peter among the other Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) and in the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) community was the basis for the Kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm) on earth, that is, the Church of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Peter was personally installed as Head of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) by Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) Himself. This foundation created for the Church by its Founder could not disappear with the person of Peter, but was intended to continue and did continue (as actual history shows) in the primacy (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12423a.htm) of the Roman Church and its bishops. Entirely inconsistent and in itself untenable is the position of Protestants (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) who (like Schnitzer in recent times) assert that the primacy of the Roman bishops cannot be deduced from the precedence which Peter held among the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). Just as the essential activity of the Twelve Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) in building up and extending the Church did not entirely disappear with their deaths, so surely did the Apostolic Primacy of Peter not completely vanish. As intended by Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), it must have continued its existence and development in a form appropriate to the ecclesiastical organism, just as the office of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) continued in an appropriate form. Objections have been raised against the genuineness of the wording of the passage, but the unanimous testimony of the manuscripts, the parallel passages in the other Gospels, and the fixed belief of pre-Constantine literature furnish the surest proofs of the genuineness and untampered state of the text of Matthew (cf. "Stimmen aus MariaLaach", I, 1896,129 sqq.; "Theologie und Glaube", II, 1910,842 sqq.).

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

His difficulty with Christ's Passion. In spite of his firm faith in Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), Peter had so far no clear knowledge of the mission and work of the Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). The sufferings of Christ especially, as contradictory to his worldly conception of the Messias, were inconceivable to him, and his erroneous conception occasionally elicited a sharp reproof from Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) (Matthew 16:21-23, Mark 8:31-33). Peter's irresolute character, which continued notwithstanding his enthusiastic fidelity to his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), was clearly revealed in connection with the Passion of Christ. The Saviour (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) had already told him that Satan had desired him that he might sift him as wheat. But Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) had prayed for him that his faith fail not, and, being once converted, he confirms his brethren (Luke 22:31-32). Peter's assurance that he was ready to accompany his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to prison and to death, elicited Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) prediction that Peter should deny Him (Matthew 26:30-35; Mark 14:26-31; Luke 22:31-34; John 13:33-38). When Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) proceeded to wash the feet of His disciples before the Last Supper (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14341a.htm), and came first to Peter, the latter at first protested, but, on Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) declaring that otherwise he should have no part with Him, immediately said: "Lord, not only my feet, but also my hands and my head" (John 13:1-10). In the Garden of Gethsemani (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06540a.htm) Peter had to submit to the Saviour's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) reproach that he had slept like the others, while his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) suffered deadly anguish (Mark 14:37). At the seizing of Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), Peter in an outburst of anger wished to defend his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) by force, but was forbidden to do so. He at first took to flight with the other Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) (John 18:10-11; Matthew 26:56); then turning he followed his captured Lord to the courtyard of the High Priest (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12407b.htm), and there denied Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), asserting explicitly and swearing that he knew Him not (Matthew 26:58-75; Mark 14:54-72; Luke 22:54-62; John 18:15-27). This denial was of course due, not to a lapse of interior faith in Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), but to exterior fear and cowardice. His sorrow was thus so much the greater, when, after his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) had turned His gaze towards him, he clearly recognized what he had done.

The Risen Lord confirms Peter's precedence. In spite of this weakness, his position as head of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) was later confirmed by Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), and his precedence was not less conspicuous after the Resurrection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) than before. The women, who were the first to find Christ's tomb (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07425a.htm) empty, received from the angel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01476d.htm) a special message for Peter (Mark 16:7). To him alone of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) did Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) appear on the first day after the Resurrection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) (Luke 24:34; I Corinthians 15:5). But, most important of all, when He appeared at the Lake of Genesareth (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14716b.htm), Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) renewed to Peter His special commission to feed and defend His flock, after Peter had thrice affirmed his special love for his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) (John, xxi, 15-17). In conclusion Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) foretold the violent death Peter would have to suffer, and thus invited him to follow Him in a special manner (ibid., 20-23). Thus was Peter called and trained for the Apostleship (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) and clothed with the primacy of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), which he exercised in a most unequivocal manner after Christ's Ascension (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm) into Heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm).

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

II. ST. PETER IN JERUSALEM AND PALESTINE AFTER THE ASCENSION



Our information concerning the earliest Apostolic activity of St. Peter in Jerusalem, Judaea, and the districts stretching northwards as far as Syria is derived mainly from the first portion of the Acts of the Apostles, and is confirmed by parallel statements incidentally in the Epistles of St. Paul.

Among the crowd of Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) and disciples who, after Christ's Ascension (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01767a.htm) into Heaven (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07170a.htm) from Mount Olivet, returned to Jerusalem to await the fulfilment of His promise to send the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), Peter is immediately conspicuous as the leader of all, and is henceforth constantly recognized as the head of the original Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) community in Jerusalem. He takes the initiative in the appointment to the Apostolic College of another witness of the life, death and resurrection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) of Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) to replace Judas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08539a.htm) (Acts 1:15-26). After the descent of the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) on the feast of Pentecost, Peter standing at the head of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) delivers the first public sermon to proclaim the life, death, and resurrection (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12789a.htm) of Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), and wins a large number of Jews as converts to the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) community (ibid. ii, 14-41). First of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) he worked a public miracle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm), when with John he went up into the temple and cured the lame man at the Beautiful Gate. To the people crowding in amazement about the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), he preaches a long sermon in the Porch of Solomon, and brings new increase to the flock of believers (ibid., iii, 1-iv, 4). In the subsequent examinations of the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) before the Jewish High Council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm), Peter defends in undismayed and impressive fashion the cause of Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) and the obligation and liberty of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) to preach the Gospel (ibid., iv, 5-21). When Ananias and Sapphira attempt to deceive the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) and the people Peter appears as judge of their action, and God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) executes the sentence of punishment passed by the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) by causing the sudden death of the two guilty parties (ibid., v, 1-11). By numerous miracles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) confirms the Apostolic activity of Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) confessors, and here also there is special mention of Peter, since it is recorded that the inhabitants of Jerusalem and neighbouring towns carried their sick in their beds into the streets so that the shadow of Peter might fall on them and they might be thereby healed (ibid., v 12-16). The ever-increasing number of the faithful caused the Jewish supreme council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm) to adopt new measures against the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), but "Peter and the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm)" answer that they "ought to obey God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) rather than men" (ibid., v, 29 sqq.). Not only in Jerusalem itself did Peter labour in fulfilling the mission entrusted to him by his Master (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm). He also retained connection with the other Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) communities in Palestine, and preached the Gospel both there and in the lands situated farther north. When Philip the Deacon had won a large number of believers in Samaria, Peter and John were deputed to proceed thither from Jerusalem to organize the community and to invoke the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) to descend upon the faithful. Peter appears a second time as judge, in the case of the magician Simon, who had wished to purchase from the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) the power that he also could invoke the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) (ibid., viii, 14-25). On their way back to Jerusalem, the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) preached the joyous tidings of the Kingdom of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08646a.htm). Subsequently, after Paul's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) departure from Jerusalem and conversion before Damascus, the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) communities in Palestine were left at peace by the Jewish council (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13444a.htm).

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

Peter now undertook an extensive missionary tour, which brought him to the maritime cities, Lydda Joppe, and Caesarea. In Lydda he cured the palsied Eneas, in Joppe he raised Tabitha (Dorcas) from the dead; and at Caesarea, instructed by a vision which he had in Joppe, he baptized and received into the Church the first non-Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), the centurion Cornelius and his kinsmen (ibid., ix, 31-x, 48). On Peter's return to Jerusalem a little later, the strict Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm), who regarded the complete observance of the Jewish law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm) as binding on all, asked him why he had entered and eaten in the house of the uncircumcised. Peter tells of his vision and defends his action, which was ratified by the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) and the faithful in Jerusalem (ibid., xi, 1-18).

A confirmation of the position accorded to Peter by Luke, in the Acts, is afforded by the testimony of St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) (Gal., i, 18-20). After his conversion and three years' residence in Arabia, Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) came to Jerusalem "to see Peter". Here the Apostle of the Gentiles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) clearly designates Peter as the authorized head of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) and of the early Christian Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm). Peter's long residence in Jerusalem and Palestine soon came to an end. Herod Agrippa I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07289c.htm#IV) began (A.D. 42-44) a new persecution of the Church in Jerusalem; after the execution of James, the son of Zebedee, this ruler had Peter cast into prison, intending to have him also executed after the Jewish Pasch was over. Peter, however, was freed in a miraculous (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) manner, and, proceeding to the house of the mother of John Mark, where many of the faithful were assembled for prayer, informed them of his liberation from the hands of Herod (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07289c.htm), commissioned them to communicate the fact to James and the brethren, and then left Jerusalem to go to "another place" (Acts 12:1-18). Concerning St. Peter's subsequent activity we receive no further connected information from the extant sources, although we possess short notices of certain individual episodes of his later life. III. MISSIONARY JOURNEYS IN THE EAST; COUNCIL OF THE APOSTLES

St. Luke does not tell us whither Peter went after his liberation from the prison in Jerusalem. From incidental statements we know that he subsequently made extensive missionary tours in the East, although we are given no clue to the chronology of his journeys. It is certain that he remained for a time at Antioch; he may even have returned thither several times. The Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) community of Antioch was founded by Christianized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) Jews who had been driven from Jerusalem by the persecution (ibid., xi, 19 sqq.). Peter's residence among them is proved by the episode concerning the observance of the Jewish ceremonial law even by Christianized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) pagans, related by St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) (Gal., ii, 11-21). The chief Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) in Jerusalem--the "pillars", Peter, James, and John--had unreservedly approved St. Paul's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) Apostolate to the Gentiles, while they themselves intended to labour principally among the Jews. While Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) was dwelling in Antioch (the date cannot be accurately determined), St. Peter came thither and mingled freely with the non-Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) of the community, frequenting their houses and sharing their meals. But when the Christianized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) Jews arrived in Jerusalem, Peter, fearing lest these rigid observers of the Jewish ceremonial law should be scandalized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13506d.htm) thereat, and his influence with the Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) be imperiled, avoided thenceforth eating with the uncircumcised.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

His conduct made a great impression on the other Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) at Antioch, so that even Barnabas, St. Paul's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) companion, now avoided eating with the Christianized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) pagans. As this action was entirely opposed to the principles and practice of Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm), and might lead to confusion among the converted pagans, this Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) addressed a public reproach to St. Peter, because his conduct seemed to indicate a wish to compel the pagan converts to become Jews and accept circumcision and the Jewish law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm). The whole incident is another proof of the authoritative position of St. Peter in the early Church, since his example and conduct was regarded as decisive. But Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm), who rightly saw the inconsistency in the conduct of Peter and the Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), did not hesitate to defend the immunity of converted pagans from the Jewish Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm). Concerning Peter's subsequent attitude on this question St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) gives us no explicit information. But it is highly probable that Peter ratified the contention of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) of the Gentiles, and thenceforth conducted himself towards the Christianized (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) pagans as at first. As the principal opponents of his views in this connexion, Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) names and combats in all his writings only the extreme Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm) coming "from James" (i.e., from Jerusalem). While the date of this occurrence, whether before or after the Council of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), cannot be determined, it probably took place after the council (see below). The later tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm), which existed as early as the end of the second century (Origen, "Hom. vi in Lucam"; Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", III, xxxvi), that Peter founded the Church of Antioch (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01567a.htm), indicates the fact that he laboured a long period there, and also perhaps that he dwelt there towards the end of his life and then appointed Evodrius, the first of the line of Antiochian bishops, head of the community. This latter view would best explain the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) referring the foundation of the Church of Antioch to St. Peter. It is also probable that Peter pursued his Apostolic labours in various districts of Asia Minor for it can scarcely be supposed that the entire period between his liberation from prison and the Council of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) was spent uninterruptedly in one city, whether Antioch, Rome, or elsewhere. And, since he subsequently addressed the first of his Epistles to the faithful in the Provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, and Asia, one may reasonably assume that he had laboured personally at least in certain cities of these provinces, devoting himself chiefly to the Diaspora. The Epistle, however, is of a general character, and gives little indication of personal relations with the persons to whom it is addressed. The tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) related by Bishop Dionysius of Corinth (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) in his letter to the Roman Church under Pope Soter (165-74), that Peter had (like Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm)) dwelt in Corinth and planted the Church there, cannot be entirely rejected. Even though the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) should receive no support from the existence of the "party of Cephas", which Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) mentions among the other divisions of the Church of Corinth (I Cor., i, 12; iii, 22), still Peter's sojourn in Corinth (even in connection with the planting and government of the Church by Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm)) is not impossible. That St. Peter undertook various Apostolic journeys (doubtless about this time, especially when he was no longer permanently residing in Jerusalem) is clearly established by the general remark of St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) in I Corinthians 9:5, concerning the "rest of the apostles, and the brethren [cousins] of the Lord (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm), and Cephas", who were travelling around in the exercise of their Apostleship (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm).

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

Peter returned occasionally to the original Christian Church (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03744a.htm) of Jerusalem, the guidance of which was entrusted to St. James, the relative of Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02767a.htm), after the departure of the Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) (A.D. 42-44). The last mention of St. Peter in the Acts (xv, 1-29; cf. Gal., ii, 1-10) occurs in the report of the Council of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) on the occasion of such a passing visit. In consequence of the trouble caused by extreme Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm) to Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) and Barnabas at Antioch, the Church of this city sent these two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) with other envoys to Jerusalem to secure a definitive decision concerning the obligations of the converted pagans (see JUDAIZERS (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm)). In addition to James, Peter and John were then (about A.D. 50-51) in Jerusalem. In the discussion and decision of this important question, Peter naturally exercised a decisive influence. When a great divergence of views had manifested itself in the assembly, Peter spoke the deciding word. Long before, in accordance with God's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) testimony, he had announced the Gospels to the heathen (conversion of Cornelius and his household); why, therefore, attempt to place the Jewish yoke on the necks of converted pagans? After Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) and Barnabas had related how God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) had wrought among the Gentiles by them, James, the chief representative of the Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), adopted Peter's view and in agreement therewith made proposals which were expressed in an encyclical to the converted pagans.

The occurrences in Caesarea and Antioch and the debate at the Council of Jerusalem show clearly Peter's attitude towards the converts from paganism. Like the other eleven original Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), he regarded himself as called to preach the Faith in Jesus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) first among the Jews (Acts, x, 42), so that the chosen people of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) might share in the salvation in Christ (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm), promised to them primarily and issuing from their midst. The vision at Joppe and the effusion of the Holy Ghost (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm) over the converted pagan Cornelius and his kinsmen determined Peter to admit these forthwith into the community of the faithful, without imposing on them the Jewish Law (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10582c.htm). During his Apostolic journeys outside Palestine, he recognized in practice the equality of Gentile and Jewish converts, as his original conduct at Antioch proves. His aloofness from the Gentile converts, out of consideration for the Jewish Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) from Jerusalem, was by no means an official recognition of the views of the extreme Judaizers (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08537a.htm), who were so opposed to St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm). This is established clearly and incontestably by his attitude at the Council of Jerusalem. Between Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) there was no dogmatic difference in their conception of salvation for Jewish and Gentile Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm). The recognition of Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) as the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) of the Gentiles (Gal., ii, 1-9) was entirely sincere, and excludes all question of a fundamental divergence of views. St. Peter and the other Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) recognized the converts from paganism as Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) brothers on an equal footing; Jewish and Gentile Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) formed a single Kingdom of Christ. If therefore Peter devoted the preponderating portion of his Apostolic activity to the Jews, this arose chiefly from practical considerations, and from the position of Israel (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08193a.htm) as the Chosen People. Baur's hypothesis of opposing currents of "Petrinism" and "Paulinism" in the early Church is absolutely untenable, and is today entirely rejected by Protestants (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm). IV. ACTIVITY AND DEATH IN ROME; BURIAL PLACE

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.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08374c.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm)" (John, xxi, 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" (v, 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) literature (Apoc., xvii, 5; xviii, 10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm), who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm)), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm) (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) is supplied by Clement of Rome (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm) in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm)--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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) 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 chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) to that epoch.
Cont.

[Zat0pek]

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm) endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm): they were Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), while I am but a captive" (Ad. Rom., iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03144c.htm) (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) 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, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii).
Irenaeus of Lyons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm), a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm) (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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm), as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm)" (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) against the heretics.
In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm), teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) had preached to them" (see above).
Like Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm), Tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm) appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm). In "De Praescriptione", xxxv, 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) was crowned with the death of John" (scil. the Baptist). In "Scorpiace", xv, 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is administered, he states in his book ("On Baptism", ch. v) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), "to whom Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15756c.htm) (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) understands the graves of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). 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, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) concerning Peter's death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) in Rome.
Cont.

[Zat0pek]

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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm) endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm): they were Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), while I am but a captive" (Ad. Rom., iv). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03144c.htm) (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) 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, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii).

Irenaeus of Lyons (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm), a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm) (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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm), as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm)" (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) against the heretics.

In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm), teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07409a.htm), the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) had preached to them" (see above).

Like Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm), Tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm) appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm). In "De Praescriptione", xxxv, 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) was crowned with the death of John" (scil. the Baptist). In "Scorpiace", xv, 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm) is administered, he states in his book ("On Baptism", ch. v) 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), "to whom Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).

The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15756c.htm) (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) understands the graves of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm), 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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). 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, Tubingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) concerning Peter's death in Rome.

The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) in Rome.
Cont.

[Zat0pek]

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03699b.htm), some few Protestant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) 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. It was asserted that the tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) concerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm) circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm), in which Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, 80 also sprang up at an early date the legend of Peter's activity in that capital (thus in Baur, "Paulus", 2nd ed., 245 sqq., followed by Hase and especially Lipsius, "Die quellen der römischen Petrussage", Kiel, 1872). But this hypothesis is proved fundamentally untenable by the whole character and purely local importance of Ebionitism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05242c.htm), and is directly refuted by the above genuine and entirely independent testimonies, which are at least as ancient. It has moreover been now entirely abandoned by serious Protestant (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12495a.htm) historians (cf., e.g., Harnack's remarks in "Gesch. der altchristl. Literatur", II, i, 244, n. 2). A more recent attempt was made by Erbes (Zeitschr. fur Kirchengesch., 1901, pp. 1 sqq., 161 sqq.) to demonstrate that St. Peter was martyred at Jerusalem. He appeals to the apocryphal Acts of St. Peter, in which two Romans, Albinus and Agrippa, are mentioned as persecutors of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07289c.htm#V), Prince of Galilee, and thence conciudes that Peter was condemned to death and sacrificed by this procurator at Jerusalem. The untenableness of this hypothesis becomes immediately apparent from the mere fact that our earliest definite testimony concerning Peter's death in Rome far antedates the apocryphal Acts; besides, never throughout the whole range of Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm).

Although the fact of St. Peter's activity and death in Rome is so clearly established, we possess no precise information regarding the details of his Roman sojourn. The narratives contained in the apocryphal literature of the second century concerning the supposed strife between Peter and Simon Magus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13797b.htm) belong to the domain of legend. From the already mentioned statements regarding the origin of the Gospel of St. Mark we may conclude that Peter laboured for a long period in Rome. This conclusion is confirmed by the unanimous voice of tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) which, as early as the second half of the second century, designates the Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) the founder of the Roman Church. It is widely held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10338a.htm) liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by "another place", Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons. It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) and Jerome, since, although these notices extend back to the chronicles of the third century, they are not old traditions (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm), but the result of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) and the "Chronograph of 354") the notice of a twenty-five years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin. This entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a first visit by St. Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42). We can therefore admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the capital.

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

The task of determining the year of St. Peter's death is attended with similar difficulties. In the fourth century, and even in the chronicles of the third, we find two different entries. In the "Chronicle" of Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm) and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) of the twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter (cf. Bartolini, "Sopra l'anno 67 se fosse quello del martirio dei gloriosi Apostoli", Rome, 1868) . A different statement is furnished by the "Chronograph of 354" (ed. Duchesne, "Liber Pontificalis", I, 1 sqq.). This refers St. Peter's arrival in Rome to the year 30, and his death and that of St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) to 55.

Duchesne has shown that the dates in the "Chronograph" were inserted in a list of the popes (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12272a.htm) which contains only their names and the duration of their pontificates, and then, on the chronological supposition that the year of Christ's death (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11527b.htm) was 29, the year 30 was inserted as the beginning of Peter's pontificate, and his death referred to 55, on the basis of the twenty-five years' pontificate (op. cit., introd., vi sqq.). This date has however been recently defended by Kellner ("Jesus von Nazareth u. seine Apostel im Rahmen der Zeitgeschichte", Ratisbon, 1908; "Tradition geschichtl. Bearbeitung u. Legende in der Chronologie des apostol. Zeitalters", Bonn, 1909). Other historians have accepted the year 65 (e. g., Bianchini, in his edition of the "Liber Pontilicalis" in P. L.. CXXVII. 435 sqq.) or 66 (e. g. Foggini, "De romani b. Petri itinere et episcopatu", Florence, 1741; also Tillemont). Harnack endeavoured to establish the year 64 (i . e . the beginning of the Neronian persecution) as that of Peter's death ("Gesch. der altchristl. Lit. bis Eusebius", pt. II, "Die Chronologie", I, 240 sqq.). This date, which had been already supported by Cave, du Pin, and Wieseler, has been accepted by Duchesne (Hist. ancienne de l'eglise, I, 64). Erbes refers St. Peter's death to 22 Feb., 63, St. Paul's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) to 64 ("Texte u. Untersuchungen", new series, IV, i, Leipzig, 1900, "Die Todestage der Apostel Petrus u. Paulus u. ihre rom. Denkmaeler"). The date of Peter's death is thus not yet decided; the period between July, 64 (outbreak of the Neronian persecution), and the beginning of 68 (on 9 July Nero fled from Rome and committed suicide (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14326b.htm)) must be left open for the date of his death. The day of his martyrdom is also unknown; 29 June, the accepted day of his feast since the fourth century, cannot be proved to be the day of his death (see below). Concerning the manner of Peter's death, we possess a tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm)--attested to by Tertullian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm) at the end of the second century (see above) and by Origen (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, i)--that he suffered crucifixion. Origen says: "Peter was crucified at Rome with his head downwards, as he himself had desired to suffer". As the place of execution may be accepted with great probability the Neronian Gardens on the Vatican, since there, according to Tacitus, were enacted in general the gruesome scenes of the Neronian persecution; and in this district, in the vicinity of the Via Cornelia and at the foot of the Vatican Hills, the Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) found his burial place. Of this grave (since the word tropaion was, as already remarked, rightly understood of the tomb) Caius already speaks in the third century. For a time the remains of Peter lay with those of Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) in a vault on the Appian Way at the place ad Catacumbas, where the Church of St. Sebastian (which on its erection in the fourth century was dedicated to the two Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm)) now stands. The remains had probably been brought thither at the beginning of the Valerian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15256b.htm) persecution in 258, to protect them from the threatened desecration when the Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) burial-places were confiscated. They were later restored to their former resting-place, and Constantine the Great (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04295c.htm) had a magnificent basilica erected over the grave of St. Peter at the foot of the Vatican Hill. This basilica was replaced by the present St. Peter's in the sixteenth century. The vault with the altar built above it (confessio (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04214a.htm)) has been since the fourth century the most highly venerated martyr's shrine in the West. In the substructure of the altar, over the vault which contained the sarcophagus with the remains of St. Peter, a cavity was made. This was closed by a small door in front of the altar. By opening this door the pilgrim could enjoy the great privilege of kneeling directly over the sarcophagus of the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm). Keys of this door were given as previous souvenirs (cf. Gregory of Tours (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07018b.htm), "De gloria martyrum", I, xxviii).

Cont.

[Zat0pek]

The memory of St. Peter is also closely associated with the Catacomb of St. Priscilla on the Via Salaria. According to a tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm), current in later Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) antiquity, St. Peter here instructed the faithful and administered baptism (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm). This tradition (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm) seems to have been based on still earlier monumental testimonies. The catacomb is situated under the garden of a villa of the ancient Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) and senatorial family, the Acilii Glabriones, and its foundation extends back to the end of the first century; and since Acilius Glabrio (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06575a.htm), consul in 91, was condemned to death under Domitian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05114b.htm) as a Christian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm), it is quite possible that the Christian faith (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03712a.htm) of the family extended back to Apostolic times, and that the Prince of the Apostles (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm) had been given hospitable reception in their house during his residence at Rome. The relations between Peter and Pudens whose house stood on the site of the present titular church of Pudens (now Santa Pudentiana) seem to rest rather on a legend. Concerning the Epistles of St. Peter, see EPISTLES OF SAINT PETER (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11752a.htm); concerning the various apocrypha bearing the name of Peter, especially the Apocalypse and the Gospel of St. Peter, see APOCRYPHA (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01601a.htm). The apocryphal sermon of Peter (kerygma), dating from the second half of the second century, was probably a collection of supposed sermons by the Apostle (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01626c.htm); several fragments are preserved by Clement of Alexandria (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04045a.htm) (cf. Dobschuts, "Das Kerygma Petri kritisch untersucht" in "Texte u. Untersuchungen", XI, i, Leipzig, 1893

[running high]

Zat, lol, are you trying to break TrackDaddy's spirits? I can tell you I read the most of it, but time wears on. But I'll read it, I'm glad I can be educated about it.

[TrackDaddy]

LOL

Nothing is needed or authorized by God but the Bible.

It would have been nice if you'd posted a little of that. ;)

Catholics have so complicated the simplicity of what God has offered everyone.

That being, eternal life.

The church wasn't built on a man (Peter) who sinned several times in scripture thereafter.... but on his confession of who Jesus was. Peter ultimately preached the first gospel sermon on the day of Pentecost and the Church was established.

Some 600 years BEFORE the confusion that is Catholocism (see Zat's posts).

[Zat0pek]

Some 600 years BEFORE the confusion that is Catholocism (see Zat's posts).

Catholism began in 33AD.

[jrun]

Catholism began in 33AD.


Uh...the church did.

Catholicism.....not exactly.

[xcrider]

Zat, guessing that was pasted in, but if you did all that writing, I commend you for all the work you did.

Couple of things.

1. Matt 16-look at the context. Peter is not the rock or foundation that the church is built on. Christ is and the confession(not of sins) of faith in Christ as the Son of God that the church would be built on. The rock is symbolic of the faith Peter and the other apostles had in Christ. That confession of faith is essential for all who would be followers of Christ. Rom 10:9-10, Matt 10:32, Acts 8 with the eunuch. This along with the need to hear the word(Rom 10:17), have faith (Heb 11:6), repent(Acts 17:30)(Lk 13:3)( Acts 2:38)
and baptism( Acts 2:38)(Mk 16:16) and living faithful(Rev 2:10) are God's plan of salvation.

2. No where is it taught the divine institution of the body of Christ being built on a man. Chist is the head, the authority, the cornerstone.

3. Jesus rebuked the disciples over their desire to be the greatest in the kingdom.

4.Acts 14:8-14 Note the example of Paul and Barnabus. I would imagine Peter would say the same thing.

[Zat0pek]

No where is it taught the divine institution of the body of Christ being built on a man. Chist is the head, the authority, the cornerstone.

Of course. Nobody says otherwise.

Let's try it from this angle and see if this helps make the connection.

Christ is the institution, the way, the truth the life. Christ spends three years teaching that, then departs earth physically. He recognizes the need for a PHYSICAL, VISIBLE institution to carry on the teaching. This is where the "Bible only" flawed doctrine really breaks down because it is contrary to every Christ did during his time on Earth. If there was only the need for a written word, He would have simply written everything down rather than going among people, teaching and preaching. He and his disciples were the first church in the sense of a physical institution to among people and teach and preach.

Christ annointed Peter to fulfill the need for a continued PHYSICAL presence on Earth to continue that teaching and preaching of HIS WORD. Doesn't complicate anything anymore than my analogy to Michaelangelo's painting complicates his art. Think of it like this: Christ and his Word are the subject; the church is the college where one goes to learn more about that word, and the Pope is the dean of the university. The hierarchy - cardinals, bishops and priests - are the various heads of colleges within the univesity (cardinals), department head (bishops), and professors (priests).

These are the myths that are persistent, but not based in scripture or in fact. The Pope is not deity, nor is he a mediator between man and God (have to understand the tradition at the time Christ spoke those words to understand the difference) and the catholic church wasn't formed in 600A.D. In fact, it wasn't until the Reformation that there was any claim whatsoever that there was anything OTHER than catholic christianity.

[xcrider]

Of course. Nobody says otherwise.

Let's try it from this angle and see if this helps make the connection.

Christ is the institution, the way, the truth the life. Christ spends three years teaching that, then departs earth physically. He recognizes the need for a PHYSICAL, VISIBLE institution to carry on the teaching. This is where the "Bible only" flawed doctrine really breaks down because it is contrary to every Christ did during his time on Earth. If there was only the need for a written word, He would have simply written everything down rather than going among people, teaching and preaching. He and his disciples were the first church in the sense of a physical institution to among people and teach and preach.

Christ annointed Peter to fulfill the need for a continued PHYSICAL presence on Earth to continue that teaching and preaching of HIS WORD. Doesn't complicate anything anymore than my analogy to Michaelangelo's painting complicates his art. Think of it like this: Christ and his Word are the subject; the church is the college where one goes to learn more about that word, and the Pope is the dean of the university. The hierarchy - cardinals, bishops and priests - are the various heads of colleges within the univesity (cardinals), department head (bishops), and professors (priests).

These are the myths that are persistent, but not based in scripture or in fact. The Pope is not deity, nor is he a mediator between man and God (have to understand the tradition at the time Christ spoke those words to understand the difference) and the catholic church wasn't formed in 600A.D. In fact, it wasn't until the Reformation that there was any claim whatsoever that there was anything OTHER than catholic christianity.

Except that the Bible itself does not portray the Catholic church. There was no Papacy. There were inspired, guided men who taught the word initially, writing it down by inspiration. Paul wrote in Gal 1, I Cor 1 etc. that there were already deviations from the truth. The comparison you made to a university is to me a classic example of why the Catholic church evolved (one of few times I'll believe in evolution) into what it is. Man-made. Do I think everything about the Catholic church is wrong? No. at that time there was a need for Peter, Paul, and others(Not Mary) to go around" establish" the churches(congregations) to get them started. There was no rule or authority only instruction. Paul and others appointed elders in every church(congregation) to take on the role of overseer, shephherd, etc. Christ said his word would never end and that is the guide. Why did he and the apostles go around? Jn 20:30-31 The purpose of miracles were to establish that this was from God, and not just an opinion. If I sat down and wrote a letter or doctrine and mailed it out, how many people would believe(ie, Joseph Smith). The public teaching and signs that went with it are why so many believed. Now we are to follow Christs example and go out and teach the word as Christ and the other 1st century Christians did. Not just attend a worship service, mass, etc, once a week.

If Peter was anointed(not seeing that) who followed him? My understanding is that no one took that title or position of "overseer of the church here on earth" until centuries later. To me the only way we can be pleasing to God is to go back to the word and try to follow as closely as possible the examples and commands of the N. T. church as presented to us. otherwise you are hoping God approves of some other way and that is faith based on something other than the word.

[Zat0pek]

If Peter was anointed(not seeing that) who followed him? My understanding is that no one took that title or position of "overseer of the church here on earth" until centuries later.

I have no idea where you would have gotten the notion that there were none following Peter for centuries. Here is the full list of popes:

St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm) (32-67)
St. Linus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09272b.htm) (67-76)
St. Anacletus (Cletus) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01446a.htm) (76-88)
St. Clement I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm) (88-97)
St. Evaristus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05646a.htm) (97-105)
St. Alexander I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01285c.htm) (105-115)
St. Sixtus I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14031b.htm) (115-125) -- also called Xystus I
St. Telesphorus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14477b.htm) (125-136)
St. Hyginus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07593a.htm) (136-140)
St. Pius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12126b.htm) (140-155)
St. Anicetus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01514a.htm) (155-166)
St. Soter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03144c.htm) (166-175)
St. Eleutherius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05378a.htm) (175-189)
St. Victor I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15408a.htm) (189-199)
St. Zephyrinus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15756c.htm) (199-217)
St. Callistus I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03183d.htm) (217-22)
St. Urban I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15209a.htm) (222-30)
St. Pontain (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12229b.htm) (230-35)
St. Anterus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01553a.htm) (235-36)
St. Fabian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05742d.htm) (236-50)
St. Cornelius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04375c.htm) (251-53)
St. Lucius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09411a.htm) (253-54)
St. Stephen I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14288a.htm) (254-257)
St. Sixtus II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14031c.htm) (257-258)
St. Dionysius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05009b.htm) (260-268)
St. Felix I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06029b.htm) (269-274)
St. Eutychian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05638a.htm) (275-283)
St. Caius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03144c.htm) (283-296) -- also called Gaius
St. Marcellinus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09637d.htm) (296-304)
St. Marcellus I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09640b.htm) (308-309)
St. Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05615b.htm) (309 or 310)
St. Miltiades (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10318a.htm) (311-14)
St. Sylvester I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14370a.htm) (314-35)
St. Marcus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09674a.htm) (336)
St. Julius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08561a.htm) (337-52)
Liberius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09217a.htm) (352-66)
St. Damasus I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04613a.htm) (366-83)
St. Siricius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14026a.htm) (384-99)
St. Anastasius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01454c.htm) (399-401)
St. Innocent I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08011a.htm) (401-17)
St. Zosimus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15764c.htm) (417-18)
St. Boniface I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02658a.htm) (418-22)
St. Celestine I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03477c.htm) (422-32)
St. Sixtus III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14032a.htm) (432-40)
St. Leo I (the Great) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09154b.htm) (440-61)
St. Hilarius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07348b.htm) (461-68)
St. Simplicius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14002a.htm) (468-83)
St. Felix III (II) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06030b.htm) (483-92)
St. Gelasius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06406a.htm) (492-96)
Anastasius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01454d.htm) (496-98)
St. Symmachus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14377a.htm) (498-514)
St. Hormisdas (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07470a.htm) (514-23)
St. John I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08421a.htm) (523-26)
St. Felix IV (III) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06031a.htm) (526-30)
Boniface II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02660a.htm) (530-32)
John II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08421b.htm) (533-35)
St. Agapetus I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01202c.htm) (535-36) -- also called Agapitus I
St. Silverius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13793a.htm) (536-37)
Vigilius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15427b.htm) (537-55)
Pelagius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11602a.htm) (556-61)
John III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08422a.htm) (561-74)
Benedict I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02427c.htm) (575-79)
Pelagius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11603a.htm) (579-90)
St. Gregory I (the Great) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06780a.htm) (590-604)
Sabinian (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13291a.htm) (604-606)
Boniface III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02660b.htm) (607)
St. Boniface IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02660c.htm) (608-15)
St. Deusdedit (Adeodatus I) (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04760a.htm) (615-18)
Boniface V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02661a.htm) (619-25)
Honorius I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07452b.htm) (625-38)
Severinus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13742c.htm) (640)
John IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08422b.htm) (640-42)
Theodore I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14570a.htm) (642-49)
St. Martin I (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09723c.htm) (649-55)
Cont.

[Zat0pek]

Note: I can't post the whole list and it starts over with new numbering each time, so disgregard the numbering.




Benedict IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429a.htm) (1047-48)
Damasus II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04614a.htm) (1048)
St. Leo IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09160c.htm) (1049-54)
Victor II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15409a.htm) (1055-57)
Stephen X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14290c.htm) (1057-58)
Nicholas II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11055a.htm) (1058-61)
Alexander II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01286a.htm) (1061-73)
St. Gregory VII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06791c.htm) (1073-85)
Blessed Victor III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15410a.htm) (1086-87)
Blessed Urban II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15210a.htm) (1088-99)
Paschal II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11514b.htm) (1099-1118)
Gelasius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06407a.htm) (1118-19)
Callistus II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03185a.htm) (1119-24)
Honorius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07456a.htm) (1124-30)
Innocent II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08012a.htm) (1130-43)
Celestine II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03478a.htm) (1143-44)
Lucius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09412a.htm) (1144-45)
Blessed Eugene III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05599a.htm) (1145-53)
Anastasius IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01455b.htm) (1153-54)
Adrian IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01156c.htm) (1154-59)
Alexander III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01287a.htm) (1159-81)
Lucius III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09412b.htm) (1181-85)
Urban III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15211a.htm) (1185-87)
Gregory VIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06795a.htm) (1187)
Clement III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04018a.htm) (1187-91)
Celestine III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03478b.htm) (1191-98)
Innocent III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08013a.htm) (1198-1216)
Honorius III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07457a.htm) (1216-27)
Gregory IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06796a.htm) (1227-41)
Celestine IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03479a.htm) (1241)
Innocent IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08017a.htm) (1243-54)
Alexander IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01287b.htm) (1254-61)
Urban IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15212a.htm) (1261-64)
Clement IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04019a.htm) (1265-68)
Blessed Gregory X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06798a.htm) (1271-76)
Blessed Innocent V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08018a.htm) (1276)
Adrian V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01159a.htm) (1276)
John XXI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08429c.htm) (1276-77)
Nicholas III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11056a.htm) (1277-80)
Martin IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09724a.htm) (1281-85)
Honorius IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07459a.htm) (1285-87)
Nicholas IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11057a.htm) (1288-92)
St. Celestine V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03479b.htm) (1294)
Boniface VIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02662a.htm) (1294-1303)
Blessed Benedict XI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02429c.htm) (1303-04)
Clement V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04020a.htm) (1305-14)
John XXII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08431a.htm) (1316-34)
Benedict XII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02430a.htm) (1334-42)
Clement VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04023a.htm) (1342-52)
Innocent VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08018b.htm) (1352-62)
Blessed Urban V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15214a.htm) (1362-70)
Gregory XI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06799a.htm) (1370-78)
Urban VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15216a.htm) (1378-89)
Boniface IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02670a.htm) (1389-1404)
Innocent VII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08019a.htm) (1404-06)
Gregory XII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001a.htm) (1406-15)
Martin V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09725a.htm) (1417-31)
Eugene IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05601a.htm) (1431-47)
Nicholas V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11058a.htm) (1447-55)
Callistus III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03187a.htm) (1455-58)
Pius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12126c.htm) (1458-64)
Paul II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11578a.htm) (1464-71)
Sixtus IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14032b.htm) (1471-84)
Innocent VIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08019b.htm) (1484-92)
Alexander VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01289a.htm) (1492-1503)
Pius III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12128a.htm) (1503)
Julius II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08562a.htm) (1503-13)
Leo X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09162a.htm) (1513-21)
Adrian VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01159b.htm) (1522-23)
Clement VII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04024a.htm) (1523-34)
Paul III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11579a.htm) (1534-49)
Julius III (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08564a.htm) (1550-55)
Marcellus II (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09641a.htm) (1555)
Paul IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581a.htm) (1555-59)
Pius IV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12129a.htm) (1559-65)
Cont.

[Zat0pek]

St. Pius V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12130a.htm) (1566-72)
Gregory XIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07001b.htm) (1572-85)
Sixtus V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14033a.htm) (1585-90)
Urban VII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15218a.htm) (1590)
Gregory XIV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07004a.htm) (1590-91)
Innocent IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08020a.htm) (1591)
Clement VIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04027a.htm) (1592-1605)
Leo XI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09166a.htm) (1605)
Paul V (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11581b.htm) (1605-21)
Gregory XV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07004b.htm) (1621-23)
Urban VIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15218b.htm) (1623-44)
Innocent X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08020b.htm) (1644-55)
Alexander VII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01294a.htm) (1655-67)
Clement IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04028a.htm) (1667-69)
Clement X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04028b.htm) (1670-76)
Blessed Innocent XI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08021a.htm) (1676-89)
Alexander VIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01295a.htm) (1689-91)
Innocent XII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08022a.htm) (1691-1700)
Clement XI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04029a.htm) (1700-21)
Innocent XIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08023a.htm) (1721-24)
Benedict XIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02431a.htm) (1724-30)
Clement XII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04030a.htm) (1730-40)
Benedict XIV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02432a.htm) (1740-58)
Clement XIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04032a.htm) (1758-69)
Clement XIV (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04034a.htm) (1769-74)
Pius VI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12131a.htm) (1775-99)
Pius VII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12132a.htm) (1800-23)
Leo XII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09167a.htm) (1823-29)
Pius VIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12134a.htm) (1829-30)
Gregory XVI (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07006a.htm) (1831-46)
Blessed Pius IX (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12134b.htm) (1846-78)
Leo XIII (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09169a.htm) (1878-1903)
St. Pius X (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12137a.htm) (1903-14)
Benedict XV (1914-22)
Pius XI (1922-39)
Pius XII (1939-58)
Blessed John XXIII (1958-63)
Paul VI (1963-78)
John Paul I (1978)
John Paul II (1978-2005)
Benedict XVI (http://www.newadvent.org/benedict-xvi) (2005—)

[xcrider]

Still see no Biblical basis for the offices, and furthermore I would imagine this is kind of like B.C. dating. Going back after the fact and placing people in there to fill a timeline. Now, I don't say this to be inflammatory, just my perspective. Would be glad to see or know where to look for more information. Doubt some of those first couple of men, believed they were the God appointed leader of the kingdom here on earth.

[jake]

Irenaeus

"The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus" (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).

The Little Labyrinth

"Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter" (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Eusebius of Caesarea

"Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul [2 Tim. 4:10], but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy [2 Tim. 4:21] as his companion at Rome, was Peter’s successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier [Phil. 4:3]" (Church History 3:4:9–10 [A.D. 312]).

Epiphanius of Salamis

"At Rome the first apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Medicine Chest Against All Heresies 27:6 [A.D. 375]).

Augustine

"If all men throughout the world were such as you most vainly accuse them of having been, what has the chair of the Roman church done to you, in which Peter sat, and in which Anastasius sits today?" (Against the Letters of Petilani 2:118 [A.D. 402]).

"If the very order of episcopal succession is to be considered, how much more surely, truly, and safely do we number them from Peter himself, to whom, as to one representing the whole Church, the Lord said, ‘Upon this rock I will build my Church’ . . . [Matt. 16:18]. Peter was succeeded by Linus, Linus by Clement, Clement by Anacletus, Anacletus by Evaristus . . . " (Letters 53:1:2 [A.D. 412]).

[Zat0pek]

Still see no Biblical basis for the offices, and furthermore I would imagine this is kind of like B.C. dating. Going back after the fact and placing people in there to fill a timeline. Now, I don't say this to be inflammatory, just my perspective. Would be glad to see or know where to look for more information. Doubt some of those first couple of men, believed they were the God appointed leader of the kingdom here on earth.

Most of the names are hyperlinked. Just click to learn more. Start with Linus, the first successor. Most of the information comes from Roman lists in the first and second century. So no, this was not done after the fact.

Like I said, like many of you, I believed a lot of the myths about catholicism but it taken me very long to figure out they were just that - myths - with no factual or scriptural basis.

Here's the first portion of the reference on Linus:

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08130b.htm), Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm), also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm). These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm) which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05378a.htm) (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm) assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04012c.htm) (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority. This author claims that Pope Linus is the Linus mentioned by St. Paul (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11567b.htm) in his II Timothy 4:21. The passage by Irenaeus (Adv. haereses, III, iii, 3) reads:


After the Holy Apostles (Peter and Paul) had founded and set the Church in order (in Rome) they gave over the exercise of the episcopal office to Linus. The same Linus is mentioned by St. Paul in his Epistle to Timothy. His successor was Anacletus.

[xcrider]

Realized each of those were links to info about the men. sorry. After reading some of these links I see that they confirm what I said earlier. These names have been " backdated" so to speak and do not confirm that they were successors to Peter. In fact there seems to be some disagreement of who should be in that list/.

[Kalaby]

Still see no Biblical basis for the offices, and furthermore I would imagine this is kind of like B.C. dating. Going back after the fact and placing people in there to fill a timeline. Now, I don't say this to be inflammatory, just my perspective. Would be glad to see or know where to look for more information. Doubt some of those first couple of men, believed they were the God appointed leader of the kingdom here on earth.

Not true.

Read any of the works of the early church fathers like Iranaeus, Tertullian, Origen, etc.

[Zat0pek]

These names have been " backdated" so to speak and do not confirm that they were successors to Peter.

Where on earth do you see that they were backdated?????? The source for the early lists is contained in the first few paragraphs in the reference on Linus. There was no backdating to it; the lists were maintained at the time.

[xcrider]

Where on earth do you see that they were backdated?????? The source for the early lists is contained in the first few paragraphs in the reference on Linus. There was no backdating to it; the lists were maintained at the time.

All the ancient records of the Roman bishops which have been handed down to us by St. Irenaeus, Julius Africanus, St. Hippolytus, Eusebius, also the Liberian catalogue of 354, place the name of Linus directly after that of the Prince of the Apostles, St. Peter. These records are traced back to a list of the Roman bishops which existed in the time of Pope Eleutherus (about 174-189), when Irenaeus wrote his book "Adversus haereses". As opposed to this testimony, we cannot accept as more reliable Tertullian's assertion, which unquestionably places St. Clement (De praescriptione, xxii) after the Apostle Peter, as was also done later by other Latin scholars (Jerome, "De vir. ill.", xv). The Roman list in Irenaeus has undoubtedly greater claims to historical authority

Does this not state that Irenaeus was around 155 or so. And that they were only drawing records from his writings. Bishops in Rome during the first century were probably just that. Bishops according to the criteria established by Peter and Paul. Try reading letter to Timothy and Titus. These were in every congregation. What I am saying is the office of a one man head didn't come up till much later and they took these names that were recorded and said used them to draw a continual line to Peter to justify their invention. Again if you have more documentation, I'll gladly read it. Paul and Peter are referred here to have passed on their office. But the office today certainly doesn't fit the qualifications given by Paul. Again, I base what I believe solely on the word and maybe we will not be able to agree since you follow also the writings of men since then.

[xcrider]

Back on topic though a little bit. I asked earlier what is the point of being declared a "saint". Obviously the previous pope did a lot of great work(even though I don't agree with many of the teachings and office) What is the differentiation between a saint and a Saint?

Besides the miracle thing.

[Zat0pek]

I base what I believe solely on the word and maybe we will not be able to agree since you follow also the writings of men since then.

That is illogical. How could there be a scriptural basis for events that occurred AFTER scripture was inspired or written?

Why would there be a scriptural basis for essentially the adminstrative functions to select a successor, again after scripture was inspired and written?

And I don't follow the writings of men. Where would you get that idea?

[Zat0pek]

Back on topic though a little bit. I asked earlier what is the point of being declared a "saint". Obviously the previous pope did a lot of great work(even though I don't agree with many of the teachings and office) What is the differentiation between a saint and a Saint?

In a nutshell. . .

The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07292c.htm), and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm) nothing more than friends and servants of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).

[xcrider]

That is illogical. How could there be a scriptural basis for events that occurred AFTER scripture was inspired or written?

Why would there be a scriptural basis for essentially the adminstrative functions to select a successor, again after scripture was inspired and written?

And I don't follow the writings of men. Where would you get that idea?

Exactly. My point is that to me there is no example, command or inference for this office and succession. Therefore, to me, it is not right and adding to what God's plan is. So, the rest is unnecessary.

On the writings of men, I was not trying to make a false accusation. To me any writings or decrees or councils after the writers of the N.T. are just men and not inspired. Just telling you where I am looking from.

I suppose my belief could be seen as II Tim 3:16-17.

Not that I am perfect, but if it isn't in the word, I ain't gonna trust it.

[xcrider]

In a nutshell. . .

The Catholic Church canonizes or beatifies only those whose lives have been marked by the exercise of heroic virtue (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07292c.htm), and only after this has been proved by common repute for sanctity and by conclusive arguments. The chief difference, however, lies in the meaning of the term canonization, the Church seeing in the saints (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04171a.htm) nothing more than friends and servants of God (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06608a.htm) whose holy lives have made them worthy of His special love. She does not pretend to make gods (cf. Eusebius Emisenus, Serm. de S. Rom. M.; Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XXII, x; Cyrill. Alexandr., Contra Jul., lib. VI; Cyprian, De Exhortat. martyr.; Conc. Nic., II, act. 3).

Good explanation. Thank you.

[Kalaby]

Exactly. My point is that to me there is no example, command or inference for this office and succession. Therefore, to me, it is not right and adding to what God's plan is. So, the rest is unnecessary.

On the writings of men, I was not trying to make a false accusation. To me any writings or decrees or councils after the writers of the N.T. are just men and not inspired. Just telling you where I am looking from.

I suppose my belief could be seen as II Tim 3:16-17.

Not that I am perfect, but if it isn't in the word, I ain't gonna trust it.

So you are interpreting as well. In the end, that's what it comes down to.

[KenA55]

This is all pretty silly, anybody who wasn't born with scripture embedded into their brain somehow at some point interpreted it or else has never read it. There are no other choices. What we're going around about is how to best interpret it, not whether to interpret it. The only way to do that is to never expose yourself to it in the first place.

[xcrider]

This is all pretty silly, anybody who wasn't born with scripture embedded into their brain somehow at some point interpreted it or else has never read it. There are no other choices. What we're going around about is how to best interpret it, not whether to interpret it. The only way to do that is to never expose yourself to it in the first place.

Started to take issue with this, but read it over and realize I misread it the first time. Sometimes it amazes me how we even interpret messages on these boards. Yes, I am talking about how to interpret the Bible. I think that is what I meant by "to me" . Hermeneutics(I know that I mispelled that one). Mine, I suppose, would be based solely on the Bible as the only source of knowledge, and that what I do must be directed by command, example, or necessary inference. Others use other methods. I feel this is the safe path. There is so much confusion out there, that some of it has to be wrong. Matt 7:21-23.

[KenA55]

I think most of the wrongness in the confusion lies in the bashing that goes back and forth between various denominations over the fine points. Where there's human interpretation there is going to be disagreement; but we can control the extent to which we focus on those areas vs. the immense ground we can agree upon. Denominators divide and split, anyone who got beyond fractions is solid on that. And so, we can choose to gather despite disagreement or scatter with a sneer towards their errant ways. Whoever they happens to be at the moment. Seeing your neighbor's perceived foolishness is seeing it for your own. This is the Cross a Christian willingly bears, should he choose to take it up and follow.


People should attend the church they like and feel good about being a part of. That's their community, and that's where they should be. The finer points of contention between their leaders and leaders of other denominations are just a side show on another level compared to this. Those leaders should not foment an atmosphere among the laity that discourages a sense of oneness among all because of those differences.

[MoMo]

KenA, good answer.

Agree completely.

[Zat0pek]

People should attend the church they like and feel good about being a part of. That's their community, and that's where they should be. The finer points of contention between their leaders and leaders of other denominations are just a side show on another level compared to this. Those leaders should not foment an atmosphere among the laity that discourages a sense of oneness among all because of those differences.

I would qualifiedly agree with this.

I say qualifiedly because there are some things that cannot be compromised and the modern liberal approach is that if you don't like the standards you can disregard them or change them because the most important thing is that people feel good about themselves regardless what they have done or believe. Heaven forbid (pun intended) someone experience genuine guilt, shame or humilation over conduct that is socially damaging and contrary to religious and moral teaching.

Religions don't (or shouldn't) conform to the flock; the flock conforms to the religion. That is the point.

[mzungu]

you say that is the modern liberal approach, but the conservative approach in the bush administrations has been to abandon standards of truth (WMD) or credibility or morality (e.g. legitimation of torture) in service of a machiavellian approach.

[xcrider]

I would qualifiedly agree with this.

I say qualifiedly because there are some things that cannot be compromised and the modern liberal approach is that if you don't like the standards you can disregard them or change them because the most important thing is that people feel good about themselves regardless what they have done or believe. Heaven forbid (pun intended) someone experience genuine guilt, shame or humilation over conduct that is socially damaging and contrary to religious and moral teaching.

Religions don't (or shouldn't) conform to the flock; the flock conforms to the religion. That is the point.

I would un-qualifiedly agree with this. Certainly the bashing is unproductive. However, what writer in the N.T. did not spend time and space writing about what a group of people were doing wrong. Much is given to encouragement, thankfulness, and exhortation, but there are also warnings and rebukes, especially from Christ.
there are many things that are fought over that have little significance, but we cannot say that about everything and say everyone will be fine as long as they serve in their own way. Many "churches" around me seem(and i say seem because that is just the way it appears to me) to be modeling themselves to appeal to more people, to be more entertaining, to fit anybody. We submit our life to God's way not what feels best. If a person says" a person should worship and serve God in a way they like and feel comfortable with" is that what anything in the Bible teaches? literally or figuratively?

[Zat0pek]

Much is given to encouragement, thankfulness, and exhortation, but there are also warnings and rebukes, especially from Christ.

Not a radical concept, when you boil it down: Reward good behavior, punish bad behavior. Parent do that to their children, teachers to their students, employers to their employees. Hardly an unusual notion.

[running high]

The idea of insignificance concerning most discrepancies between the divisions of the church is mainly correct, but not through and through.

You pray to Mary? I read why as stated in you're postathon, but I mean, why?

[KenA55]

Religions don't (or shouldn't) conform to the flock; the flock conforms to the religion. That is the point.

The flock does so because they feel good about doing so. That doesn't necessarily equate to feeling good about themselves in all instances. But that's why they're there. Start having mandatory weekly martyrdom lotteries and you'll find out quickly how many true believers you really have. The Daniel's are few and far between, but there'll be some. Or on a more reasonable scale, but just as telling, start holding six-hour services.

Every church presently conforms to its flock to one extent or another but just isn't advertising the fact.

[KenA55]

You pray to Mary? I read why as stated in you're postathon, but I mean, why?

Why not? Seems she's been showing up pretty regularly the past couple decades in particular. Or at least quite a few million people are convinced it is so. I've an open mind on it.

[running high]

She isn't divine. Who is to be prayed to is not reflected by cultural trends.

[KenA55]

I see. Then we'll have to disregard certain scripture that would grant that for many more than just simply Mary. No problem though, a simple matter of interpretation.

[jake]

Prayer directed towards Mary is different than prayer directed toward God. The most common Marian prayer, by far, is the Hail Mary. If you actually look at it there isn't anything too radical in it. (in my opinion) It basically quotes scripture, recognizes that Mary was a holy woman, and asks her to pray for you. It doesn't ask her to do anything that someone would ask God to do. It simply asks her to pray for us. To me, that can't be a bad thing. With Mary, as with anything, people can, and do, take it too far, but those are their individual actions.

Hail Mary, full of grace.
The Lord is with you.
Blessed are thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus.
Holy Mary, Mother of God
Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, Amen.

[running high]

I see. Then we'll have to disregard certain scripture that would grant that for many more than just simply Mary. No problem though, a simple matter of interpretation.

Where in scripture does it say to pray to mary?

[jrun]

Holy Mary, Mother of God


Is this correct?

Mother of God?

[KenA55]

Is this correct?

Mother of God?

Is Christ not God in your Christianity?

[KenA55]

Where in scripture does it say to pray to mary?

It doesn't. It declares her divinity, along w/yours and mine hopefully. I'm at work. Mark, possibly? Christ is being accused of blasphemy and instructs that his accusers are also Gods and sons of the most high, as declared in the Old Testament. Somebody'll dig it out, and hopefully reference the older scriptures Christ refers to.

edit-
John 10.27-36 in reference to Psalm 81.1-6

along with Christ's central theme of unity-
Matthew
10.40
25.34-40
Luke
17.21
John
6.57
14.20
15.4-5
17.20-23
Paul
1 Corinthians 12.12-14; 12.25-27
Ephesians 4.1-6; 4.14-16; 4.23-26

Isaias 44.6

[jake]

Is this correct?

Mother of God?

some info


Although Mary is the Mother of God, she is not his mother in the sense that she is older than God or the source of her Son’s divinity, for she is neither. Rather, we say that she is the Mother of God in the sense that she carried in her womb a divine person—Jesus Christ, God "in the flesh" (2 John 7, cf. John 1:14)—and in the sense that she contributed the genetic matter to the human form God took in Jesus Christ.

Early Christian Tradition, particularly the liturgy, bears witness to the Christian belief that Mary is the Mother of God. In the oldest profession of the Christian faith, the Apostles’ Creed (cf. Catechism, no. 194), the faithful for nearly two millennia have professed their faith in “Jesus Christ, His Only Son, Our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the Virgin Mary.” The ancient Marian prayer Sub tuum praesidium (“We fly to thy protection ... “), which dates back to the third century, explicitly addresses Mary as “Mother of God.”

Mary’s divine motherhood is richly attested to in the writings of the Church Fathers. For example, Saint Irenaeus (d. 202) wrote, “The Virgin Mary, ... being obedient to His word, received from an angel the glad tidings that she would bear God.”[1]

Saint Ephrem of Syria (d. 373), in his poetic Hymns of the Nativity, authored the following:

In the womb of Mary, the Infant was formed, who from eternity is equal to the Father. . . .

The Virgin became a Mother while preserving her virginity; And though still a virgin she carried a Child in her womb; And the handmaid and work of His Wisdom became the Mother of God.[2]

Saint Athanasius (d. 373), in his treatise On the Incarnation of the Word of God and Against the Arians, wrote:

The Word begotten of the Father from on high, inexpressibly, inexplicably, incomprehensibly, and eternally, is He that is born in time here below, of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God -- so that those who are in the first place born here below might have a second birth from on high, that is, of God.[3]

[Zat0pek]

Is this correct?

Mother of God?

More than you wanted to know about Mary: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Remember the post early about canonization (really just earthly recognition) of saints being acknowldeged as special helpers? Well, think of Mary as the highest of the saints. Can't get much higher than being selected by God to conceive and raise His only Son. That honor seems worthy of some acknowledgement by man because to fail to do so disrespects God's choice for the mother of His Son.

[xcrider]

More than you wanted to know about Mary: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15464b.htm

Remember the post early about canonization (really just earthly recognition) of saints being acknowldeged as special helpers? Well, think of Mary as the highest of the saints. Can't get much higher than being selected by God to conceive and raise His only Son. That honor seems worthy of some acknowledgement by man because to fail to do so disrespects God's choice for the mother of His Son.

Certainly Mary is even told"blessed are you among women" Don't see where we would get the idea to pray to her though. When I skimmed through this article(trying to keep an open mind) another thing that I am just not seeing is the idea of perpetual virginity. Don't see how you could get that from scripture either.

[jake]

This is probably due to being Catholic, but I can't see why the idea of asking Mary, or any other saint to pray (intercede) for you is so radical. Here on earth we ask friends, families, pastors, etc. to pray for us. If the saints are acknowledged to have been holy people (this would certainly apply to Mary), they would seem to be good candidates to ask to pray for you, particularly if they are in heaven and in closer communion with God than those of us here on earth.

1 Timothy 2:5 is often quoted as a reason not to pray to Mary, but the four verses right before verse direct christians to pray for one another.

1 I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4who wants all men to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Revelation 5:8 also refers to prayers of intercession being placed before God.

8And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

[Kalaby]

1. Matt 16-look at the context. Peter is not the rock or foundation that the church is built on. Christ is and the confession(not of sins) of faith in Christ as the Son of God that the church would be built on. The rock is symbolic of the faith Peter and the other apostles had in Christ.

Generally speaking, that is a Protestant or Bible Christian interpretation of that passage; hardly bona fide fact. Obviously the Catholic interpretation is quite different.

[jrun]

Generally speaking, that is a Protestant or Bible Christian interpretation of that passage; hardly bona fide fact. Obviously the Catholic interpretation is quite different.


Sigh....Why would anything be built on a turncoat sinner like Peter (or me, or you, or all of us)?

Who is/was to be the Cornerstone of the church? Jesus Christ or Peter?

[Zat0pek]

Sigh....Why would anything be built on a turncoat sinner like Peter (or me, or you, or all of us)?

Who is/was to be the Cornerstone of the church? Jesus Christ or Peter?

Christ is the cornerstone; no one has ever said otherwise. Why would Peter being handed the keys of the EARTHLY church change that? The Church is there to teach and guide. Like I said before, if God intended for there to be ONLY the Word, He would have just written it down. He didn't. He came down, walked among people and taught. Recognizing that the world would be around for awhile and with it the same need for face-to face teaching, he left Peter in charge to do it. Why is that so hard to understand?

Why a turncoat like Peter? Who better to exemplify God's saving grace?

Go back to the example of Michaelangelo's painting that I posted. The additional information I gave only served to illuminate what was not obvious from a mere literal observation. Same with Scripture. The additional information doesn't detract or invalidate; just the opposite!

[jrun]

Who better to exemplify God's saving grace?


Jesus Christ!

Crucified and resurrected for all of humanity.


---
Zat0pek...yes there were leaders during the early church. Obviously, men who communed with the living Christ became the teachers and preachers of The Way. No where, however, did Jesus instruct for there to be an 'earthly father' in His stead. He imparted the Holy Spirit to guide each and every individual believer.

[jake]

Sigh....Why would anything be built on a turncoat sinner like Peter (or me, or you, or all of us)?


These guys from the first few centuries of Christianity seemed to think Peter had a special role.

Tertullian

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).


Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).

[Kalaby]

It's always been interesting to me how Biblical literalists conveniently abandon their usual approach when it comes to Matthew 16:18-19 and resort to unconvincing word play about the interpretation of the Greek word for rock in order to "interpret" that passage.

[xcrider]

It's always been interesting to me how Biblical literalists conveniently abandon their usual approach when it comes to Matthew 16:18-19 and resort to unconvincing word play about the interpretation of the Greek word for rock in order to "interpret" that passage.

Certainly there are many things said by Christ that are figurative. The previous quotations by men about Peter's role were 200 years after the church was established. Again to me a point where men were making up their own plan for the church.

Man-made organization= interpretation of scripture to fit.

It has always been interesting to me as a "Biblical literalist" that the only verse that can be found to substantiate this concept is Matt 16:18-19(which doesn't) Peter is mentioned by other writers, Paul, Luke, yet no mention of his leadership role. In fact Peter refers to himself as merely an elder. An important office, yet only of a congregation.

I don't think anything is gained by further discussion, so I'll try to leave this one alone.

[Kalaby]

I don't think anything is gained by further discussion, so I'll try to leave this one alone.

At least we can agree on that.

[TrackDaddy]

People should attend the church they like and feel good about being a part of. The problem with that "unauthorized reasoning" Christ only started ONE CHURCH which is defined THROUGH SPECIFIC DOCTRINE.

Not..."let's have it our way."

This ain't BURGER KING.

Why is that so hard for y'all to understand?

God doesn't conform to "the whims of men."

Zat posts a list of pimps...er...I mean popes and it SO UNSCRIPTURAL that it is blatant.

These are the traditions of men.

He thinks that he's "discovered" truth in Catholicism when all it really is, is a mess of confusing man made doctrine that Jesus described as vain worship.

Does God require us to acknowledge GROWN MEN wearing gowns, big hats, carrying canes, while humming (sounds like pimps, huh?) and who claim to be authorized to dictate doctrine?

That makes NO SENSE whatsoever.

Here's MORE PROOF of the unsoundness of the doctrine...

The Bible CONDEMNS "forbidding to marry."

Notice a portion of Paul's letter to Timothy in this regard:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)"

And when Catholicism FORBIDS to MARRY it creates a haven for homosexuality. Priests, renowned for pedophilia and homosexuality HIDE BEHIND THAT UNSCRIPTURAL PRACTICE. SO do nuns!

No one asks why "you don't settle down and get married when you're a "priests or nun." You can claim it's your calling.

But don't be deceived by all this MADE UP doctrine that I've proved over and over is condemned by the WORDS OF JESUS and the APOSTLES.

It's vain worship in that is unauthorized.

If I was betting man, I'd bet a dollar to a dime that none of the catholics in this thread will EXPLAIN how catholics IGNORE THIS SCRIPTURE that I've posted.

[KenA55]

God forbid I get accused of unauthorized reasoning.
;)

All of those churches are that one church. The fact that those within those varius churches dispute it by nitpicking over this and that is immaterial. God still knows his people- and the people are the church, not the building, not the hierarchy in and of itself.

As fashion consultant for God, thank you for your opinions on wardrobe. I have my own opinion, too. But they're simpy mine, to apply to me. That's where my authority ends, right there, since I'm not God's chief fashion consultant or marriage advisor either, for that matter.

Remember that you've proven nothing other than to yourself, unless and until the other guy acknowledges proof. Declaring it proven to him without that is playing with yourself, though I'm sure it feels good.

[MoMo]

TD, your pimps/popes thing is really offensive.

I should add -- for the sake of complete transparency -- that I (much like Zat) am a late-in-life convert to Catholicism.

Even if I were an atheist, but a mature one, I'd find that remark childish and really surprising from someone who pretends to be a kind and caring man.

[jrun]

Not particularly decorousness, no, but TD could have said worse. Like calling them serpents or children of the devil.

[jake]

Here's MORE PROOF of the unsoundness of the doctrine...

The Bible CONDEMNS "forbidding to marry."

Notice a portion of Paul's letter to Timothy in this regard:

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. (1 Timothy 4:1-3)"

If I was betting man, I'd bet a dollar to a dime that none of the catholics in this thread will EXPLAIN how catholics IGNORE THIS SCRIPTURE that I've posted.

TrackDaddy, the Bible refers to the benefits of celibacy in several verses. Clearly, the idea of celibacy wasn't forbidden by God or the apostles. Secondly, the Church doesn't forbid anyone to marry. No one is forced to become a priest, sister, brother, etc. A priestly vocation is a gift, a calling given by God, and accepted by an individual. If one isn't able to accept celibacy, they shouldn't join the priesthood.

The problem debating anything with you is you really have zero interest in what anyone else has to say and look for their responses as nothing more than a chance to demonstrate your monopoly on TRUTH and knowledge of scripture. I sometimes wonder if you have your replies typed out before you read the next post.

Mt 19:12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

1 Corinthians

7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.

[Kalaby]

Why in the world are any of you surprised about TD's latest post? I think he's proven what he's about over the last few years. The man is a "ballbreaker" plain and simple. He gets his kicks by making these inflammatory remarks that result in a repetitive and seemingly endless pissing match. I've watched him at work. For example, if the Bonds thread is dead and buried and has seen no posts for days or weeks, he'll just post something like a picture of Babe Ruth accompanied by a snide "LOL" or a picture of Bonds with a statment like "G.O.A.T." just to stir things up again. Like I said, that's a textbook definition of a "ballbreaker".

I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. That is why I have him on IGNORE and that is where he shall stay. Don't take his bait...just place him on IGNORE, you'll be much happier in the long run.

[Zat0pek]

Zat posts a list of pimps...er...I mean popes and it SO UNSCRIPTURAL that it is blatant.

These are the traditions of men.

Leaving the snide and uncalled for slang aside (note I've never addressed your posting in such a manner, TD, and I won't) OF COURSE the LIST of popes is "unscriptural". THEY SERVED AFTER SCRIPTURE WAS WRITTEN! How on earth could there be a list of popes in scripture?

The Last Supper was, in essence, the first ordination of priests for a visible instution on earth and the first celebration of the Eucharist. Peter was left in charge of them. Christ left behind a visible presence on earth to continue His ministry after he physically departed. He left Peter in charge of that earthly institution, to be guided by His Word in perpetuity. As those responsible for Chirst's Church passed away, their successors were appointed in order to continue the work that Christ had instructed. This is not difficult to understand. Of course the Catholic Church is an institution of man. But, and this is a very important "but", it is an institution of man ordained by Christ and entrusted to carry on his visible ministry on earth. Think of it like this; the Catholic Church is the college, and Christ is the subject being taught by every professor. The Pope is the President of the University, the cardinals are the head of the various colleges within the university, and priests are the professors. They subject they teach is Christ's Word. To say it is an institution of man states the obvious. It also totally misses the point of Who ordained the church and what earthly mission it was given.

As for your comments about a "haven" for pedophiles, I believed the same thing you did until I did a little checking, and you know what I found out? The percentage of pedophiles in Catholic clergy is the same as that in other denomations where the clergy marry. So that theory goes out the window. And are you aware that there ARE married priests? It happens when an Episcopalian priest converts; this usually happens when an Episcopalian parish becomes a Catholic parish. If the Episcopalian priest was already married, he stays married once he becomes a Catholic priest.

[exjersey1]

Why in the world are any of you surprised about TD's latest post? I think he's proven what he's about over the last few years. The man is a "ballbreaker" plain and simple. He gets his kicks by making these inflammatory remarks that result in a repetitive and seemingly endless pissing match. I've watched him at work. For example, if the Bonds thread is dead and buried and has seen no posts for days or weeks, he'll just post something like a picture of Babe Ruth accompanied by a snide "LOL" or a picture of Bonds with a statment like "G.O.A.T." just to stir things up again. Like I said, that's a textbook definition of a "ballbreaker".

I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. That is why I have him on IGNORE and that is where he shall stay. Don't take his bait...just place him on IGNORE, you'll be much happier in the long run.


Well put, Kalaby.

[TrackDaddy]

God forbid I get accused of unauthorized reasoning.
;)

All of those churches are that one church. The fact that those within those varius churches dispute it by nitpicking over this and that is immaterial. God still knows his people- and the people are the church, not the building, not the hierarchy in and of itself.

As fashion consultant for God, thank you for your opinions on wardrobe. I have my own opinion, too. But they're simpy mine, to apply to me. That's where my authority ends, right there, since I'm not God's chief fashion consultant or marriage advisor either, for that matter.

Remember that you've proven nothing other than to yourself, unless and until the other guy acknowledges proof. Declaring it proven to him without that is playing with yourself, though I'm sure it feels good.Well Ken, it's good to know you share the Pope's taste in fashion.

Of course, this type of pompousness in dress....it isn't just applicable to Catholicism but is characteristic of all who "DO FOR MEN TO SEE."

But it's NOT "just" THE CLOTHING, it's the MOTIVE.

Here's how JESUS feels about it:

But all their works they do to be seen by men. They make their phylacteries broad and enlarge the borders of their garments. 6They love the best places at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, 7greetings in the marketplaces, and to be called by men, "Rabbi, Rabbi.' 8But you, do not be called "Rabbi'; for One is your Teacher, the Christ,[b] and you are all brethren. 9Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven. 10And do not be called teachers; for One is your Teacher, the Christ. 11But he who is greatest among you shall be your servant. 12And whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.

Jesus was a simple man. His pillow was a stone. Gold chalices, big ornamental thrones, etc., etc...

That's not the presentation of CHRISTIANITY.

That's the pope's thing.

And God is a jealous God. Men aren't to be "exalted." Can't you read Jesus's words above and SEE THE POPE?

And "all those church's" ARE NOT the same "church." The church is the Body of Christ. It is not a building or a place.

In it are JUST PLAIN Christians. Not hyphenated "christians" (e.g. Mormon-Christian) consumed with a disregard for order and the inclination to follow man-made doctrine.

In the FIRST CENTURY...no one asked "what kind of Christian are you" or "what KIND of Church" do you belong to.

THERE WAS ONLY ONE (IN DOCTRINE).

The deception that you've bought into...was to follow.

Boy, was it.

Jesus died so that men could be saved as they are added to His Body. God adds (Acts 2:47) those to the Church WHO OBEY the "form of doctrine" delivered in the BIBLE (Romans 6:17). Read Acts 2 to see HOW TO BECOME A CHRISTIAN.

Not your catholic manual of man made doctrine intent to distort it.

The Church IS DEFINED BY THE DOCTRINE OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND THOSE WHO OBEY IT.

In your naivety and lack of Biblical knowledge, you think this unimportant because you wish it to be.

God says otherwise. Over and over and over...again (Matthew 15:9; 2 Timothy 4:2; Ephesians 4:14; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 John 9; 2 John 10-11).

Just to name a few.

He very mcuh cares HOW He is worshipped and never authorized these denominations to "do it their way."

[TrackDaddy]

TD, your pimps/popes thing is really offensive.

I should add -- for the sake of complete transparency -- that I (much like Zat) am a late-in-life convert to Catholicism.

Even if I were an atheist, but a mature one, I'd find that remark childish and really surprising from someone who pretends to be a kind and caring man.Pretend?

I AM a kind and caring man.

That's why I like Paul, who in "knowing the terror of God", persuade men.

Peter "begged and pleaded" with people to hear TRUTH.

This isn't a game to me.

The Pope IS a pimp of sorts in my mind as are all false prophets. He peddles distorted truth.

MoMo..look closely at Catholicism.

Then, look at your Bible FOR YOURSELF and observe the confusion.

God is not the author of confusion.

My intent was not to offend anyone.

I am truly sorry, but would delight if it causes JUST ONE OF YOU to open your eyes to PLAIN BIBLICAL TRUTH.

[TrackDaddy]

TrackDaddy, the Bible refers to the benefits of celibacy in several verses. Clearly, the idea of celibacy wasn't forbidden by God or the apostles. Secondly, the Church doesn't forbid anyone to marry. No one is forced to become a priest, sister, brother, etc. A priestly vocation is a gift, a calling given by God, and accepted by an individual. If one isn't able to accept celibacy, they shouldn't join the priesthood.

The problem debating anything with you is you really have zero interest in what anyone else has to say and look for their responses as nothing more than a chance to demonstrate your monopoly on TRUTH and knowledge of scripture. I sometimes wonder if you have your replies typed out before you read the next post.

Mt 19:12 For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage[a]because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."

1 Corinthians

7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that.

8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am.

32I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord's affairs—how he can please the Lord. 33But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife— 34and his interests are divided. An unmarried woman or virgin is concerned about the Lord's affairs: Her aim is to be devoted to the Lord in both body and spirit. But a married woman is concerned about the affairs of this world—how she can please her husband.Are you pulling my leg?

Jake that's the problem with Catholics. The read the parts of the Bible that fit their scheme and omit the rest. But we are commanded to exercise the whole counsel of God.

First, you are right. The Bible doesn't condemn celibacy for those who desire such a life. But it WARNS of it's snares.

For example... what of those who CLAIM their celibate life is commissioned through the church?

Doesn't the Bible say that "IT IS BETTER TO MARRY THAN TO BURN WITH PASSION (and sin)."

Have you ever read ..."because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife", "it is better to marry than to burn with passion" 1 Corinthians 7:1-5,9

This was written TO CHRISTIANS as an instruction to REDUCE IMMORALITY.

So what does Catholicism do?

You guessed it, Kreskin....

THEY WRECK SHOP by CREATING AND ORDAINING POSITIONS THAT FORBID MARRYING!!!!

...WITH ZERO SCRIPTURAL AUTHORITY FOR DOING SO AND CREATING A GLOBAL HAVEN FOR PEDOPHILES AND HOMOSEXUALS.

Nowhere in Christianity is "creating positions that cannot marry" encouraged or authorized.

But that's Catholicism. The Pope is the man regardless of what Jesus (GOD), Paul, James, John,etc., taught.

ABSORB TRUTH!

[TrackDaddy]

These guys from the first few centuries of Christianity seemed to think Peter had a special role.

Tertullian

"For though you think that heaven is still shut up, remember that the Lord left the keys of it to Peter here, and through him to the Church, which keys everyone will carry with him if he has been questioned and made a confession [of faith]" (Antidote Against the Scorpion 10 [A.D. 211]).

"[T]he Lord said to Peter, ‘On this rock I will build my Church, I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven [and] whatever you shall have bound or loosed on earth will be bound or loosed in heaven’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. . . . Upon you, he says, I will build my Church; and I will give to you the keys, not to the Church" (Modesty 21:9–10 [A.D. 220]).

The Letter of Clement to James

"Be it known to you, my lord, that Simon [Peter], who, for the sake of the true faith, and the most sure foundation of his doctrine, was set apart to be the foundation of the Church, and for this end was by Jesus himself, with his truthful mouth, named Peter, the first fruits of our Lord, the first of the apostles; to whom first the Father revealed the Son; whom the Christ, with good reason, blessed; the called, and elect" (Letter of Clement to James 2 [A.D. 221]).

Cyprian of Carthage

"The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church.’ . . . On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was [i.e., apostles], but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all [the apostles] are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; 1st edition [A.D. 251]).

Ephraim the Syrian

"[Jesus said:] Simon, my follower, I have made you the foundation of the holy Church. I betimes called you Peter, because you will support all its buildings. You are the inspector of those who will build on Earth a Church for me. If they should wish to build what is false, you, the foundation, will condemn them. You are the head of the fountain from which my teaching flows; you are the chief of my disciples. Through you I will give drink to all peoples. Yours is that life-giving sweetness which I dispense. I have chosen you to be, as it were, the firstborn in my institution so that, as the heir, you may be executor of my treasures. I have given you the keys of my kingdom. Behold, I have given you authority over all my treasures" (Homilies 4:1 [A.D. 351]).

Ambrose of Milan

"[Christ] made answer: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church. . . .’ Could he not, then, strengthen the faith of the man to whom, acting on his own authority, he gave the kingdom, whom he called the rock, thereby declaring him to be the foundation of the Church [Matt. 16:18]?" (The Faith 4:5 [A.D. 379]).

Pope Damasus I

"Likewise it is decreed . . . that it ought to be announced that . . . the holy Roman Church has been placed at the forefront not by the conciliar decisions of other churches, but has received the primacy by the evangelic voice of our Lord and Savior, who says: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it; and I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18–19]. The first see, therefore, is that of Peter the apostle, that of the Roman Church, which has neither stain nor blemish nor anything like it" (Decree of Damasus 3 [A.D. 382]).


Jerome

"‘But,’ you [Jovinian] will say, ‘it was on Peter that the Church was founded’ [Matt. 16:18]. Well . . . one among the twelve is chosen to be their head in order to remove any occasion for division" (Against Jovinian 1:26 [A.D. 393]).

Council of Ephesus

"Philip, presbyter and legate of [Pope Celestine I] said: ‘We offer our thanks to the holy and venerable synod, that when the writings of our holy and blessed pope had been read to you . . . you joined yourselves to the holy head also by your holy acclamations. For your blessednesses is not ignorant that the head of the whole faith, the head of the apostles, is blessed Peter the apostle’" (Acts of the Council, session 2 [A.D. 431]).

"Philip, the presbyter and legate of the Apostolic See [Rome] said: ‘There is no doubt, and in fact it has been known in all ages, that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, pillar of the faith, and foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our Lord Jesus Christ, the Savior and Redeemer of the human race, and that to him was given the power of loosing and binding sins: who down even to today and forever both lives and judges in his successors’" (ibid., session 3).


Pope Leo I

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . has placed the principal charge on the blessed Peter, chief of all the apostles, and from him as from the head wishes his gifts to flow to all the body, so that anyone who dares to secede from Peter’s solid rock may understand that he has no part or lot in the divine mystery. He wished him who had been received into partnership in his undivided unity to be named what he himself was, when he said: ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church’ [Matt. 16:18], that the building of the eternal temple might rest on Peter’s solid rock, strengthening his Church so surely that neither could human rashness assail it nor the gates of hell prevail against it" (Letters 10:1 [A.D. 445).

"Our Lord Jesus Christ . . . established the worship belonging to the divine [Christian] religion. . . . But the Lord desired that the sacrament of this gift should pertain to all the apostles in such a way that it might be found principally in the most blessed Peter, the highest of all the apostles. And he wanted his gifts to flow into the entire body from Peter himself, as if from the head, in such a way that anyone who had dared to separate himself from the solidarity of Peter would realize that he was himself no longer a sharer in the divine mystery" (ibid., 10:2–3).

"Although bishops have a common dignity, they are not all of the same rank. Even among the most blessed apostles, though they were alike in honor, there was a certain distinction of power. All were equal in being chosen, but it was given to one to be preeminent over the others. . . . [So today through the bishops] the care of the universal Church would converge in the one See of Peter, and nothing should ever be at odds with this head" (ibid., 14:11).Mat 24:11 And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.

2 Pet 2:1 [NIV] But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them--bringing swift destruction on themselves.
2 Pet 2:2 [NIV] Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute.
2 Pet 2:3 [NIV] In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

1 John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

[TrackDaddy]

Why in the world are any of you surprised about TD's latest post? I think he's proven what he's about over the last few years. The man is a "ballbreaker" plain and simple. He gets his kicks by making these inflammatory remarks that result in a repetitive and seemingly endless pissing match. I've watched him at work. For example, if the Bonds thread is dead and buried and has seen no posts for days or weeks, he'll just post something like a picture of Babe Ruth accompanied by a snide "LOL" or a picture of Bonds with a statment like "G.O.A.T." just to stir things up again. Like I said, that's a textbook definition of a "ballbreaker".

I no longer give him the benefit of the doubt. That is why I have him on IGNORE and that is where he shall stay. Don't take his bait...just place him on IGNORE, you'll be much happier in the long run.LOL

Relax, bro and HEAR the voice that opposes the propagandist machine.

I don't post to "break" anything.

I post the TRUTH that your world suppresses, rationalizes or in the instance of Catholicism...ignores.

Below I reprint my post to you from the "more bonds" thread.

How one manages opposing views can be a measure of sophistication.

Cultural relativism is a schism to acceptance/adaption for sure, but when understood, we should be able to manage it even in this forum's many ad hoc colloquiums.

They are, of course, why we're here.

Ultimately, we could all end up benefitting in accordance with the effort we give in that regard.

Here's a pseudo INSANITY definition (nevertheless arguable):

Doing what you've always done and expecting a different result.

[TrackDaddy]

Leaving the snide and uncalled for slang aside (note I've never addressed your posting in such a manner, TD, and I won't) OF COURSE the LIST of popes is "unscriptural". THEY SERVED AFTER SCRIPTURE WAS WRITTEN! How on earth could there be a list of popes in scripture?

The Last Supper was, in essence, the first ordination of priests for a visible instution on earth and the first celebration of the Eucharist. Peter was left in charge of them. Christ left behind a visible presence on earth to continue His ministry after he physically departed. He left Peter in charge of that earthly institution, to be guided by His Word in perpetuity. As those responsible for Chirst's Church passed away, their successors were appointed in order to continue the work that Christ had instructed. This is not difficult to understand. Of course the Catholic Church is an institution of man. But, and this is a very important "but", it is an institution of man ordained by Christ and entrusted to carry on his visible ministry on earth. Think of it like this; the Catholic Church is the college, and Christ is the subject being taught by every professor. The Pope is the President of the University, the cardinals are the head of the various colleges within the university, and priests are the professors. They subject they teach is Christ's Word. To say it is an institution of man states the obvious. It also totally misses the point of Who ordained the church and what earthly mission it was given.

As for your comments about a "haven" for pedophiles, I believed the same thing you did until I did a little checking, and you know what I found out? The percentage of pedophiles in Catholic clergy is the same as that in other denomations where the clergy marry. So that theory goes out the window. And are you aware that there ARE married priests? It happens when an Episcopalian priest converts; this usually happens when an Episcopalian parish becomes a Catholic parish. If the Episcopalian priest was already married, he stays married once he becomes a Catholic priest.Do you really believe that the Church is a man made institution?

Men are only capable of being "added by God."

My point about pedophilia and gays was that the preisthood provides a haven for immorality.

Funny you didn't mention homosexuality and how that percentage relates to other clergy.

Didn't you look up that up to?

[TrackDaddy]

Jealousy is a negative trait and God is allegedly perfect. The two cannot coexist.

Your God sounds pretty damn insecure to me.Who said jealously was a negative trait?

It's natural and spontaneous.

Maybe you are thinking of other negative behavior associated with an inappropraite act possibly caused by jealously.

God's jealously is warning against Idolatry.

Notice this paraphrased Old Testament exchange...

When Moses asked God "who shall I tell the Pharoah has sent me to him?"

God's answer was..."I AM. I AM has sent you."

Idolatry....

can be any lust or false worship.

Like a car, sex, houses or Buddha.

[Kalaby]

This is great, all I see is a bunch of posts by TrackDaddy, but I can't read them. He must be on one of his patented rants that nobody's listening to.


IGNORE!!! LOL!

[TrackDaddy]

This is great, all I see is a bunch of posts by TrackDaddy, but I can't read them. He must be on one of his patented rants that nobody's listening to.


IGNORE!!! LOL!LOL :rolleyes:

[TrackDaddy]

If it's a warning, then it's not natural and spontaneous. Jealousy cannot possibly be construed as a positive trait. Jealousy itself is a form of lust, and is self-serving. Erections are natural and spontaneous also, aren't those lustful?

God has bad grammar.The emotion is natural and not in itself offensive since it isn't clear to even exists in someone until it's acting on.

God tells us so we'll know.

He set the moral standard for us all so it is He who dictates what's good or bad.

Not you, dear.

Listen!

The Bible speaks clearly of the fury of jealous husband, for example.

But the fact that he's jealous isn't condemned.

We are, however, warned that involvement with his wife, can have consequences.

There's analogy there.

[running high]

Here Layla, let me try to explain this a bit differently. i.e. without the word jealousy.

Why did God create man? Well, he is a God of love. Naturally he will want our love in return. At times though people will love worldly things more than God. God isn't necessarily "jealous" of whatever the idol is, he certainly doesn't want its features or want to be it. The emotion God has is a strong want for our love, and he is dissapointed that we wouldn't want to do that in place of doing something else.

[TrackDaddy]

I'll just PM you, you should do the same.Oh, whatever... :rolleyes:

LOL

Stop your whining Kalaby.

Now you've got Layla doing it....saying silly stuff like...

"I'll just PM you, you should do the same (it ain't safe in here cause TrackDaddy is breaking things)"

LOL...y'all are ripe, man. :D

If you don't agree with someone...get over it.

Such is life.

*sigh*...spoiled rotten kids devoid of the reality of opposition.

Where ya'll from, man?

Mayberry?

[Zat0pek]

This thread reminds me of to things:

(1) Just because a parrot can repeat words doesn't mean that it has the foggiest idea what they really mean.

(2) False prophets claiming the Truth are everywhere.

With that, I'll quietly retire to my quarters, scream into a pillow, and spend some time in reflection and prayer.

[TrackDaddy]

I can take a hint.

We're pen pals when in agreement, but I'm the plague (and y'all ain't) when we aren't.

Got it. :rolleyes:

The TRUTH has always been rejected.

I, TrackDaddy....am but a pawn...a tool, if you will. I am the least of the low. I being NOTHING surely can suffer rejection if my Savior who suffered it all...could die for me.

When Jesus said things that people didn't want to hear, they'd pick up stones to stone him, cover their ears (like Kalaby), or try and incite others against Him (all of you). Ulitmately He was crucified.

All of this was done to Him by so called religious folk who wanted there to be more to true religion than it really was.

Predicting continuing rejection of pure truth by persecution even from the "religious"...Jesus issued a command that is applicable here:


"Now whatever city or town you enter, inquire who in it is worthy, and stay there till you go out. 12And when you go into a household, greet it. 13If the household is worthy, let your peace come upon it. But if it is not worthy, let your peace return to you.


14And whoever will not receive you nor hear your words, when you depart from that house or city, shake off the dust from your feet.

15Assuredly, I say to you, it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city!

Matthew 10:11-15

Y'alls wish has come true. I'm gone. Holler

[Kalaby]

TD,

You have my sincere word that this is the final post that I'll ever make to you. I took you off IGNORE to see what you've been saying. Suffice it to say, there were no surprises.

All I can say is this; like you, I believe in Christ. In fact we are probably in 90% agreement with the many aspects of his life, death and resurrection and what it meant and what it continues to mean. As people like Layla can probably attest, on a number of occasions on previous religion threads, I've attempted to accentuate the common ground you and I share in our beliefs as opposed to our comparatively minor differences of interpretation. You have either rebuffed me or completely ignored me. This, along with other reasons, is why I say you are a "ballbreaker" that is only concerned with stirring things up. Please stop with this martyr stuff, it's just a track board for crying out loud. If you are seriously trying to compare your "suffering" here on Dyestat to Christ, well then you have more serious issues than me putting you on IGNORE.

Good bye TD, I hope you find peace with yourself and those around you, but I sincerely doubt that will ever happen.

Mike

[Zat0pek]

I can take a hint.

We're pen pals when in agreement, but I'm the plague (and y'all ain't) when we aren't.

Got it. :rolleyes:

The TRUTH has always been rejected.

Who said we weren't pen pals anymore? What, you can call the Popes "pimps" but any disagreement from me gives you the impression that I think you're the "plague?" Not in my world.

And no one here has rejected the Truth.

As for you being gone, I don't want that, and I hope you don't leave.

[KenA55]

Shake the dust off your feet if you must, but stay around anyway.

[KenA55]

The archbishop of our diocese, in an unusual move, has gone public in taking the governor of outer suburbia to task over his bankrupt social policies-
http://www.startribune.com/stories/614/5413601.html

[TrackDaddy]

TD,

You have my sincere word that this is the final post that I'll ever make to you. I took you off IGNORE to see what you've been saying. Suffice it to say, there were no surprises.

All I can say is this; like you, I believe in Christ. In fact we are probably in 90% agreement with the many aspects of his life, death and resurrection and what it meant and what it continues to mean. As people like Layla can probably attest, on a number of occasions on previous religion threads, I've attempted to accentuate the common ground you and I share in our beliefs as opposed to our comparatively minor differences of interpretation. You have either rebuffed me or completely ignored me. This, along with other reasons, is why I say you are a "ballbreaker" that is only concerned with stirring things up. Please stop with this martyr stuff, it's just a track board for crying out loud. If you are seriously trying to compare your "suffering" here on Dyestat to Christ, well then you have more serious issues than me putting you on IGNORE.

Good bye TD, I hope you find peace with yourself and those around you, but I sincerely doubt that will ever happen.

MikeSup Kalaby

I hope you'll rethink your declaration to never acknowledge me.

I do believe that you are correct when you say that 90% of the time we do agree religiously.

I hope that we can be friends and won't let that 10% stand in the way.

-ken

P.S. However, I may on occasion "stir things up" as you say. But I would like for you to try and understand that I DO post what I believe. Not what I think will irritate others. Just so happens...they're often one and the same. :D

Sup Zat, Ken and MoMo.

Y'all too.

[Zat0pek]

Sup Zat, Ken and MoMo.

Y'all too.

Glad your back.