Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
The Chair of Peter
- Thread starter Mungo
- Start date
Mungo
Member
I agree that the Holy Spirit isn't teaching contradictory doctrine to millions of believers.
Therefore of my three options (post #136) that knocks out option 2
Scripture clearly says Jesus only established one Church, which knocks out option 1.
That only leaves option 3- Jesus established only one Church, a visible Church, a Church in which doctrine matters and with no conflicting doctrines. This Church would have to containing the fullness of truth as revealed by God.
I believe that Church is the Catholic Church.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I agree.
Jesus did not mean for there to be a myriad of denominations.
There was only one Jewish Religion at the time of Jesus.
This is what He knew and what He meant for the new church when He realized that, indeed, there would have to be a new church since He could not change the Jewish religion.
We could debate about the split in 1,000AD, but it could not be disputed that the Catholic (universal) church is the original church. It's just plain history.
Some of the doctrine that sprang up after Jesus' resurrection was heretical and it was thanks to the CC that these heresies were kept out of the church.
Corn Pop
Member
All I know is there is no where in scripture Peter was called Holy Father and Your Holyness.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
A Pope is not always a Pope.
When his time is up, he returns to being a Bishop or Priest.
A priest is always a priest.
Even if he leaves the Priesthood, he is still a priest.
It's like this...once you are baptized, you are always baptized, you cannot take away the seal of baptism.
This is because a priest is annointed with chrism by Bishops when he is ordained. An unremovable mark.
This is not true of pastors who are not ordained.
If they leave their calling, they can be called a pastor for respect, but they would no longer have the title of pastor.
A Pope is as accountable as are all priests.
Mungo
Member
Not so. When Pope Benedict XVI resigned he took the title as Pope Emeritus. But he was no longer Bishop of Rome.
Normally Popes do not resign. When their time is up it is because they have died.
Mungo
Member
I took this from an article in a website but unfortunly is doesn't seem to available any more.
Catholics call the pope “Holy Father” not as an acknowledgement of his personal state of soul but as an expression of respect for his office as successor to Peter and head of the Church on earth. His is a holy office.
The word "pope" is latin for "Papa." The pope is considered the "father" of the church. In the Bible, spiritual leaders such as Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and even the Apostle Paul, are called fathers in a spiritual sense.
"Holy" refers to the fact that the pope has been given a job to do by God, and set apart (which is what holy means) for this purpose.
There is no truth? Most correct to say is, you and the like hold no truth, you all simply malign it. The Lord God contend with you and the like.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Oh.
Agreed.
He became the head of the then church because the other 4 Popes would always call on him, stationed in Rome, when there was some problem or dispute on a teaching. This is because he spent over 3 years with Jesus and knew what Jesus wanted to teach.
I don't believe he was called Your Holiness either.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Thanks Mungo.
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
Who is me and the like?
Are YOU a them and the like?
If THE TRUTH is not declared and believed...
and we come up with different denominations and different teachings,
then there is NO TRUTH.
Truth is objective and cannot be changed.
2
Niblo
2024 Supporter
Which of the many (often conflicting) Protestant teachings should one chose, I wonder? :wink
GodsGrace
CF Ambassador
I do agree that it's a mess.
But we must admit that Protestantism focuses more on the Word than does the CC.
I've spoken to a couple of priests about injecting some teaching into their sermon,
but I'm told it's a Mass and not a classroom.
There's a priest on EWTN that was very good at doing this. I can't remember his name. I think he's passed away.
So, it can be done...but they feel the sermon should be more pastoral - which is also good.
I just wish Catholics knew more about their faith.
It's better now however.
Niblo
2024 Supporter
‘You know the message God sent to the people of Israel, announcing the good news of peace through Jesus Christ, who is Lord of all.’ (Acts 10:36; my emphasis).
Those who believe that Yeshua (ʿalayhi as-salām) is truly God, must necessarily accept that he is indeed ‘Lord of All’; regardless of whether or not he is obeyed.
The Beloved's sovereignty is in no way dependent on our behaviour. How could it be otherwise?
Corn Pop
Member
Where is the evidence of who is Peter's successor, he was an apostle to preach the gospel in Jerusalem. Scripture doesn't say anything what happened to Peter ir he gave his authority to anyone.
I guess what I'm asking is where does the belief that the Pope's are Peter successors come from?
How did Peter go from an Apostle of Israel to the Bishop of Rome.?
Last edited:
Corn Pop
Member
I'm was reading some scripture and in starting to think John was the diciple at the cross. Because in acts it says Peter went to the house of Mary the mother of John. No other Mary is mentioned having a son called John and Jesus said to Mary a diciple is her Son and he had a diciple called John. It just seems to fit but then again who knows.
I need more information to
convince me. Anyone got anything?
I need more information to
convince me. Anyone got anything?
Last edited:
Corn Pop
Member
Is there any reliable first century sources that say Peter went to Rome?
To start I just want to see some first century sources that say Peter went to Rome and died on Vatican hill as is claimed. Maybe there is some historical text but if there is I haven't seen it so please share if you know.
To start I just want to see some first century sources that say Peter went to Rome and died on Vatican hill as is claimed. Maybe there is some historical text but if there is I haven't seen it so please share if you know.
Mungo
Member
Clement of Rome:
"But, to leave the examples of antiquity, let us come to the athletes who are closest to our own time. Consider the noble examples of our own generation. Through jealousy and envy, the greatest and most righteous pillars were persecuted, and they persevered even to death. Let us set before our eyes the good apostles: Peter, who through unwarranted jealousy suffered not one or two but many toils, and having thus given testimony went to the place of glory that was his due" (Epistle to the Corinthians, 5:1 [ca. A.D. 80 or 96]).
According to the Liber Pontificalis Peter consecrated two bishops in Rome to assist him in governing the Church in Rome – Linus and Anacletus (Cletus). He also consecrated a third bishop, Clement, to see to oversee to needs of the universal Church. It is this Clement who wrote the above. He was the third Bishop of Rome after Peter, the others being Linus and Anacletus (Cletus).
Ignatius of Antioch:
"Not as Peter and Paul did, do I command you. They were apostles, and I am a convict" (Epistle to the Romans, 4:3 [A.D. 110]).
The letter was written at the beginning of the 2nd century; one of several Ignantius wrote to different churches on his journey to be executed in Rome. The Church historian Eusebius (early 4th century) said he was a bishop for 40 years, so although his death and major writings are in the second century, most of his episcopate is in the first. He was a contemporary of some of the apostles. Indeed Theodoret of Cyrus (5th century) says he was appointed to the see of Antioch by St. Peter himself and was the third bishop there.
There re many more (later) writings putting Peter in Rome.
Irenaeus:
"Since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the successions of all the [local] churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles" (Against Heresies, 3, 3:2 [A.D. 180]).
Irenaeus:
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 180]).
Gaius:
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cata-phrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: 'I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church'" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:5).
Dionysius of Corinth:
"You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Epistle to Soter of Rome [A.D. 166] in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 2, 25:8).
Tertullian:
"Let us see what milk the Corinthians drained from Paul; against what standard the Galatians were measured for correction; what the Philippians, Thessalonians, and Ephesians read; what even the nearby Romans sound forth, to whom both Peter and Paul bequeathed the gospel and even sealed it with their blood" (Against Marcion, 4, 5:1 [A.D. 207]).
Clement of Alexandria:
"The circumstances which occasioned . . . [the writing] of Mark were these: When Peter preached the Word publicly at Rome and declared the gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had been a long time his follower and who remembered his sayings, should write down what had been proclaimed" (Sketches [A.D. 190], in a fragment from Eusebius, History of the Church, 6, 14:1).
Peter of Alexandria:
"Peter, the first chosen of the apostles, having been apprehended often and thrown into prison and treated with ignominy, at last was crucified in Rome" (Penance, Canon 9 [A.D. 306]).
Lactantius:
"When Nero was already reigning Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked . . . he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God. When this fact was reported to Nero . . . he sprang to the task of tearing down the heavenly temple and of destroying righteousness. It was he that first persecuted the servants of God. Peter he fixed to a cross, and Paul he slew" (The Deaths of the Persecutors, 2, 5 [A.D. 316]).
Cyril of Jerusalem:
"While the error [of Simon Magus] was extending itself, Peter and Paul arrived [in the city of Rome], a noble pair and the rulers of the Church, and they set the error aright" (Catechetical Lectures, 6, 14 [A.D. 350]).
Damasus I:
"In addition to this, there is also the companionship of the vessel of election, the most blessed apostle Paul, who contended and was crowned with a glorious death along with Peter in the city of Rome in the time of Caesar Nero . . . . They equally consecrated the above-mentioned holy Roman Church to Christ the Lord; and by their own presence and by their venerable triumph they set it at the forefront over the others of all the cities of the whole world. 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, 2 [A.D. 382]).
Epiphanius:
"At Rome the first Apostles and bishops were Peter and Paul, then Linus, then Cletus, then Clement, the contemporary of Peter and Paul" (Panacea Against All Heresies, 27, 6 [A.D. 374]).
Optatius:
"You cannot deny that you are aware that in the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter; the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head--that is why he is also called Cephas--of all the apostles; the one chair in which unity is maintained by all" (The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2 [A.D. 367]).