There Is No Proof Of Peter Ever Going To Rome

[mondar]

So if a nuclear physicist is correcting me on nuclear physics it is a meaningless brag if he tells me about his phd in physics? Facts are facts. It is not bragging to note that I have 48 years in studying Catholicism. Credentials are not bragging. Solo is like a grade school kid telling a college graduate that he knows better.

The teachings of the Catechism are made plain in the teachings of the councils and the catechism. Your questoin may make sense in protestantism but it does not in Catholicism. The teachings of the Catholic Church are plain.

More bragging? Personally, I have seen so many people that have followed Roman dogma for 48 years and still have it all messed up that such a claim is meaningless to me. Now if you would start to quote original sources and post documentation that would be impressive. Yet, I cannot help but suspect that your claims are made because you are too lazy to do some work to search for original source documentation. I get lazy too, so its not a problem, but your continual bragging does get old.

 

[thessalonian]

Let me add this, I think there is evidence of Peter being in Rome. I do not have the evidence before me, and am not sure if I could even find it. One of the Church Fathers speaks of both Peter and Paul being crusified in Rome. It is based upon statements of only one Church Father, and so the evidence is slim.

Evidently you don't know much about the CF. There is lots of evidence that Peter was in Rome.

[quote:2c67b]Nevertheless, this evidence is a far cry from establishing that Peter was a functioning bishop in Rome. It is a great and huge leap to go from one father who says Peter was crusified in Rome to establishing that he was the first practicing Pope in a fully developed Roman system.

Where does Clement mention this?

[/quote:2c67b]


The evidence and the words of those who followed them and the way the see of Rome is looked at worldwide is ignored by you. That is why the evidence is so weak for you. You don't really consider it. You display and edited: of the many statemnts of Peter being in rome and then go on to sound like an expert regarding the weakness of the arguement that Peter was the first Pope.

 

[mondar]

'

You display your edited as well. It is no dodge. The popes ratify the council. The popes are members of the council. The council has equal authority to a pope. This fits with scripture of which you really prove nothing as you claim I cannot and dodge defending your beliefs by attacking mine. :o

Ahh, I should not use the term "Romanist" but you constantly use ad-hominim argumentation.

If it is not a dodge, then why do you refuse to address the scriptures Solo used? I did not see you address even one of the verses he quoted.

Do you think you do not need to address the scriptural arguments of Solo because only you know the scriptures?

 

[Atonement]

Can we all try to stay away from the words "ignorance, or ignorant?" Please

Lack of knowledge or lack of understanding seems less argumentive.

 

[thessalonian]

Let me add this, I think there is evidence of Peter being in Rome. I do not have the evidence before me, and am not sure if I could even find it. One of the Church Fathers speaks of both Peter and Paul being crusified in Rome. It is based upon statements of only one Church Father, and so the evidence is slim.

Nevertheless, this evidence is a far cry from establishing that Peter was a functioning bishop in Rome. It is a great and huge leap to go from one father who says Peter was crusified in Rome to establishing that he was the first practicing Pope in a fully developed Roman system.

Where does Clement mention this?

First you use CF evidence to show that Peter may have been in rome but display a lack of knowledge in the amount of evidence that there is. Then you claim that there is evidence lacking regarding his papacy and the passing on of his office of which you ignore the large amount of evidence from the ECF in this regard. Seems your making alot of judgements based on ignorance of the evidence.

 

[thessalonian]

Ahh, I should not use the term "Romanist" but you constantly use ad-hominim argumentation.

If it is not a dodge, then why do you refuse to address the scriptures Solo used? I did not see you address even one of the verses he quoted.

Do you think you do not need to address the scriptural arguments of Solo because only you know the scriptures?

I've addressed those arguements in many places. In particular go to the debate section on the papacy where you will find them addressed. I've addressed them so many times on message boards that I cannot count them.

Perhaps keith might suggest that you stop using the word dodge as well.

The truth of the matter is that we are all ignorant of many things. I am ignorant about many protestant beliefs. It should not be an offensive term as we humans possess only a small part of the knowledge about the earth, the universe, and God. But our pride gets wounded when we hear the word. Call me ignorant. I could care less.

Do you think you do not need to address the scriptural arguments of Solo because only you know the scriptures?

I did not say this.

 

[thessalonian]

Can we all try to stay away from the words "ignorance, or ignorant?" Please

Lack of knowledge or lack of understanding seems less argumentive.

I can go with this. But perhaps you could suggest that he use the words "did not address" rather than dodge if you want a kinder and gentler board. That is kinda arguementive as well but it seems you went for my arguementiveness first.

 

[mondar]

First you use CF evidence to show that Peter may have been in rome

I did not use cf evidence to show that Peter may have been in Rome. I merely made the assertion that I think there is some evidence. I quoted no sources, I gave no reasoning to defend the proposition. At this point anyone can make counter claims that Peter was not in Rome and demand that they see source documents. I currently have no source documents to prove this and so my assertion is not validated in any way.

but display a lack of knowledge in the amount of evidence that there is.

OK, then show me this "amount of evidence." Just as I made a vague undefended assertion that I think one of the Church Fathers mentioned Peter being crusified in Rome, you now make mere assertions of the same nature. They are undefended.

Then you claim that there is evidence lacking regarding his papacy and the passing on of his office of which you ignore the large amount of evidence from the ECF in this regard. Seems your making alot of judgements based on ignorance of the evidence.

Thess, do you have any idea of what is meant by "source documentation?" Do you understand the difference between an assertion and defence of an assertion?

This conversation has been going on for nearly a whole page and you still refused to even make mention of any scriptural text presented by Solo. You are now eager to assert your enclyclopediaic and infallible knowledge of the church fathers. I know you have been following Roman dogma for 48 years, you have said that before. But could you please provide original source documents or better yet, go back and address Solo's scriptural statements.

 

[Atonement]

Perhaps keith might suggest that you stop using the word dodge as well.

Sure, if you are willing to explain "dodge" I'm only use to two terms of dodge.

1) The dealership
2) dodging around something

If there is another term for dodge, I would be happy to hear it and ask that it be stopped if it is argumentive, you have my word on that Thess..

 

[thessalonian]

I think I said "did not address".

 

[Solo]

Peter and the Papacy:
Was Peter First Pope, Holy Father, Supreme Pontiff, and Vicar of Christ?

Was the Apostle Peter the first Pope, the earthly head of the church according to the Bible?

Was he the Chief Shepherd, the Supreme Pontiff, and Vicar of Christ?

Is the Roman Catholic church the true church as proved by a succession of the Papacy since Peter?

Does the Bishop of Rome have authority to declare church law?

Does the Bible teach that the Papacy is the foundation of the church?

What about celibacy?

Should we bow to honor the Pope as the Holy Father?

Introduction:

Several religious groups teach as fundamental doctrine that Peter was the first earthly head and Chief Shepherd (pastor) of the church, and modern church leaders are his successors. Others claim that the Papacy is the foundation of the church. Consider this quotation:

• "The Pope ... is the bishop of Rome and the Vicar of Christ on earth. He is the visible head of the whole Catholic Church ... Who was the first Pope? St. Peter, who was made Pope by Jesus Christ Himself ... Did Peter's authority die with him? No, it was handed down to a man named Linus, and after he died, it was handed down to another, and so on, during the past 2000 years ... Does Jesus require us to follow the Pope in matters of religion? Yes, because obedience and loyalty to the Pope are among the chief requirements of the Lord's plan for unity in His church" (A Catechism for Adults, by William Cogan, 1975 ed., pp. 55,56).

In this study we want to see what the Bible says about this doctrine. If it is true, as important as it is, we will surely find it in the Bible.

We have no personal ill-will toward any, nor do we want to misrepresent anyone. But we do urge people to seek for truth with an open mind. "Put your own selves to the test, whether you are in the faith; prove yourselves" (2 Corinthians 13:5). To do this we must "study the Scriptures every day to see whether these things are so" (Acts 17:11). No one should fear to examine his beliefs according to the Bible.

(Note: all Scripture quotations will be from the St. Joseph New Catholic Edition of the Holy Bible - Confraternity Edition. All other quotations are from officially recognized Roman Catholic sources.)


Part I. Did Jesus Establish the Office of Pope?
Obviously Peter could be Pope only if Jesus authorized the existence of that office. So let us consider what Jesus' word says.

A. The Office & Qualifications of the Pope Are Nowhere Mentioned in the Scriptures.
The Bible specifically names several offices in the church and describes the work and qualifications of those who hold that office.

The Bible contains several passages where the office of Pope ought to be mentioned, if it existed. Ephesians 4:11,12 and 1 Corinthians 12:28 list various officers and workers in the church, but the office of Pope is not mentioned. Why not?

Paul wrote several letters to and from Rome, naming many people there (Rom. 16; Col. 4:7-14; 2 Tim. 4:9-22; Philem. 23,24). If Peter was Pope in Rome, surely Paul would have mentioned him. But Paul mentions neither Peter nor anyone else as being Pope.

Who can imagine someone today writing official letters to or from the church in Rome, listing the officers of the Catholic Church, giving all this information about the work and qualifications of lesser officers, but never mentioning the Pope? If the office of Pope was established by Jesus, why does the New Testament fail to mention it?


B. The Bible Says Jesus Is the Head of the Church.
The Pope is believed to be the head of the church, but note:

• Ephesians 1:22,23 - Jesus is head over all things to the church (cf. Colossians 1:18). What is there left for a Pope to be head of?
  
  Ephesians 5:22-24 - A husband is head of his wife as Jesus is head of the church. But for a wife to submit to two husbands is adultery (Romans 7:2-3). So for the church to submit to two heads (Jesus and the Pope) would be spiritual adultery.
  
  Matthew 28:18-20 - Christ has all authority in heaven and on earth. He is the one lawgiver (James 4:12). To claim that the Pope may issue religious laws is to deny the unique power of Jesus.
  
  The Bible plainly states that Jesus is Head of the church. He is the one Lord in the one body (church). There cannot be two Lords any more than there could be two Gods (Ephesians 4:4-6). Bishops (even from Rome) are forbidden to lord it over the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3).

C. The Bible Says Jesus Is the Church's Foundation.
"The primacy of St. Peter was ... an essential part of Christ's church, the rock on which it was built ... The House of God will always need its foundation" (The Question Box, Bertrand Conway, 1929 Edition, pp. 153,154).

Roman Catholicism teaches that the authority of Popes is said to be the foundation of the Catholic Church. But what does the Bible say: God's church has a divine foundation.

• 1 Corinthians 3:11 - There can be no foundation other than Jesus.
  [/*:m:04432]
• 1 Peter 2:3-8 - Peter himself taught that Jesus is the chief cornerstone on which the church is built. [Cf. Acts 4:10-12.]
  [/*:m:04432]
• Matthew 16:13-18 - This passage is often used to try to prove Peter is the foundation of the church (Catechism, p. 56; Question Box, p. 146). But the passages already studied prove that Jesus, not Peter or the Pope, is the foundation of the church. Matthew 16. actually confirms this truth.
  
  The context (v13,15,16) is not discussing who Peter is nor what his position is, but who Jesus is and what His position is. The passage does not exalt Peter; it exalts Jesus. Jesus does not confess Peter; Peter confesses Jesus.
  
  The verse is not saying Peter is the rock on which the church is built, but rather it contrasts Peter's name (Greek PETROS, masculine - a piece of rock) to the rock on which the church would be built (Greek PETRA, feminine - a solid ledge of rock).
  
  Jesus often compared Himself to inanimate objects - a temple (John 2:18-22), a door (John 10:7), a vine (John 15:1-11). Here He compares Himself to a rock, a name often used for Deity in the Old Testament (Psalm 31:3; Psalm 71:3; Psalm 89:26ff; Psalm 18:2f,32f).
  
  The foundation of the church is not Peter. It is the truth that Peter had just confessed - that Jesus is the Christ the Son of God (v16). This is confirmed by the context and by other Scriptures. To say Peter is the foundation would be to put a man in the place of Deity![/*:m:04432]

The lives of Peter and of the Popes make them entirely unfit to be the foundation of Jesus' church.

• Consider some great sins in the life of Peter.[list:04432]
• Immediately after talking about the foundation of the church, Christ rebuked Peter saying: "Get behind me, satan, thou art a scandal to me; for thou dost not mind the things of God, but those of men" (Matthew 16:21-23).
  
• Peter denied Jesus 3 times, even with curses and swearing (Matthew 26:69-75).
  [/*:m:04432]
• Jesus rebuked Peter's lack of faith (Matthew 14:22-31).
  [/*:m:04432]
• Peter was hypocritical and disobeyed the gospel (Galatians 2:11ff).[/*:m:04432]

Now consider sins in the lives of Catholic Popes.

• The following facts have been gleaned from the Catholic Dictionary and the Catholic Encyclopedia (at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/).
  [/*:m:04432]
• At least 4 Popes are admitted to have had illegitimate children.
  [/*:m:04432]
• At least 5 Popes were sons of priests, including at least one (maybe two) Popes who were sons of other Popes! (Some of these priests may have been married but left their families to become priests.)
  [/*:m:04432]
• At least 6 Popes were excommunicated or condemned as heretics, including one Pope who was excommunicated twice and two Popes who excommunicated one another![list:04432]
  "In the first twelve centuries of her existence the Church was disturbed some twenty-five times by rival claimants of the Papacy. The strife thus originated was always an occasion of scandal, sometimes of violence and bloodshed ... For forty years (in the 14th century) two and even three pretenders to the Papacy claimed the allegiance of Catholics: whole countries, learned men and canonised saints, ranged themselves on different sides, and even now it is not perhaps absolutely certain who was Pope..." (Catholic Dictionary, Addis & Arnold, p. 869).

[/*:m:04432][/list:u:04432] [/*:m:04432][/list:u:04432]
Who can believe that Christ's church is founded on an office occupied by such men as these? Imagine Jesus' church supposedly going through long periods of time in which nobody really knows who was the real head of the church! How much better to accept the plain Bible teaching that the church is founded on the sinless, Divine Son of God!

D. The Bible Says Jesus Is the Chief Shepherd.
"The Vatican Council defines as an article of faith that ... Christ 'conferred upon Peter alone the jurisdiction of Chief Pastor [shepherd] and Ruler over all the flock'" (Question Box, p. 147).

But the Bible repeatedly says Jesus is the Chief Shepherd..

• John 10:11,14 - Jesus is the Good Shepherd. We should not follow strangers (v1,5,8-13; cf. Ezekiel 34:23; 37:24; Psalm 23).
  [/*:m:04432]
• 1 Peter 5:4 - Peter himself spoke of the Prince Shepherd (the footnote in the Catholic Bible says, "the Greek reads, 'the chief Shepherd'"). This Shepherd will come to reward the faithful, clearly referring to Jesus' second coming (2 Timothy 4:8; Apocalypse 2:10; Apocalypse 22:12; Matthew 25:31-46; etc.)
  [/*:m:04432]
• Hebrews 13:20 - Jesus is the Great Shepherd.[/*:m:04432]

The Catholic Bible says Jesus is the Chief or Great Shepherd, but the Catholic council declared, as an article of faith, that this position belongs to "Peter alone"!

In John 21:15-17, Jesus told Peter to feed His sheep.

• Some say this proves Peter was the Chief Shepherd (Question Box, pp. 147,148; Catechism, p. 56).
  
  But all the apostles were told to feed the sheep in the sense of teaching them (Matthew 28:18-20; Mark 16:15,16) and caring for them (2 Corinthians 11:28). Bishops were also told to feed the flock (1 Peter 5:1-3; Acts 20:28). Are all these other people Popes too?
  
  Jesus' statement was not intended to exalt Peter to authority over the other apostles, but simply to restore him to the apostleship from which he had fallen. Peter had denied Jesus three times (John 18:15-18, John 18:25-27). So Jesus had him confess his love three times, and then restored him to the responsibility that all the apostles would share.
  [/*:m:04432]
• There is no passage, here or elsewhere, which calls Peter the Chief Shepherd or which states He has authority over the other apostles.[/*:m:04432]

The basic error of the doctrine of Papal authority is that it exalts man to the place of God. God said that His Divine Son is head, foundation, and chief shepherd for the church. No mere man is ever given such positions. To exalt a man to these positions is blasphemous.




[To be Continued ----------Part 2 and Part 3 to follow]

Bible Study Retrieved from http://www.biblestudylessons.com/cgi-bi ... s_pope.php

 

[Atonement]

The truth of the matter is that we are all ignorant of many things. I am ignorant about many protestant beliefs. It should not be an offensive term as we humans possess only a small part of the knowledge about the earth, the universe, and God. But our pride gets wounded when we hear the word. Call me ignorant. I could care less.

Great and you may call yourself ingorant all day long, but you have no reason to say that about another person, and if you feel that they are on a certain topic, then I would suggest using words that are less argumentive, because people take them at face value and become offensive. Thank you for your cooperation

 

[thessalonian]

1 Corinthians 3:11 - There can be no foundation other than Jesus.

I agree but you do not understand the scritpures which say that prophets and apostes are the foundation. Eph 2:20. Are you now denying that Peter was an apostle? He clearly is a part of the foundation

 

[mondar]

I agree but you do not understand the scritpures which say that prophets and apostes are the foundation. Eph 2:20. Are you now denying that Peter was an apostle? He clearly is a part of the foundation

Yes, all apostles and prophets are a part of the foundation of the Church. In that very same verse it mentions that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Is the cornerstone a part of the foundation? So then Peter is nothing more then one block in the later foundation, I see no statement that Peter is above the other apostles in any way in this text.

Where did Solo deny that Peter was one part of the 12 apostles are one part of the foundation? I think his assertion has to do with Peter being the pope, the head of the Church.

Solo, feel free to correct me if I am misrepresenting you, but I did not see you as claiming Peter was not an apostle.

 

[Solo]

I agree but you do not understand the scritpures which say that prophets and apostes are the foundation. Eph 2:20. Are you now denying that Peter was an apostle? He clearly is a part of the foundation

Peter is not a pope, nor is Peter the only Apostle, nor are the Apostles the only men that God proclaimed HIS word through as the Prophets are included in this Scripture, nor are the Apostles and the Prophets the only the houshold of God to whom we the Saints have access to through the Spirit. The lies of the devil which exist in the teachings of Roman Catholicism teach that the office of the Holy Spirit has been given to a man whom the devil has named pope.

• 18 For through him [JESUS CHRIST] we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
  
  19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
  
  20 And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
  
  21 In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
  
  22 In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

No where does this Scripture say that one Apostle has rule over another Apostle, Prophet, Saint, or any portion of the building of the holy temple in the Lord, the Body of Christ. The devil has sold another lie to the unbelieving.

 

[Solo]

Yes, all apostles and prophets are a part of the foundation of the Church. In that very same verse it mentions that Jesus Christ is the chief cornerstone. Is the cornerstone a part of the foundation? So then Peter is nothing more then one block in the later foundation, I see no statement that Peter is above the other apostles in any way in this text.

Where did Solo deny that Peter was one part of the 12 apostles are one part of the foundation? I think his assertion has to do with Peter being the pope, the head of the Church.

Solo, feel free to correct me if I am misrepresenting you, but I did not see you as claiming Peter was not an apostle.

You are correct as are those who are of the Spirit of God in unity of the one baptism, one faith, one Lord, and one God under the unmerited favor (grace) of the Almighty Father.

It is a shame that those under the lies of satan continue in their ravaging of the Scriptures to no avail bringing upon themselves the plagues guaranteed to the false religious system of Rome.

And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues. Revelation 18:4

Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her. Revelation 18:8

And the rest of the men which were not killed by these plagues yet repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship devils, and idols of gold, and silver, and brass, and stone, and of wood: which neither can see, nor hear, nor walk: Revelation 9:20

 

[thessalonian]

Peter the only Apostle, nor are the Apostles the only men that God proclaimed HIS word through as the Prophets are included in this Scripture, nor are the Apostles and the Prophets the only the houshold of God to whom we the Saints have access to through the Spirit. The lies of the devil which exist in the teachings of Roman Catholicism teach that the office of the Holy Spirit has been given to a man whom the devil has named pope.

The lies here are yours. None of this is Catholic teaching. We do not believe the Holy Spirit is only given to the Pope. We do not teach that Peter is the only apostle, we do not believe that A & P are the only household of God etc. etc. Every time you post you lie about the Catholic Church. It is sad that you don't take the commandment of God about bearing false witness more seriously. It shows that you are obessed with hatred rather than love. To bear false witness against those you disagree with is still wrong.

 

[mondar]

The lies here are yours. None of this is Catholic teaching. We do not believe the Holy Spirit is only given to the Pope. We do not teach that Peter is the only apostle, we do not believe that A & P are the only household of God etc. etc. Every time you post you lie about the Catholic Church. It is sad that you don't take the commandment of God about bearing false witness more seriously. It shows that you are obessed with hatred rather than love. To bear false witness against those you disagree with is still wrong.

Thess, can you read his quote again. You make serious charges that he is misrepresenting the dogma of Rome. If I read Solo correctly he seems to be saying that the Pope has usurped the office of the HS. I dont see where he was suggesting that in Roman dogma only the Pope has the HS. Are you sure you have read what he is saying correctly? Those are serious charges you are making.

I think when Solo says that the Pope has usurped the "office" of the Holy Spirit, I suspect that he is talking about what actually is Roman dogma. For instance when the Pope speaks "ex Cathedra," he is speaking in behalf of the Church in an infallible way. While this is not a literal claim of replacing the HS, it is how protestants might view such bold claims. Protestants generally see the issue of infallibility as belonging to the scriptures and God.

In any case, if I am correct and Solo is disagreeing with the claim of Papal infallibility (ex cathedra), then why is that telling lies about Roman dogma? Those are huge accusations you are making against him, are you sure you are correct?

 

[thessalonian]

If I support my charges and show that Mr. Solo consistently bears false witness against the Catholic Church will you condemn his actions?

 

[Solo]

If I support my charges and show that Mr. Solo consistently bears false witness against the Catholic Church will you condemn his actions?

The truths that I share concerning the Roman Catholic cult are posted for the purpose of leading lost souls to the redemption available through Jesus Christ, not the pope.

The Roman Catholic Cult is leading many, many souls to hell, and is a satanic organization. The False prophet will rise from the Roman Catholic papacy.