Jump to content
IGNORED

ROMAN CATHOLIC LIES, IMMORALITY and CORRUPTION.


Recommended Posts


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

ROMAN CATHOLIC LIES, IMMORALITY and CORRUPTION.

More than 50 popes show themselves to be atheists or unbelievers. The history of the popes records homosexuality, rape, murder, adultery, drunkenness, selling religious offices, etc. 

This behaviour is hardly fitting a "Holy Father" or "The Vicar of Christ".

Examples include the following:

1. Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several
illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.

2. Pope John XII (955 - 964) is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as a coarse, immoral man. The Catholic collection of the lives of the Popes, the "Liber Pontificalis" said: "He spent his entire life in adultery." Catholic bishop Luitprand states that "he had no respect for single girls, married woman or widows - they were sure to be defiled by him."

3. Pope Boniface VII (984 - 985), John XII and Leo VIII were described by the Bishop of Orleans as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth."

4. Pope John XV (985 - 996) split the churches finances among his relatives and was described as "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."

5. Pope Benedict IX (1033 - 1045) committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims, and was regarded as a hideous criminal. The people drove him out of Rome: The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "He was a disgrace to the chair of Peter."

6. Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) promoted the Inquisition, surpassing all his
predecessors in killing over one million people.

7. Pope Boniface VIII (1294 - 1303). The Catholic Encyclopedia states "Scarcely any possible crime was omitted - heresy, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, simony ... his whole pontificate was one record of evil." Dante visited Rome and described the Vatican as a "sewer of corruption" and assigned Boniface VII, Nicholas III and Clement V to the "lowest parts of hell." He proclaimed to be an atheist and in 1302 issued the "Unum Sanctum" officially declaring the Roman Catholic church as the only true church, outside of which no one can be saved.

8. Pope John XXIII (1410-1415) was accused by 37 clergy witnesses of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft and murder. It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated 300 nuns. He kept a harem at Boulogne of 200 girls. He was publicly called the devil incarnate. He has been called the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne.

9. Pope Pius II (1458 - 1464) fathered many illegitimate children and taught others to do likewise.

10. Pope Paul II (1464 - 1471) maintained a house full of concubines.

11. Pope Sixtus IV (1471 - 1484) financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders.

12. Pope Innocent VII (1484 - 1492) fathered 16 illegitimate children by various women.

13. Pope Alexander VI (1492 - 1503) committed incest with his two sisters and daughter. On 31 October 1501, he conducted the worst ever Vatican sex orgy.

14. Pope Paul III (1534-1549) as a cardinal fathered 3 sons and a daughter. He consulted astrologers.

15. Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521) "was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure, revelry and carousing. (Catholic Encyclopedia). Luther visited Rome & said: "No one can imagine what sins & infamous actions are committed in Rome." A saying was: "If there is a hell, Rome is built over it."

16. Pope Joan was a female pope whose name was changed to Pope Zacharias. Luther, on visiting Rome reported her statue in a back street. John Huss referred to her in his defence at the Council of Constance and this went unchallenged. She died in childbirth while in a public procession.

17. Pope Eugene IV (1431 - 1447) condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch, but Pope Benedict IV (1919) declared her a saint.

18. Pope Stephen VI (896 - 897) brought the dead body of former Pope Formosus (891 - 897) to trial, hacked off his decaying finger and had him dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

19. The "great schism" of 1378 lasted 50 years, where Italian and French popes cursed each other. 


Is this the same morally pure church that Christ left to preach the gospel?

When confronted with such evil papal history, the Catholic church, which claims "infallibility", teaches that "A sinful pope ... remains a member of the church, and ...
from whom we may not withdraw obedience." Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 4, page 435.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:18,20, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit ... by their fruits ye shall know them."

20. Pope Alexander III decreed in 1170 that wills had to be made in front of a priest, or excommunication (cutting off from church and sentence to hell) would result. 

The Catholic church has much to be embarrassed about in it's history, as seen from these 20 popes.

  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Worthy Ministers
  • Followers:  26
  • Topic Count:  61
  • Topics Per Day:  0.03
  • Content Count:  9,602
  • Content Per Day:  4.02
  • Reputation:   7,795
  • Days Won:  21
  • Joined:  09/11/2017
  • Status:  Offline

... absolute power corrupts absolutely.

  • Thumbs Up 1
  • This is Worthy 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 4/12/2018 at 4:01 AM, KiwiChristian said:

ROMAN CATHOLIC LIES, IMMORALITY and CORRUPTION.

More than 50 popes show themselves to be atheists or unbelievers. The history of the popes records homosexuality, rape, murder, adultery, drunkenness, selling religious offices, etc. 

This behaviour is hardly fitting a "Holy Father" or "The Vicar of Christ".

Examples include the following:

1. Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several
illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.

2. Pope John XII (955 - 964) is described in the Catholic Encyclopedia as a coarse, immoral man. The Catholic collection of the lives of the Popes, the "Liber Pontificalis" said: "He spent his entire life in adultery." Catholic bishop Luitprand states that "he had no respect for single girls, married woman or widows - they were sure to be defiled by him."

3. Pope Boniface VII (984 - 985), John XII and Leo VIII were described by the Bishop of Orleans as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth."

4. Pope John XV (985 - 996) split the churches finances among his relatives and was described as "covetous of filthy lucre and corrupt in all his acts."

5. Pope Benedict IX (1033 - 1045) committed murders and adulteries in broad daylight, robbed pilgrims, and was regarded as a hideous criminal. The people drove him out of Rome: The Catholic Encyclopedia says, "He was a disgrace to the chair of Peter."

6. Pope Innocent III (1198 - 1216) promoted the Inquisition, surpassing all his
predecessors in killing over one million people.

7. Pope Boniface VIII (1294 - 1303). The Catholic Encyclopedia states "Scarcely any possible crime was omitted - heresy, gross and unnatural immorality, idolatry, magic, simony ... his whole pontificate was one record of evil." Dante visited Rome and described the Vatican as a "sewer of corruption" and assigned Boniface VII, Nicholas III and Clement V to the "lowest parts of hell." He proclaimed to be an atheist and in 1302 issued the "Unum Sanctum" officially declaring the Roman Catholic church as the only true church, outside of which no one can be saved.

8. Pope John XXIII (1410-1415) was accused by 37 clergy witnesses of fornication, adultery, incest, sodomy, simony, theft and murder. It was proved by a legion of witnesses that he had seduced and violated 300 nuns. He kept a harem at Boulogne of 200 girls. He was publicly called the devil incarnate. He has been called the most depraved criminal who ever sat on the papal throne.

9. Pope Pius II (1458 - 1464) fathered many illegitimate children and taught others to do likewise.

10. Pope Paul II (1464 - 1471) maintained a house full of concubines.

11. Pope Sixtus IV (1471 - 1484) financed his wars by selling church offices to the highest bidders.

12. Pope Innocent VII (1484 - 1492) fathered 16 illegitimate children by various women.

13. Pope Alexander VI (1492 - 1503) committed incest with his two sisters and daughter. On 31 October 1501, he conducted the worst ever Vatican sex orgy.

14. Pope Paul III (1534-1549) as a cardinal fathered 3 sons and a daughter. He consulted astrologers.

15. Pope Leo X (1513 - 1521) "was possessed by an insatiable love of pleasure, revelry and carousing. (Catholic Encyclopedia). Luther visited Rome & said: "No one can imagine what sins & infamous actions are committed in Rome." A saying was: "If there is a hell, Rome is built over it."

16. Pope Joan was a female pope whose name was changed to Pope Zacharias. Luther, on visiting Rome reported her statue in a back street. John Huss referred to her in his defence at the Council of Constance and this went unchallenged. She died in childbirth while in a public procession.

17. Pope Eugene IV (1431 - 1447) condemned Joan of Arc to be burned alive as a witch, but Pope Benedict IV (1919) declared her a saint.

18. Pope Stephen VI (896 - 897) brought the dead body of former Pope Formosus (891 - 897) to trial, hacked off his decaying finger and had him dragged through the streets of Rome and thrown into the Tiber river.

19. The "great schism" of 1378 lasted 50 years, where Italian and French popes cursed each other. 


Is this the same morally pure church that Christ left to preach the gospel?

When confronted with such evil papal history, the Catholic church, which claims "infallibility", teaches that "A sinful pope ... remains a member of the church, and ...
from whom we may not withdraw obedience." Catholic Encyclopedia Volume 4, page 435.

Jesus said in Matthew 7:18,20, "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit ... by their fruits ye shall know them."

20. Pope Alexander III decreed in 1170 that wills had to be made in front of a priest, or excommunication (cutting off from church and sentence to hell) would result. 

The Catholic church has much to be embarrassed about in it's history, as seen from these 20 popes.

FROM THE NEW ADVENT CATHOLIC ENCYCOPEDIA

 

1.    St. Peter (32-67)

SAINT PETER: 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 Rometo the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

2.    St. Linus (67-76)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

3.    St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

4.    St. Clement I (88-97)

Possibly a Martyr; no derogatory info

5.    St. Evaristus (97-105)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

6.    St. Alexander I (105-115)

Martyr & Saint

7.    St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I

Martyr & Saint

8.    St. Telesphorus (125-136)

Martyr & Saint

9.    St. Hyginus (136-140)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

10.St. Pius I (140-155)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

11.St. Anicetus (155-166)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

12.St. Soter (166-175)

Martyr & Saint

13.St. Eleutherius (175-189)

“Fought” heretics/ no derogatory

14.St. Victor I (189-199)

There were some internal church issues such as the DAY to celebrate Easter; but no derogatory

15.St. Zephyrinus (199-217)

This was a time of Church persecutions and debate on the Nature of the Trinity; but NO derogatory.

 

SO THAT IS THE 1ST 15 POPES; I’LL NOW INVESTIAGE 5 OF THE POPES YOU LISTED

[quote=1. Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several
illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.[/quote]

[1] Pope Sergius III

[1] Date of birth unknown; consecrated 29 Jan., 904; d. 14 April, 911. He was a Roman of noble birth and the son of Benedict. He became a strong upholder of the party opposed to Pope Formosus; as this party was not ultimately successful, the writings of its supporters, if they ever existed, have perished. Hence, unfortunately, most of our knowledge of Sergius is derived from his opponents. Thus it is by an enemy that we are told that Sergius was made Bishop of Caere by Formosus in order that he might never become Bishop of Rome. However, he seems to have ceased to act as a bishop after the death of Formosus, and was put forward as a candidate for the papacy in 898. Failing to secure election, he retired, apparently to Alberic, Count of Spoleto. Disgusted at the violent usurpation of the papal throne by Christopher, the Romans threw him into prison, and invited Sergius to take his place. Sergius at once declared the ordinations conferred by Formosus null; but that he put his two predecessors to death, and by illicit relations with Marozia had a son, who was afterwards John XI, must be regarded as highly doubtful. These assertions are only made by bitter or ill-informed adversaries, and are inconsistent with what is said of him by respectable contemporaries. He protected Archbishop John of Ravenna against the Count of Istria, and confirmed the establishment of a number of new sees in England. Because he opposed the errors of the Greeks, they struck his name from the diptychs, but he showed his good sense in declaring valid the fourth marriage of the Greek emperor, Leo VI. Sergius completely restored the Lateran Basilica, but he was buried in St. Peter'  END QUOTES

 

Quote

 

[2] Pope John XII

The younger Alberic, after the downfall of his mother, Marozia (932), was absolute ruler at Rome. Before his death he administered an oath (954) to the Roman nobles in St. Peter's, that on the next vacancy of the papalchair his only son, Octavius, should be elected pope. After the death of the reigning pontiff, Agapetus II, Octavius, then eighteen years of age, was actually chosen his successor on 16 December, 955, and took the name of John. The temporal and spiritual authority in Rome were thus again united in one person — a coarse, immoral man, whose life was such that the Lateran was spoken of as a brothel, and the moral corruption in Rome became the subject of general odium. ….

On 6 November a synod composed of fifty Italian and German bishops was convened in St. Peter's; John was accused of sacrilege, simonyperjurymurderadultery, and incest, and was summoned in writing to defend himself. ….The emperor, left free to act after his defeat of Berengarius, was preparing to re-enter Rome, when the pope's death changed the situation. John died on 14 May, 964, eight days after he had been, according to rumour, stricken by paralysis in the act of adultery. Luitprand relates that on that occasion the devil dealt him a blow on the temple in consequence of which he died. END QUOTE

3. Pope Boniface VII (984 - 985), John XII and Leo VIII were described by the Bishop of Orleans as "monsters of guilt, reeking in blood and filth."

[3] John XIV (983-84)

John XV (985-96)

This Pope is not listed as you claim?

Quote

[4] Pope John XV (XVI)

Enthroned 985; d. April, 996. After John XIV had been removed by force, the usurper, Boniface VII, reigned eleven months, dying in July, 985. A Roman named John, the son of a Roman presbyter Leo, was then elected pope, and crowned between 6 August and 5 September, 985. A few later chroniclers (Marianus ScotusGodfrey of Viterbo) and some papal catalogues give as the immediate successor of Boniface another John, son of Robert, who is supposed to have reigned four months, and is placed by a few historians in the list of popes as John XV. Although this alleged Pope John never existed, still the fact that he has been catalogued by these historians has thrown into disorder the numeration of the popes named John, the true John XV being often called John XVI. At this time the patrician John Crescentius, son of Duke Crescentius, with the help of his adherents, had obtained entire control of the temporal power in Rome. According to some chroniclers the ascendancy of Crescentius became so irksome to the pope, to whom he even forbade access except in return for bribes, that John fled to Tuscany and sought aid from the Empress Theophano, but allowed himself to be induced by the promises of Crescentius to return to Rome. As a matter of fact, John remained throughout his pontificate under the influence of the powerful patricius, though he maintained friendly relations with the German court and with both empresses—Adelaide, widow of Otto I, and Theophano, widowof Otto II. The pope's mediation was sought by England in the quarrel between King Æthelred and Richard of Normandy. The papal legate, Leo of Trevi, brought about between the parties the Peace of Rouen (1 March, 991), which was ratified by a papal Bull. End Quotes

I DON’T SEE ANY EVIDENCE OF YOUR CLAIM HERE????

 

Quote

Pope Benedict IX

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The nephew of his two immediate predecessors, Benedict IX was a man of very different character to either of them. He was a disgrace to the Chair of Peter. Regarding it as a sort of heirloom, his father Alberic placed him upon it when a mere youth, not, however, apparently of only twelve years of age (according to Raoul Glaber, Hist., IV, 5, n. 17. Cf. V, 5, n. 26), but of about twenty (October, 1032). Of his pontifical acts little is known, except that he held two or three synods in Rome and granted a number of privileges to various churches and monasteries. He insisted that Bretislav, Duke of Bohemia, should found a monastery, for having carried off the body of St. Adalbert from Poland. In 1037 he went north to meet the Emperor Conrad and excommunicated Heribert, Archbishop of Milan, who was at emnity with him (Ann. Hildesheimenses, 1038). Taking advantage of the dissolute life he was leading, one of the factions in the city drove him from it (1044) amid the greatest disorder, and elected an antipope (Sylvester III) in the person of John, Bishop of Sabina (1045 -Ann. Romani, init. Victor, Dialogi, III, init.). Benedict, however, succeeded in expelling Sylvester the same year; but, as some say, that he might marry, he resigned his office into the hands of the Archpriest John Gratian for a large sum. John was then elected pope and became Gregory VI (May, 1045). Repenting of his bargain, Benedict endeavoured to depose Gregory. This resulted in the intervention of King Henry III. Benedict, Sylvester, and Gregory were deposed at the Council of Sutri (1046) and a German bishop (Suidger) became Pope Clement II. After his speedy demise, Benedict again seized Rome (November, 1047), but was driven from it to make way for a second German popeDamasus II (November, 1048). Of the end of Benedict it is impossible to speak with certainty. Some authors suppose him to have been still alive when St. Leo IX died, and never to have ceased endeavouring to seize the papacy. But it is more probable that the truth lies with the tradition of the Abbey of Grottaferrata, first set down by Abbot Luke, who died about 1085, and corroborated by sepulchral and other monuments within its walls. Writing of Bartholomew, its fourth abbot (1065), Luke tells of the youthful pontiff turning from his sin and coming to Bartholomew for a remedy for his disorders. On the saint's advice, Benedict definitely resigned the pontificate and died in penitence at Grottaferrata    END QUOTES

 

Ok, I knew already some of the sordid details from previous Church history studies. From THAT I am sure that your “50” number is unsupportable; but that is irrelevant to this conversation.

While the salacious information; true or not, may have application to the outside world view of the RCC; such attitudes are missing some critically important points:

 

[1] POPES to are human: 1 John 1: 8-9 “ [8] If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. [9] If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all iniquity. [10] If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.”

[2] The depth and breadth of your investigation required a signifient effort to prove WHAT point?

[3] Despite the frailty of human nature even in the Papacy; it is astounding that NOT one of these grave sinners taught a heresy; proclaimed an errant Doctrine or in any manner discredited the Catholic Ordinary Magisterium. In other words; Christ Promise to BE WITH HIS CHURCH ALWAYS’s {Mt. 28:20}  is a Promise Kept even under the most human-inflicted- scandals. Isn’t our GOD Amazing {even when His Popes aren’t!?

Thanks for all your hard work; & sorry it didn’t really make your point.

Easter Blessings, Christ Catholic Church still GOD -Protected and still going strong.

Patrick

 

 As to the issue of Infallibility. It applies ONLY to matters of Faith and or Moral teachings; announced as being an INFALLIBLE Teaching; FROM the Chair of Peter. So the sad actions od some Popes life-example have NOTHING to do with Infallibility.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Patrick Miron
Missed something
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

27 minutes ago, Patrick Miron said:

FROM THE NEW ADVENT CATHOLIC ENCYCOPEDIA

 

1.    St. Peter (32-67)

SAINT PETER: 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 Rometo the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

2.    St. Linus (67-76)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

3.    St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

4.    St. Clement I (88-97)

Possibly a Martyr; no derogatory info

5.    St. Evaristus (97-105)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

6.    St. Alexander I (105-115)

Martyr & Saint

7.    St. Sixtus I (115-125) Also called Xystus I

Martyr & Saint

8.    St. Telesphorus (125-136)

Martyr & Saint

9.    St. Hyginus (136-140)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

10.St. Pius I (140-155)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

11.St. Anicetus (155-166)

Nothing derogatory in his biography

12.St. Soter (166-175)

Martyr & Saint

13.St. Eleutherius (175-189)

“Fought” heretics/ no derogatory

14.St. Victor I (189-199)

There were some internal church issues such as the DAY to celebrate Easter; but no derogatory

15.St. Zephyrinus (199-217)

This was a time of Church persecutions and debate on the Nature of the Trinity; but NO derogatory.

 

SO THAT IS THE 1ST 15 POPES; I’LL NOW INVESTIAGE 5 OF THE POPES YOU LISTED

[quote=1. Pope Sergius III (904 - 911) obtained his office by murder. He fathered several
illegitimate children by Marozia, who assassinated Pope Leo VI (928 - 929), and put her own teenage son (John XI) as Pope.[/quote]

[1] Pope Sergius III

[1] Date of birth unknown; consecrated 29 Jan., 904; d. 14 April, 911. He was a Roman of noble birth and the son of Benedict. He became a strong upholder of the party opposed to Pope Formosus; as this party was not ultimately successful, the writings of its supporters, if they ever existed, have perished. Hence, unfortunately, most of our knowledge of Sergius is derived from his opponents. Thus it is by an enemy that we are told that Sergius was made Bishop of Caere by Formosus in order that he might never become Bishop of Rome. However, he seems to have ceased to act as a bishop after the death of Formosus, and was put forward as a candidate for the papacy in 898. Failing to secure election, he retired, apparently to Alberic, Count of Spoleto. Disgusted at the violent usurpation of the papal throne by Christopher, the Romans threw him into prison, and invited Sergius to take his place. Sergius at once declared the ordinations conferred by Formosus null; but that he put his two predecessors to death, and by illicit relations with Marozia had a son, who was afterwards John XI, must be regarded as highly doubtful. These assertions are only made by bitter or ill-informed adversaries, and are inconsistent with what is said of him by respectable contemporaries. He protected Archbishop John of Ravenna against the Count of Istria, and confirmed the establishment of a number of new sees in England. Because he opposed the errors of the Greeks, they struck his name from the diptychs, but he showed his good sense in declaring valid the fourth marriage of the Greek emperor, Leo VI. Sergius completely restored the Lateran Basilica, but he was buried in St. Peter'  END QUOTES

 

You trust the catholic "church" to give you correct information regarding itself?!

 

LOL.

 

Even one of the first points is completely a LIE.

 

Peter was NEVER in rome!

There is ZERO credible evidence to support this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Royal Member
  • Followers:  7
  • Topic Count:  867
  • Topics Per Day:  0.24
  • Content Count:  7,331
  • Content Per Day:  2.01
  • Reputation:   2,860
  • Days Won:  31
  • Joined:  04/09/2014
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  04/28/1964

The word vicar is derived from Latin, as is 'vicarious' which means 'substitute' or 'in place of another'. So 'vicar of christ' means more or less the same thing as 'Antichrist'.

The RCC did not form until the 4th Century AD (over two hundred years after Peter's death), and was really just a make-over of the Roman government - until then zealous persecutors of Christians. So Peter and his followers were persecuted by Rome until Rome decided (somewhat dubiously) to adopt Christianity. How can the RCC be the 'true Church' if it had been persecuting Christians for nearly three hundred years? Did the true Church at one time persecute itself?

Despite the Vatican's persecution, torture and murder of those who refused to follow the doctrines of Rome, Christianity refused to die out, and that is why we still have the word of God today.. This is what Jesus meant when he said to Peter: "That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Catholics cannot use the claim that this sort of persecution no longer exists, because that's not the point. All the decrees to torture, burn and kill were done by Popes and Popes are meant to be infallible in matters of the word of God. If it is now acknowledged that those decrees were wrong (and in contravention of the Ten Commandments) then there is no such thing as infallibility of the Pope. In fact if just one Pope can be proven to have made a mistake in spiritual matters then the entire doctrine of infallibility comes crashing down like a house of cards, and there is absolutely no sound reason, (never mind a divine one) to trust without question the word of one single Pope. If one Pope is wrong, they could all be wrong!

From the teachings of Catholics themselves (so they have no excuse by blaming these accusations on non-Catholic sources):

Roman Catholics use Mary and other 'saints' to intercede with Jesus. This is clearly in contravention of scripture. 1 Timothy 2:5 tells us that there is "one God, and one mediator BETWEEN God and men, the man Christ Jesus". How many Gods are there? ONE. How many mediators are there? ONE. It baffles me how often Catholics fail to understand the meaning of the word 'one.'

The Pope is called 'father'. Even lowly priests are called 'father'. This is in contravention of Matthew 23:9.

I could go on, but I'll save it all for another time.

 

 

 

 

  • Brilliant! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

19 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

You trust the catholic "church" to give you correct information regarding itself?!

 

LOL.

 

Even one of the first points is completely a LIE.

 

Peter was NEVER in rome!

There is ZERO credible evidence to support this.

 

[quoye=LOL.

 

Even one of the first points is completely a LIE.

 

Peter was NEVER in rome!

There is ZERO credible evidence to support this[/quote]

 

GOSH; looks like I DID "get lucky"

St Peter Facts

 THIS FROM A NON-CATHOLIC SITE

 [quote= St. Peter (died ca. 65) is traditionally considered to be the head of Jesus' 12 Apostles and the first bishop of Rome.

Peter's original name was Simon, Peter being a name given him by Jesus. At the time of Jesus' public life, Peter was a grown man. This would place his birth sometime around the end of the 1st century B.C. Of his early life we know little except that he came from the village of Bethsaida in Galilee and that his father was a fisherman. By the time he met and joined Jesus, he was already married (Mark 1:30); he lacked any formal education (Acts 4:13) and worked the fishing nets with his father and his brother Andrew at the lakeside town of Capernaum. Andrew also joined the group of Jesus' disciples on the same day.

Roman Sojourn

From all we can learn and surmise, it does appear that Peter occupied a position of importance in Rome and was martyred there under the rule of Nero (37-68). The earliest testimony comes from a letter of Clement written about the year 96 in Rome. A letter of Ignatius of Antioch (died ca. 110) also implies Peter's presence and authority in Rome, as does the saying of Gaius, a Roman cleric (ca. 200). Gaius speaks of the Vatican shrine and the "founders" of this church. Finally, all the early lists of the bishops of Rome start with Peter's name as the first bishop.

It appears from the first of the two letters ascribed to Peter that his outlook as a Jew and a Semite was never influenced by Greek or other non-Jewish thought. He reflects the mentality of a 1st-century Jew who believes that Jesus came as the Messiah of Israel and as the fulfillment of all Israel's promises and expectations. Some of Peter's statements would not now be acceptable to orthodox Christian thought. From what we know of Peter and his life, he seems to have made the transition from Palestine to Rome as from one Jewish community to another Jewish community, never fundamentally changing his instincts as a Jewish believer, except insofar as he totally accepted Jesus as the Messiah of Israel.[/quote]

 

FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCOPEDIA

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. ….The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rometo the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

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

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the tradition concerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, so 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, 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 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. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, 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 antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.

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 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. ….

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 the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition 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 to 5 END QUOTES

Please GOOGLE IT if you want further evidence

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

3 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

[quoye=LOL.

 

Even one of the first points is completely a LIE.

 

Peter was NEVER in rome!

There is ZERO credible evidence to support this[/quote]

 

GOSH; looks like I DID "get lucky"

St Peter Facts

 THIS FROM A NON-CATHOLIC SITE

 [quote= St. Peter (died ca. 65) is traditionally considered to be the head of Jesus' 12 Apostles and the first bishop of Rome.

Peter's original name was Simon, Peter being a name given him by Jesus. At the time of Jesus' public life, Peter was a grown man. This would place his birth sometime around the end of the 1st century B.C. Of his early life we know little except that he came from the village of Bethsaida in Galilee and that his father was a fisherman. By the time he met and joined Jesus, he was already married (Mark 1:30); he lacked any formal education (Acts 4:13) and worked the fishing nets with his father and his brother Andrew at the lakeside town of Capernaum. Andrew also joined the group of Jesus' disciples on the same day.

Roman Sojourn

From all we can learn and surmise, it does appear that Peter occupied a position of importance in Rome and was martyred there under the rule of Nero (37-68). The earliest testimony comes from a letter of Clement written about the year 96 in Rome. A letter of Ignatius of Antioch (died ca. 110) also implies Peter's presence and authority in Rome, as does the saying of Gaius, a Roman cleric (ca. 200). Gaius speaks of the Vatican shrine and the "founders" of this church. Finally, all the early lists of the bishops of Rome start with Peter's name as the first bishop.

It appears from the first of the two letters ascribed to Peter that his outlook as a Jew and a Semite was never influenced by Greek or other non-Jewish thought. He reflects the mentality of a 1st-century Jew who believes that Jesus came as the Messiah of Israel and as the fulfillment of all Israel's promises and expectations. Some of Peter's statements would not now be acceptable to orthodox Christian thought. From what we know of Peter and his life, he seems to have made the transition from Palestine to Rome as from one Jewish community to another Jewish community, never fundamentally changing his instincts as a Jewish believer, except insofar as he totally accepted Jesus as the Messiah of Israel.[/quote]

 

FROM THE CATHOLIC ENCYCOPEDIA

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. ….The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rometo the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.

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

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the tradition concerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, so 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, 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 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. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, 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 antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.

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 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. ….

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 the thirteenth or fourteenth year of Nero is given as that of the death of Peter and Paul (67-68); this date, accepted by Jerome, is that generally held. The year 67 is also supported by the statement, also accepted by Eusebius and Jerome, that Peter came to Rome under the Emperor Claudius (according to Jerome, in 42), and by the above-mentioned tradition 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 to 5 END QUOTES

Please GOOGLE IT if you want further evidence

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

Thanks for your reply.

 

Would of been great if you quoted the source ( don't worry, i found it ), did not use red text or bold. Makes it easier for me to quote.

"GOSH; looks like I DID "get lucky"

You seem to think this is a game. 

Far from it.

I want to be able to meet you in heaven when i get there, and if you continue to trust in your religion for salvation, well...

"THIS FROM A NON-CATHOLIC SITE"

But 1) mistakes the early church with the roman catholic church we see today. Does not differentiate between Christians and catholics. 2) quotes standard catholic rhetoric and false information, 3) provides ZERO actual EVIDENCE, 4) refers to historic, Biblical events as "legends" therefore the source does NOT believe the Bible, 5) the anti-Christian "catholic encyclopedia" is quoted.
 

Just quoting what the catholic "church" believes does not make the source "non-catholic".
 

Your post is poorly formatted. I dont know what are YOUR additions, etc.

If Peter was Bishop of Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD according to RCC, why did Paul write the letter to the Romans? Read Romans 1:7.

If Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, how could he meet Paul in Jerusalem in 42 AD, and then back in Jerusalem again in 43 AD, and in 56 AD have a dispute with Paul in Antioch about 800 miles from Rome, it appears Peter was not in Rome when RCC declare he was, Can you say that RCC is in error over the time Peter supposedly was in Rome, or has the Bible got it all mixed up?

If Peter was in Rome during those years, why when Paul was greeting 27 eminent people in Rome and greet them by name, did he not once mention Peter ~ Romans 16.

Peter is not the rock, because the 12 disciples, knowing well the OT, recognised the Rock as a description or name for God. Duet32:4,Psalms18:2,Psalm18:31

If Peter has the Power to forgive sins as the RCC declares, why did Peter not use this power to forgive Simon the Sorcerer, but told him to Repent and pray to God for forgiveness Acts 8: 18-24.


No mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this fact. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church.   There is no evidence for the Papacy from Peter himself.


To err is human, to be infallible is divine (Romans 3:23). Peter deserted Christ in His passion, and did not assist Him in Golgotha. Peter described himself as an elder, witness and partaker, servant, and apostle (1 and 2 Peter) but never the first Pope, Prince of the apostles, or Head of the Church. Jesus Christ, not mortal and sinful man, is the only head of His Church (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians.1:18). 

"you are petros ( a small pebble) and upon this petra ( a massive rock) I shall build My church....." Christ built His church upon Himself, upon the faith Peter had and upon our faith in Christ. Not Peter the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

On 5/4/2018 at 8:15 PM, KiwiChristian said:

Thanks for your reply.

 

Would of been great if you quoted the source ( don't worry, i found it ), did not use red text or bold. Makes it easier for me to quote.

"GOSH; looks like I DID "get lucky"

You seem to think this is a game. 

Far from it.

I want to be able to meet you in heaven when i get there, and if you continue to trust in your religion for salvation, well...

"THIS FROM A NON-CATHOLIC SITE"

But 1) mistakes the early church with the roman catholic church we see today. Does not differentiate between Christians and catholics. 2) quotes standard catholic rhetoric and false information, 3) provides ZERO actual EVIDENCE, 4) refers to historic, Biblical events as "legends" therefore the source does NOT believe the Bible, 5) the anti-Christian "catholic encyclopedia" is quoted.
 

Just quoting what the catholic "church" believes does not make the source "non-catholic".
 

Your post is poorly formatted. I dont know what are YOUR additions, etc.

If Peter was Bishop of Rome from 42 AD to 67 AD according to RCC, why did Paul write the letter to the Romans? Read Romans 1:7.

If Peter was Bishop of Rome for 25 years, how could he meet Paul in Jerusalem in 42 AD, and then back in Jerusalem again in 43 AD, and in 56 AD have a dispute with Paul in Antioch about 800 miles from Rome, it appears Peter was not in Rome when RCC declare he was, Can you say that RCC is in error over the time Peter supposedly was in Rome, or has the Bible got it all mixed up?

If Peter was in Rome during those years, why when Paul was greeting 27 eminent people in Rome and greet them by name, did he not once mention Peter ~ Romans 16.

Peter is not the rock, because the 12 disciples, knowing well the OT, recognised the Rock as a description or name for God. Duet32:4,Psalms18:2,Psalm18:31

If Peter has the Power to forgive sins as the RCC declares, why did Peter not use this power to forgive Simon the Sorcerer, but told him to Repent and pray to God for forgiveness Acts 8: 18-24.


No mention is made of Peter ever being in Rome at ANY time in the 27 documents of the oldest existing record of the Christian Faith. The Apostle Paul wrote an Epistle to the church at Rome, named approximately SIXTEEN (16) people, by name, and never mentioned Peter. That was NO oversight on his part. Peter was never there! Peter's tomb was also discovered outside *Jerusalem*; there is historical documentation to verify this fact. Even if that were not the case, Paul's neglect at mentioning Peter, in Romans 16, is INEXCUSABLE, if Peter were Head of the Church.   There is no evidence for the Papacy from Peter himself.


To err is human, to be infallible is divine (Romans 3:23). Peter deserted Christ in His passion, and did not assist Him in Golgotha. Peter described himself as an elder, witness and partaker, servant, and apostle (1 and 2 Peter) but never the first Pope, Prince of the apostles, or Head of the Church. Jesus Christ, not mortal and sinful man, is the only head of His Church (Ephesians 1:22-23; Colossians.1:18). 

"you are petros ( a small pebble) and upon this petra ( a massive rock) I shall build My church....." Christ built His church upon Himself, upon the faith Peter had and upon our faith in Christ. Not Peter the person.

 

St. Peter and ROME from a notably non-Catholic Site:

Saint Peter (Syriac/Aramaic: ܫܸܡܥܘܿܢ ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐShemayon KeppaHebrewשמעון בר יונה‎ Shim'on bar YonaGreek: Πέτρος PetrosCoptic: ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ, translit. PetrosLatinPetrus; r. AD 30;[1] died between AD 64 and 68),[2] also known as Simon PeterSimeon, or Simon (/ˈsaɪmən/ pronunciation (help·info)), according to the New Testament, was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, leaders of the early Christian Great ChurchPope Gregory I called him repeatedly the "Prince of the Apostles".[3] According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18 a special position in the Church. He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome‍—‌or pope‍—‌and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch. The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2] but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome). END QUOTES

Saint Peter; DEATH in Rome evidence from Catholic Encyclopedia:

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.

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.

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the traditionconcerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, so 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, 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 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. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, 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 antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.              END QUOTES

Early Catholic Church Fathers on Peter and the Primacy of Rome:

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter / Rome

 

The first Christians understood that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church and exercised authority over it. They believed that a rejection of Peter’s authority was a rejection of Christ’s authority. As the Scriptures tell us, Peter and Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19). It is true that Peter and his successors are sinful human beings. But it is also true that all of the biblical authors were sinful human beings. And yet God was able to keep them from teaching error. That same God keeps Peter and his successors from teaching error.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the 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. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[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; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

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]).

Origen

 

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

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 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 [A.D. 251]).

Constantine Augustus

 

and that the opposing parties who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care (To Chrestus [A.D. 314] as recorded by Eusebius).

 

Cyril of Jerusalem

 

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

 

Tyrannius Rufinus

 

and further how he speaks of the city of Rome, which now through the grace of God is reckoned by Christians as their capital (Apology 2:23 [A.D. 400])

Optatus

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. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

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]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons295:2 [A.D. 411]). END QUOTES

Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com 

Sorry; but when I try to include the site info; it copies nothing else.

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Members *
  • Followers:  8
  • Topic Count:  176
  • Topics Per Day:  0.07
  • Content Count:  870
  • Content Per Day:  0.35
  • Reputation:   330
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  06/23/2017
  • Status:  Offline
  • Birthday:  01/22/1968

3 hours ago, Patrick Miron said:

 

St. Peter and ROME from a notably non-Catholic Site:

Saint Peter (Syriac/Aramaic: ܫܸܡܥܘܿܢ ܟܹ݁ܐܦ݂ܵܐShemayon KeppaHebrewשמעון בר יונה‎ Shim'on bar YonaGreek: Πέτρος PetrosCoptic: ⲡⲉⲧⲣⲟⲥ, translit. PetrosLatinPetrus; r. AD 30;[1] died between AD 64 and 68),[2] also known as Simon PeterSimeon, or Simon (/ˈsaɪmən/ pronunciation (help·info)), according to the New Testament, was one of the Twelve Apostles of Jesus Christ, leaders of the early Christian Great ChurchPope Gregory I called him repeatedly the "Prince of the Apostles".[3] According to Catholic teaching, Jesus promised Peter in the "Rock of My Church" dialogue in Matthew 16:18 a special position in the Church. He is traditionally counted as the first Bishop of Rome‍—‌or pope‍—‌and also by Eastern Christian tradition as the first Patriarch of Antioch. The ancient Christian churches all venerate Peter as a major saint and as the founder of the Church of Antioch and the Roman Church,[2] but differ in their attitudes regarding the authority of his present-day successors (the primacy of the Bishop of Rome). END QUOTES

Saint Peter; DEATH in Rome evidence from Catholic Encyclopedia:

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.

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.

In opposition to this distinct and unanimous testimony of early Christendom, some few Protestant historians have attempted in recent times to set aside the residence and death of Peter at Rome as legendary. These attempts have resulted in complete failure. It was asserted that the traditionconcerning Peter's residence in Rome first originated in Ebionite circles, and formed part of the Legend of Simon the Magician, in which Paul is opposed by Peter as a false Apostle under Simon; just as this fight was transplanted to Rome, so 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, 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 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. These he identifies with the Albinus, Procurator of Judaea, and successor of Festus and Agrippa II, 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 antiquity has any city other than Rome been designated the place of martyrdom of Sts. Peter and Paul.              END QUOTES

Early Catholic Church Fathers on Peter and the Primacy of Rome:

The Early Church Fathers on
The Primacy of Peter / Rome

 

The first Christians understood that Peter and his successors held a place of primacy in the Church and exercised authority over it. They believed that a rejection of Peter’s authority was a rejection of Christ’s authority. As the Scriptures tell us, Peter and Peter alone received the keys of the kingdom with the power to bind and loose (Matthew 16:18-19). It is true that Peter and his successors are sinful human beings. But it is also true that all of the biblical authors were sinful human beings. And yet God was able to keep them from teaching error. That same God keeps Peter and his successors from teaching error.

Clement of Rome

Accept our counsel and you will have nothing to regret. . . . If anyone disobeys the things which have been said by him [Jesus] through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in no small danger. We, however, shall be innocent of this sin and will pray with entreaty and supplication that the Creator of all may keep unharmed the number of his elect (Letter to the Corinthians 58:2, 59:1[A.D. 95]).

Ignatius of Antioch

You [the See of Rome] have envied no one, but others have you taught. I desire only that what you have enjoined in your instructions may remain in force (Epistle to the Romans 3:1 [A.D. 110]).

Irenaeus

But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the 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. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition (Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Clement of Alexandria

[T]he blessed Peter, the chosen, the preeminent, the first among the disciples, for whom alone with himself the Savior paid the tribute [Matt. 17:27], quickly grasped and understood their meaning. And what does he say? "Behold, we have left all and have followed you" [Matt. 19:2 7, Mark 10:28] (Who is the Rich Man That is Saved? 21:3-5 [A.D. 200]).

Tertullian

[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; and whatever you shall have bound or you shall have loosed, not what they shall have bound or they shall have loosed (Modesty 21:9-10 [A.D. 220]).

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]).

Origen

 

And Peter, on whom the Church of Christ is built, against which the gates of hell shall not prevail left only one epistle of acknowledged genuineness (Commentaries on John 5:3 [A.D. 226-232]).

Cyprian

With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the Chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source" (Epistle to Cornelius [Bishop of Rome] 59:14 [A.D. 252]).

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 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 [A.D. 251]).

Constantine Augustus

 

and that the opposing parties who were contending persistently and incessantly with each other, should be summoned from Africa; that in their presence, and in the presence of the bishop of Rome, the matter which appeared to be causing the disturbance might be examined and decided with all care (To Chrestus [A.D. 314] as recorded by Eusebius).

 

Cyril of Jerusalem

 

In the power of the same Holy Spirit, Peter, both the chief of the apostles and the keeper of the keys of the kingdom of heaven, in the name of Christ healed Aeneas the paralytic at Lydda, which is now called Diospolis [Acts 9 ;3 2-3 4] (Catechetical Lectures 17;27 [A.D. 350]).

 

Tyrannius Rufinus

 

and further how he speaks of the city of Rome, which now through the grace of God is reckoned by Christians as their capital (Apology 2:23 [A.D. 400])

Optatus

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. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . . Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church" (The Schism of the Donatists 2:2 [circa A.D. 367]).

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]).

Augustine

Among these [apostles] Peter alone almost everywhere deserved to represent the whole Church. Because of that representation of the Church, which only he bore, he deserved to hear "I will give to you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Sermons295:2 [A.D. 411]). END QUOTES

Copyright © 2004 StayCatholic.com 

Sorry; but when I try to include the site info; it copies nothing else.

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

 

 

Yet again you post far too many things for anyone to be able to address them.

 

I give up on you. 

 

God bless.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Group:  Advanced Member
  • Followers:  1
  • Topic Count:  5
  • Topics Per Day:  0.00
  • Content Count:  194
  • Content Per Day:  0.09
  • Reputation:   20
  • Days Won:  0
  • Joined:  04/12/2018
  • Status:  Offline

20 hours ago, KiwiChristian said:

Yet again you post far too many things for anyone to be able to address them.

 

I give up on you. 

 

God bless.

 

Please don't.

Everything I shared proved two points that had been questioned:

Was Peter ever in Rome: ANSWER YES, indisputably.

& Did the Early Church recognize and ACCEPT Peter and the Primacy of Rome: Again the answer is YES; indispuitably.

Stick around please,

Easter Blessings,

Patrick

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...