Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[Trento]

Some notations:

1. There's no mention of the RCC denomination, or whoever is the RCC bishop for the diocese in Rome. Thus, I'm at a loss to understand what this verse has to do with the topic of this thread.




.

Your own Protestant Scholars agree with the historical Fact.


"We concede -- as we must -- that so much of what they the Catholic Church say is true: that the papacy has God's word and the office of the apostles, and that we have received Holy Scriptures, Baptism, the Sacrament, and the pulpit from them. What would we know of these if it were not for them?"
Sermon on the gospel of St. John, chaps. 14 - 16 (1537), in vol. 24 of LUTHER'S WORKS,
St. Louis, Mo., Concordia, 1961, 30


Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church (Eerdmans, 1910
"It must in justice be admitted, however, that the list of Roman bishops has by far the preminence in age, completeness, integrity of succession, consistency of doctrine and policy, above every similar catalogue, not excepting those of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and Constantinople...." (Schaff, page 166)



Schaff then proceeds to list the Bishops of Rome , along with the corresponding Roman Emperors. St. Irenaeus gives this exact list of successors to Peter as Bishops of Rome up to his time (Against Heresies 3:3:1-3 c. 180-199 AD), as does St. Hegesippus up to his time (about 20 years earlier, c. 160 AD) cited in the first History of the Church by Eusebius

• St. Peter (d. 64 or 67)
• St. Linus (67-76)
• St. Anacletus (76-88)
• St. Clement I (88-97)
• St. Evaristus (97-105)
• St. Alexander I (105-115)
• St. Sixtus I (115-125)
• St. Telesphorus (125-136)
• St. Hyginus (136-140)
• St. Pius I (140-155)
• St. Anicetus (155-166)
• St. Soter (166-175)
• St. Eleutherius (175-189)
• St. Victor I (189-199)

You really should purchase an Encyclopedia

The History of the Catholic Churchcovers a period of just under two thousand years, making the Church one of the oldest religious institutions in history. As the oldest branch of Christianity, the history of the Catholic Church plays an integral part of the History of Christianity as a whole.
The history of the Catholic Church is vast and complex, covering many different eras in which the Church was a key influence in the course of European civlization. Yet, the Catholic Church is basically unchanged in its substantial teachings and organisation since the dawn of the Christian era in the first century. Over time religious groups have parted ways with the Catholic Church, the two most important being Orthodox Christianity and the movement of Protestantism. The Catholic Church has been the moving force in some of the major events of world history including the Evangelization of Europe and Latin America, the spreading of literacy and the foundation of the Universities, monasticism, the development of Art, Music and Architecture, the Inquisition, the Crusades, an analytical philosophical method, and the downfall of Communism in Eastern Europe in the late 20 th century.
c. 33: Jesus of Nazareth is crucified in Jerusalem under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea during the reign of Tiberius, after the Sandhedrin accuse Jesus of blasphemy. According to his followers, three days later, "God raised him from the dead, or, as they also express it, he "has risen. After his resurrection, he is believed to have instructed his disciples to baptize and form disciples who would constitute his Church, with Saint Peter as its leader, a position that passed to the Bishop of Rome, known as the Pope. The teachings of Jesus spread by the Apostles form much of the material of the Gospels.
c. 50: Council of Jerusalem
c. 64: Christian persecution under Emperor Nero after the great fire of Rome
c. 110: Ignatius of Antioch uses the term Catholic Church in a letter to the Church at Smyrna, one of the letters of undisputed authenticity attributed to him. In this and other genuine letters he insists on the importance of the bishops in the Church and speaks harshly about heretics.
c. 150: First known versions of the Vetus Latina are circulated among non-Greek-speaking Christian communities: these Latin translations of the Greek and Hebrew Scriptures.
c. 155: The teachings of Marcion, the gnostic Valentinus and pentecostal Montanists cause disruptions in the Roman community. Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire continues.
c. 180: Irenaeus's Adversus Haereses brings the concept of "heresy" further to the fore.
c. 195: Pope Victor I, first Latin Pope, excommunicated the Quartodecimans in an Easter controversy.
c. 200: Tertullian, first great Christian Latin writer, coined for Christian concepts Latin terms such as "Trinitas", "Tres Personae", "Una Substantia", "Sacramentum"
January 20, 250: Emperor Decius begins a widespread persecution of Christians in Rome. Pope Fabian is martyred. Afterwards the Donatist controversy over readmitting lapsed Christians disaffects many in North Africa.
c. 250: Pope Fabian is said to have sent out seven bishops from Rometo Gaul to preach the Gospel: Gatien to Tours, Trophimus to Arles, Paul to Narbonne, Saturnin to Toulouse, Denisto Paris, Austromoine to Clermont, and Martial to Limoges.
October 28, 312: Emperor Constantine leads the forces of the Roman Empire to victory at the Battle of Milvian Bridge. Tradition has it that, the night before the battle, Constantine had a vision that he would achieve victory if he fought under the Symbol of Christ; accordingly, his soldiers bore on their shields the Chi-Rho sign composed of the first two letters of the Greek word for "Christ" (ΧΡΙΣΤΌ&#931. After winning the battle, Constantine legalized

 

[Standing Up]

Is this really the RCC teaching!!??

Peter is the cornerstone????????

shameless bump

 

[Ame4]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

Is this really the RCC teaching!!??

Peter is the cornerstone????????
​

shameless bump

From the Catholic apologetic sites I have read, I never read that.
Peter the rock, Matt 16, yes
Peter the cornerstone,1 Peter, I had not seen anywhere

 

[Trento]

shameless bump

Is this really the RCC teaching!!??

Peter is the cornerstone????????


No

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Your own Protestant Scholars agree with the historical Fact.

Nope.

What you quoted says NOTHING about those verses so much as mentioning the RCC or its own bishop for the diocese in Rome.

You quoted some Scriptures. I noted they don't so much as mention the RCC or the bishop in Rome. And, sorry, but that's just the reality - as any with eyes know, first hand.




.

 

[MamaZ]

I will answer your question after you answer mine.

Do you follow Christ or do you follow Matthew and Luke? Christ or men?

I follow the Spirit through the teaching of the Apostles. I do not follow after man and their understanding of scripture to the point it goes far beyond what is written. For in the scriptures I am not taught that there is one man over another to rule over.. Not even Peter whom some call the first Pope allowed men to bow to him and even stands on solid ground of His very own teaching that he was nothing but a fellow elder. With Paul coming in and stating the same that it is not Peter nor Paul that are anything but Christ..

 

[MamaZ]

Is this really the RCC teaching!!??

Peter is the cornerstone????????

I asked the same

 

[Rhamiel]

Cj

... as far as I know from history or Scripture, there was no institutional denomination (RCC or otherwise) for some 300 years. But, yes, there was the one holy catholic church/ the communion of saints/ the mystical union of all believers. The union was (and is) one of faith in Christ (add, if you like, blessed by Baptism), not because all were formally registered in congregations legally associated with a single denomination (by any name). Yes, we were (and still are) under the one Shepherd - Jesus Christ, who is, was and always will be Lord of the Church.

well that seems silly, St.Paul wrote letters to "the Church" in differant cities
so there must have been some kind of institution, i mean, the letters were sent somewhere, it was not to some "invisible" church

 

[MrPolo]

I follow the Spirit through the teaching of the Apostles.

Well, there you go! Please take it as a compliment when I say you have what it takes to recognize the teaching of Christ through men.

As to answer your question if Jesus is a follower of men, no He is not.

 

[MamaZ]

Well, there you go! Please take it as a compliment when I say you have what it takes to recognize the teaching of Christ through men.

As to answer your question if Jesus is a follower of men, no He is not.

Yup for we are called to follow after the teaching of the chosen Apostles for it is their apostolic word that is of God the Father. Now those who have come after and claimed rulership I don't have to follow for I do not see in the written anywhere where they were chosen of Jesus to be in the office they have placed themselves in. Nor do I have to believe in what they say as being truth if it does not line up with the full councel of the written account.

 

[MrPolo]

There's no mention of the RCC denomination, or whoever is the RCC bishop for the diocese in Rome.

I know you repeat this mantra in many threads, and I have limited my response to it because I think it is so obviously off-base.

But the reason we don't communicate is because Catholics are studying Scripture and salvation history with a theological eye, the "pattern" of sound words as Paul put it, and you have set up (only for Catholics) a criteria that the nature of the hierarchical Church must instead be identified by a forensic declarative statement in the same language by which it is identified today.

But what can ya do....

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

... as far as I know from history or Scripture, there was no institutional denomination (RCC or otherwise) for some 300 years. But, yes, there was the one holy catholic church/ the communion of saints/ the mystical union of all believers. The union was (and is) one of faith in Christ (add, if you like, blessed by Baptism), not because all were formally registered in congregations legally associated with a single denomination (by any name). Yes, we were (and still are) under the one Shepherd - Jesus Christ, who is, was and always will be Lord of the Church.

Cj
well that seems silly, St.Paul wrote letters to "the Church" in differant cities so there must have been some kind of institution, i mean, the letters were sent somewhere, it was not to some "invisible" church

LOL, I never said that there were no CHRISTIAN PEOPLE prior to the 4th century. Actually, I think Adam and Eve were the first believers and that Our Blessed Lady may well be the first specific CHRISTIAN (just one of MANY reasons why I venerate Her).

Did Paul ever write to the Roman Catholic Denomination? Not that we have any record of. He wrote to PEOPLE - and called THEM the church in that place/time. Classic Protestant understanding. Now, there IS a sense in which congregations can (and often eventually do!) become institutions (more accurately, create them). I think we can AT LEAST see the proto to this in some cases in the Epistles (including Acts and Revelation). But I mentioned nothing of congregations.


I hope that clarifies. I hope we can get back to the subject at hand, because it is absolutely foundational to the RCC and to what divides the RCC from all others and us from the RCC.



.

 

[MamaZ]

The body of Christ is a Spiritual body.. It is a Spiritual Church who's citizenship is not of this world but of Heaven. So if we the church have their citizenship in heaven our leader is not of the world either for He would be where we are citizens of..

 

[MrPolo]

Yup for we are called to follow after the teaching of the chosen Apostles for it is their apostolic word that is of God the Father. Now those who have come after and claimed rulership I don't have to follow for I do not see in the written anywhere where they were chosen of Jesus to be in the office they have placed themselves in. Nor do I have to believe in what they say as being truth if it does not line up with the full councel of the written account.

I agree, you should not follow any man who self-appoints himself a speaker for Christ. Nor are you obligated to follow any traditions of men. Amen.

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

But the reason we don't communicate is because Catholics are studying Scripture and salvation history with a theological eye, the "pattern" of sound words as Paul put it, and you have set up (only for Catholics) a criteria that the nature of the hierarchical Church must instead be identified by a forensic declarative statement in the same language by which it is identified today. But what can ya do....

Here I'm TRYING to keep this thread from getting hi-jacked and derailed, but I just can't help responding to what you've posted to me, my respected and unseparated brother... Forgive me, lol....


In my blessed journey in Catholicism, with all my instruction and discussion there with my wonderful and helpful Catholic teachers, I think I can count on one hand (and not use all my fingers, lol) the number of times we ever disagreed on what Scripture SAYS. The "problem" was (99% of the time) over what all admitted Scripture does NOT say.

Important stuff here, IMHO....

Here's what I learned - quite powerfully. When the RCC "looks" at Scripture, it looks not at any tome or print or words - but at it's OWN heart (see CCC #113, "Sacred Scripture is written principally in the Catholic Church's OWN heart rather than in documents."). When Protestants look at Scripture, we tend to look at words on the page, those black things on the white paper formed by letters. We use our concordances, we do word studies, yes we can argue over those WORDS.

But the Catholic Church NOT only looks to the Scripture not of words but "scribed" on its OWN individual heart, but it does so with "glasses" as it were, the "glasses" of its OWN Tradition as it itself chooses, defines and interprets so as to agree with itself AND the decisions, rulings, claims, etc. of the Magisterium of its own self (see CCC 85, 95). The "correct" interpretation of what is in the heart of the RCC alone (113) as interpreted by the RCC alone (85) must agree with the Tradition and Magisterium of the RCC (95).

The "three-legged-stool" (as Mormons call it) means that the Scripture in the heart of the RCC MUST be read through the lens of the RCC's Tradition and Magisterium. Thus, even if the teachings, claims, etc. of the RCC's Tradition and Magisgterium are not actually on any page of any Bible, no matter - the RCC is looking into its own heart and using the "lens" of its own Tradition and Magisterium and they are "supplying" the missing words, as it were. Thus, the CONSTANT "talking past eachother" that we get in these ecumenical discussions. The Catholic refers us to some Scripture. What do we do? We look it up - not in the RCC's heart, but in our tome. We note the words there that God wrote by inspiration. But the Catholic is asking the RCC to look into the Heart of the RCC for the Authoritative Scriptures, and asking the RCC to emply it's "glasses" so as to supply the RCC Tradition and Magisterium's views as "implied." So, the Catholic says, "THERE!" And the Protestant says, "WHERE?????" Happens every day here at CF. Been there hundreds, if not thousands of times in my discussions with Catholics. My friend: it's the old eisegesis vs. exegesis thing that Protestants constantly bring up and Catholics never seem to "get." I hope this is clear, it IS important.


Friend, I probably agree with the RCC 95% of the time. The reason is because I think the RCC, in its official teachings anyway, is overwhelmingly biblical (some of my Protestant brothers and sisters sure get mad at me when I keep saying that - but it is my conviction). But there are times, and IMPORTANTLY they are the times when we disagree, when it's just not there. At least not in any tome BUT THEN that's not the Scripture the RCC is using. From my standpoint, we don't disagree (much!) on what Scripture SAYS. We disagree on some things the RCC insists are "there" as implied by invisible words only (sic!!!!!) IT can "see" in its own heart because it's own Magisterium and view of its Tradition says it is, but all with eyes..... well, you know. And this is the case EXACTLY in the very areas that tend to divide us.

Friend, I've been saying it for over 3 years now. We can't make any significant progress because we don't have the same Canon/Rule (words of Scripture vs. Three-Legged-Stool as seen by the RCC alone), we don't have the same arbitration, and we don't even agree on what we need to agree on (the RCC keeps moving the goal post further away, whereas too many Protestants and liberals keep trying to tearing it down, lol).


Now, I'm a BAD BOY for hijacking my own thread; but I couldn't resist! Forgive me....




.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Here I'm TRYING to keep this thread from getting hi-jacked and derailed, but I just can't help responding to what you've posted to me, my respected and unseparated brother... Forgive me, lol....

Thou art forgiven

 

[tadoflamb]

I hope that clarifies. I hope we can get back to the subject at hand, because it is absolutely foundational to the RCC and to what divides the RCC from all others and us from the RCC.



.

Wait a minute, you keep calling us unseperated bretheren.

I'm so confused.

Back to the topic..........

 

[Ame4]

I agree, you should not follow any man who self-appoints himself a speaker for Christ. Nor are you obligated to follow any traditions of men. Amen.

I like how you speak in a kind of a code at times, even though the meaning is quite clear.

I agree btw

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I like how you speak in a kind of a code at times, even though the meaning is quite clear.

I agree btw

We broke the RC's "code" a long time ago here on CF, they just don't know it yet

YouTube - Enigma Codebreakers

 

[Joachim]

LOL, I never said that there were no CHRISTIAN PEOPLE prior to the 4th century. Actually, I think Adam and Eve were the first believers and that Our Blessed Lady may well be the first specific CHRISTIAN (just one of MANY reasons why I venerate Her).

Did Paul ever write to the Roman Catholic Denomination? Not that we have any record of. He wrote to PEOPLE - and called THEM the church in that place/time. Classic Protestant understanding. Now, there IS a sense in which congregations can (and often eventually do!) become institutions (more accurately, create them). I think we can AT LEAST see the proto to this in some cases in the Epistles (including Acts and Revelation). But I mentioned nothing of congregations.


I hope that clarifies. I hope we can get back to the subject at hand, because it is absolutely foundational to the RCC and to what divides the RCC from all others and us from the RCC.



.

There were no "denominations" until people decided to secede from God's church. First came the Nestorians. Then the Miaphysites (it is an error to call them mono). The Arians could have been another but that one ended because of political action. Then came the Great Schism of 1054 because the Byzantine emperor wanted to make a political point to the pope, and then finally, the Protestant schism of Luther's rebellion in the 1500s.


If people hadn't been involved in various heresies (and admittedly, the EO was more of a political thing than a theological one) then there would be no splits. See at Jesus time, all were unified, the same for the apostles. The first division wasn't until the 100s.