Peter and the Keys, Catholicism and the Pope

[CaliforniaJosiah]

I believe there is evidence that both Peter and Paul were in Rome. Haven't seen evidence that Peter was the first pope, not saying there is none, I've just never seen it.

What is said about Peter and Paul in Rome is that they both appointed Linus as the Bishop of that church and they did not even have to die to do this.

Racer,

I seem to recall being taught in the RCC that a KING could give "keys" to anyone he choose (and then LOTS of emphasis on the POWER that gave him, LOT of emphasis on power!). They "read" Matthew 16:18 in the light of something said 800 years earlier and "connect the dots" to that. Jesus here is seen as a king - giving the "keys." Okay. What never made sense to ME is why can the RCC give "keys?" The RCC is not a king. It seems to ME, that IF King Jesus gave the "keys" to Peter (with all the ephasis on PETER as PETER), then we know right where they are today: in his cold, dead hands. The RCC is not a king and thus, by the RCC's own interpretation, can't give any "keys" to anyone - including whom the cardinals elect as the next "Pope" upon the death of the last one. IMHO, the RCC's "connecting of dots" and interpretation here actually undermines it's claim to all this exclusive POWER and lordship over all. (I keep thinking of Matthew 18:1-4, Matthew 20:20-28 !!!!).



.

 

[Rick Otto]

I say it was only a liturgical issue because that is what the historical record (as per the words of Ireneaus) says it was.

Ireneaus favored the Easter on Sunday crowd, but he was pretty honest about it not being apostolic tradition.

"For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other Apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him..."

(i.e, the earlier Bishop’s of Rome, going back to Peter).

It would have been authoritative if Peter had been referenced by name.
Your inserted assumption is that the presbyters Anicetus preferred over John & the other Apostles, held a tradition of faith consistant with Peter's tradition.
You have apostolic tradition at odds,... out of unity with itself, threatening the peace of the flock.

The author makes it clear that the community's peace was threatened enough to require a Papal Offering of Peace with an official Show of Respect by deference on the power of consecration, one of the core elements of monopolization & imperialization of The Body.

And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other;

"State of affairs" doesn't sound like comfortable harmony at all. It is more a beaurocratic expression than a brotherly one.

"...and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not." (Epistle of Ireneaus to Pope Victor)

Wiki:
"According to the writings of Irenaeus, the Roman church had celebrated Easter on a Sunday at least since the time of Bishop Xystus (Sixtus I, 115–125).[4]"

The power of papacy soon began to seduce the authoritarianism out of its pontificators:

(Quote=Eusebius Church History)"The difference in practice was turned into an ecclesiastical controversy when bishop Victor of Rome attempted to declare the Nisan 14 practice heretical and excommunicate all who followed it.[6] On this occasion Irenaeus and Polycrates of Ephesus wrote to Victor, Irenaeus reminding Victor of his predecessor Anicetus's more tolerant attitude, and Polycrates defending the Asian practice"

Man's reasoning became more important than apostolic tradition as no apostolic tradition was invoked to justify Easter on Sunday:


(Eusebius)"Victor, head of the Roman church, attempted at one stroke to cut off from the common unity all the Asian dioceses .... But this was not to the taste of all the bishops: They replied with a request that he would turn his mind to the things that make for peace and for unity and love towards his neighbors. We still possess the words of these men, who very sternly rebuked Victor."

...As Paul rebuked Peter.

 

[vanshan]

I'm sorry, I haven't read all 55 pages of this thread, so if this evidence has already been provided, forgive me. All evidence I've read from the Church Fathers refutes that the Church ever held the current view of the papacy as it has evolved in the RCC. Here are some quotes by several major saints and other fathers of the Church:

"The Rock (petra) is the blessed and only rock of the faith confessed by the mouth of Peter. It is on this Rock of the confession of faith that the Church is built." --Saint Hilary of Poitiers (c. 315-368), 2nd Book on the Trinity

"If you believe that God has raised the whole building of His Church on Peter alone, what will you say of John, the Son of Thunder? What will you say of each of the apostles? Will you venture to say that the gates of hell shall not prevail against Peter in particular, but shall prevail against all the others . . . ? Are not the words addressed to them all?" --Origen, Commentary on Matthew

"Christ is the Rock Who granted to His apostles that they should be called rocks. God has founded His Church on this Rock, and it is from this Rock that Peter has been named." --Saint Jerome (419 A.D.) 6th Book on Matthew

"Faith if the foundation of the Church. For it was not the person, but the faith of St. Peter of which it was said, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail;' certainly it is the confession of faith which has vanquished the powers of hell." --Saint Ambrose (397 A.D.)

"The Rock on which Christ will build His Church means the faith of confession." --Saint John Chrysostom (407 A.D.) 53rd Homily on Saint Matthew

"Christ said to Peter . . . I will build thee upon Myself, I will not be built upon thee. Those who wished to be built among men said, I am of Paul, I am of Apollos, I am of Cephas. However, those who did not wish to be built upon Peter but upon the Rock say, I am of Jesus Christ." --Saint Augustine (430 A.D.) Retractions, 13th Sermon

"I believe that by Rock you must understand the unshaken faith of the apostles." --Saint Hilary (368 A.D.) 2nd Book on the Trinity

"This one (Peter) is called a rock in order that on his Faith (Rock) he may receive the foundations of the Church." --Saint Gregory of Nazianzen (390 A.D.) 26th Discourse

"The word 'Rock' has only a denominative value--it signifies nothing but the steadfast and firm faith of the apostles." -- Saint Cyril of Alexandria (444 A.D)

"The Bishop of Alexandria shall have complete control and jurisdication over Egypt, Libya, and the Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those as are subject to Rome. So too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest of the bishops shall have complete control and jurisdication over those faithful who are under them." --First Ecumenical Council, Canon 6

"Rock is the unity of faith, not the person of Peter." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.) De Catholicae Eccesiae Unitate, cap. 4-5

"In the administration of the Church, each bishop has the free discretion of his own will, having to account only to the Lord for his actions. None of us may set himself up as bishop of bishops, nor compel his brothers to obey him; every bishop of the Church has full liberty and complete power: as he cannot be judged by another, neither can he judge another." --Saint Cyprian (258 A.D.)

"If we also say, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God, then we also become Peter . . . for whoever assimilates to Christ, become the Rock. Does Christ give the keys of the Kingdom to Peter alone? whereas other blessed people cannot receive them?" -- Origin, Homily on Matthew XIIx



I think it's only rational to take from these multiple witnesses, that the RCC's current definition of the papacy is false. Furthermore, if the Pope is not supreme over all bishops we must move away from all the unilateral shifts in the faith and worship made under the false authority claimed under papal supremecy and return to the original Church as it existed prior to the Roman Catholic schism of 1054 A.D. Of the ancient five major patriarchates in Rome, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria, all four of the other patriarchs (bishops) remained united against the Bishop of Rome in the schism, objecting to any concept of supremecy above the other bishops, which the Roman bishop had begun to claim. This, and not the unilateral changes to the Nicene Creed, was at the heart of the Great Schism. Until the Pope admits he is no more authority or power than the other bishops, and retracts any unilateral changes to the faith, can this schims be healed. We, for our part in the Orthodox Church, continually pray for this to happen, so that the RCC can be grafted back into the Living Church of Christ.

Basil

 

[vanshan]

Legitamately, as the first among equals, appeals of help resolving a dispute were sometimes made from other jurisdications to the Patriarch of Rome, but his help was sought to arbitrate between disputing parties, not because he had ultimate authority over them. These appeals have sometimes erroneously been used by the RCC to show that the pope had authority over all, but this is a false conclusion. They sometimes see what they are looking for, whereas no satisfactory explanation is given to refute all the direct statments made against the idea of papal suprememcy, which wasn't even official dogma in the Roman Catholic Church until 1870.

Basil

 

[Standing Up]

Shameless bump.

Anyone? What is the assumption if the Quartodecimans say Christ died on the 14th and Rome says Christ rose on Sunday?

I think you are somewhat missing the point. The issue was not when Christ literally/historically died or rose, but when such things should be commemorated / celebrated. That was the nature of the dispute.

I have not missed the point at all. I understand exactly what the issue was and continues to be from the RCC perspective over against the Apostolic teaching as shown in Scripture and the Tradition of the Quartodecimans that immediately followed therefrom.

Please answer my question. What is the assumption? It should take only six seconds and one sentence.

What is "Apostolic succession vs. bishopric succession"? Perhaps you don't understand what we mean by "Apostolic succession." You apparently think that we believe that our bishops succeed to the full office of Apostles (a common misperception). But that's not our position. Rather, what Apostolic succession means is that our bishops succeed to the EPISCOPAL DIMENSION of the Apostle's offices (the Apostles being the first overseers / presbyters of the churches they established). Our bishops are not Divinely inspired or personally sent by Christ, as the Apostles were; and they cannot introduce new revelation, as the Apostles were empowered to do. So, there is no difference between "Apostolic succession" and "bishopric succession."

I know your Bishops do not succeed to or exceed the full office of Apostle. They, however, do not have that understanding. As Trento kindly pointed out "what is the bishop but one who beyond all others (that includes the Apostles) possesses all power and authority". That is the issue and the reason for the conflict under discussion.

You make the assumption that there is an original, viable, provable link between Peter and Linus when only maybe, hopefullies exists. In fact, there simply is no verifiable association. But there are verifiable, clear, and universally agreed upon sources who assert the Apostolic line through the Quartodecimans. The extant sources clearly say, Polycarp followed the APOSTLES.

Anicetus followed the Bishops. So, of course, RCC has to assert that the Bishop is above the Apostles (all others) and possesses all authority and power. That is your history (RCC, EO, OO, Assyr, Angl, P), not mine; that is your claim, not mine. So regardless of what you try to say some 1900 years later, RCC believes the Bishop holds all power and authority and as such, could declare heretical and excommunicate the only verifiable and universally agreed upon valid apostlic succession. As well, those Roman Bishops could change the dates and days.

I say it was only a liturgical issue because that is what the historical record (as per the words of Ireneaus) says it was.

From his letter to Pope Victor I:

“For the controversy is not merely as regards the day (of Easter), but also as regards the form itself of the fast (i.e., Lent)."

He listed TWO points of controversy: which DATE the celebration should be observed on their liturgical calendar - and - the "form" of the Lenten fast, since different city-churches had different customs in that regard. But these were not theological disputes, nor were they disputing regarding which days Jesus literally and historically died and rose. They were disputing "WHEN should we OBSERVE these events and HOW?" The dispute was liturgical/devotional and nothing more.

Do you understand what is going on? Can you reference Scripture (they weren't relying too much on Tradition at that early stage) regarding the association of the celebration and fast? Why are the two associated? Which two?

And as I have said more than once, both traditions were Apostolic in origin (as I will illustrate in a moment as per the same letter to Victor).

Rome merely observed the *liturgical* tradition as it was handed down by Peter and Paul, and thus observed, not only in Rome, but in Alexandria, and Antioch, and most of the other churches.

This is how our conversation began. Instead, it was ONLY ROME and nowhere else that this Bishopric Tradition began. "When Eusebius says that the churches of “all Asia” concurred in the Ephesine use concerning the Paschal, he evidently means Asia Minor, as in the Scriptures and elsewhere. Throughout “the rest of the world,” he testifies, however, that such was not the use. The Palestinian bishops, after the Jewish downfall, seem to have been the first to comprehend the propriety of adopting the more Catholic usage; and our author presided over a council in Cæsarea, of which he was bishop, assisted by Narcissus, bishop of Jerusalem, with Cassius of Tyre and Clarus of Ptolemais, which confirmed it. It is to be noted, that Alexandria is cited by Theophilus as authority for this custom; and it is not quite correct to say that the Western usage prevailed at Nicæa, for it was the general use, save only in Asia Minor and churches which were colonies of the same. This fact has been overlooked, and is very important, in history."

Only Rome in the beginning. The Palestinian Synod was the first to adopt the Roman usage; the rest followed. 325ad all adopted the Roman usage and declared heretical the Apostles and those of the seven churches from Revelation. 341ad they excommunicated the Aposles and those of the seven churches from Revelation. Liturgical issue? The Roman Bishop above all possesses all power and authority, believe it.

And again, I would not agree with your assumption that the Apostles taught one group one thing and another group something else.

This tradition was still pretty "Jewish" and dependent on the Jewish calendar, in that it celebrated Easter on the next Sunday after Passover. But it incorporated the principal of the "Lord's Day" (Sunday), which was a New Covenant dimension. The Johnine tradition in Asia (and parts of Syria and Mesopotamia) kept things closer to the Jewish calendar, allowing the Jewish calendar to dictate the day on which Easter would be celebrated (i.e., always three days after the Passover, no matter on which day it happened to fall). So they were BOTH Apostolic but distinct insofar as which aspect of the Passion and Resurrection narrative the given tradition wished to emphasize.

And we know this, in part, because of these words from the letter to Victor:

Please answer my question first shown above and then we can discuss.

Bottom line: The Apostles (who expected the end of the world to happen soon) simply weren't very concerned with such things. It was not a top priority for them. So different customs in different city-churches arose from the common Apostolic deposit of faith. It was only later, when observance of Easter became a higher priority for the Church, that concerns over unity arose...and thus the controversy. Eventually Pope Victor was persuaded to withdraw his threat of excommunication toward the Asians; and for the very reason that (as Ireneaus convinced him) the difference did not threaten the unity of Faith, but was only liturgical in nature. Which of course, begs the question of the true level of authority of the Bishop of Rome in the Early Church among those within living memory of the Apostles: if the Pope did not exist as an office of universal jurisdiction to keep the Church in unity and orthodoxy, then WHY all the appeals to the Roman Church by non-Roman Churches and their Bishops?

In any case, lest I be accused of pulling the words of Ireneaus out of context, here is a larger contextual passage from the letter:

“For the controversy is not merely as regards the day (of Easter), but also as regards the form itself of the fast (i.e., Lent). For some consider themselves bound to fast one day, others two days, others still more, while others [do so during] forty: the diurnal and the nocturnal hours they measure out together as their [fasting] day. And this variety among the observers [of the fasts] had not its origin in our time, but long before in that of our predecessors, some of whom probably, being not very accurate in their observance of it, handed down to posterity the custom as it had, through simplicity or private fancy, been [introduced among them]. And yet nevertheless all these lived in peace, one with another, and we also keep peace together. Thus, in fact, the difference [in observing] the fast establishes the harmony of [our common] Faith. ... . Notwithstanding this, those who did not keep [the feast in this way] were peacefully disposed towards those who came to them from other dioceses in which it was [so] observed (although such observance was [felt] in more decided contrariety [as presented] to those who did not fall in with it; and none were ever cast out [of the Church] for this matter. On the contrary, those presbyters who preceded thee (i.e., the earlier Bishop’s of Rome), and who did not observe [this custom], sent the Eucharist to those of other dioceses who did observe it. And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points, they were at once well inclined towards each other [with regard to the matter in hand], not willing that any quarrel should arise between them upon this head. For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always [so] observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other Apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him (i.e, the earlier Bishop’s of Rome, going back to Peter). And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist, by way of showing him respect; so that they parted in peace one from the other, maintaining peace with the whole Church, both those who did observe [this custom] and those who did not. (Epistle of Ireneaus to Pope Victor)

God's Peace,

NewMan

Different customs? Liturgical? Worth excommunicating your brethren? I think not. The issue was MUCH LARGER. Unlike those looking through the dark glass of the future, we can look backwards crystal clearly and determine what happened and why.

 

[Kristos]

Does anyone ever wonder if maybe John was really the first among the Apostles...?

 

[Rick Otto]

Lol.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Does anyone ever wonder if maybe John was really the first among the Apostles...?

Don't know about first, but he was the one picked to vision the Revelation of Jesus the Christ

Reve 1:9 I John the brother of ye and joint-partaker in the affliction and kingdom and endurance in *Jesus Christ* came to be in the island, the being called Patmos, because of the word of the God and because of the testimony of Jesus Christ.

 

[Standing Up]

Does anyone ever wonder if maybe John was really the first among the Apostles...?

Like Peter who was given a new name, he was one of the two sons of Thunder. His brother James was the first Apostle to die. John was the last Apostle to die. Canon written. Canon closed. Was it assembled at that point? A different thread, another time.

They were all part of the foundation (OT prophets and NT apostles) upon which we are being built.

1 Cor. 1:9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord. Believe it.

 

[Kristos]

Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Between Peter, Paul and John, wouldn't John fit this best?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

Between Peter, Paul and John, wouldn't John fit this best?

I'd say John. Although I don't beleive that THEREFORE he was infallible/unaccountable, supreme and powerful lord over all Christians, etc.


But it's interesting to keep Matthew 18:1-4 and Matthew 20:20-28 keenly in mind as the RCC goes on and on about the Pope's power, authority, lordship, infallibility.....




.

 

[tadoflamb]

Mat 18:4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 23:11 But he that is greatest among you shall be your servant.

The pope is a servant of servants.

 

[NewMan99]

Please answer my question. What is the assumption? It should take only six seconds and one sentence.

Stop playing games. I have no clue what you are getting at. Just say it.

I know your Bishops do not succeed to or exceed the full office of Apostle. They, however, do not have that understanding.

Nonsense. Just ask a Bishop if they are an Apostle. They will tell you no - 100% of the time. There's your answer.

As Trento kindly pointed out "what is the bishop but one who beyond all others (that includes the Apostles) possesses all power and authority".

Just because Bishops and Apostles both possess all power and authority does not mean we consider them to be the exact same thing. The BIBLE speaks of the authority granted to the Bishops by virtue of it being given to them by the Apostles:

"Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." Titus 2:15

Paul - an Apostle - was writing to Titus - a Bishop/Presbyter. ALL AUTHORITY. But that doesn't make Titus an Apostle. No Catholic source EVER EVER EVER claims that Bishop = Apostle. You are putting that into our mouths.

That is the issue and the reason for the conflict under discussion.

Baloney. Read what the text really says. They are disputing the DATE that the Church should observe Easter. They are not disputing whether or not any given Bishop is or is not an Apostle. You are reading that into the text.

You make the assumption that there is an original, viable, provable link between Peter and Linus when only maybe, hopefullies exists. In fact, there simply is no verifiable association.

So what are you saying? That Linus did not exist? That Linus did not succeed Peter?

But there are verifiable, clear, and universally agreed upon sources who assert the Apostolic line through the Quartodecimans. The extant sources clearly say, Polycarp followed the APOSTLES.

But OF COURSE Polycarp succeeded AN Apostle (singular) - no doubt the Apostle John personally ordained him. But in saying this, we are not asserting that Polycarp succeeded to John's APOSTOLIC office...that is to say that Polycarp would NOT be given new Revelation in the sense that the original Apostles were. We are saying that Polycarp succeeded to the EPISCOPAL dimension of John's ministry. Polycarp was NOT an Apostle...but he was a duly ordained Bishop succeeding to the Episcopal dimension of the Apostolic ministry.

Anicetus followed the Bishops.

Sure he did...but what does that mean? It means he followed the succession of Bishops going back to PETER. That doesn't mean that his episcopal office was any different than Polycarp's was (except for the additional Petrine ministry that Anicetus also had). Neither of them were Apostles but both of them gained their *Episcopal* authority due to the laying on of hands via Apostolic Succession.

So, of course, RCC has to assert that the Bishop is above the Apostles (all others) and possesses all authority and power.

Absurd. We never claim that.

That is your history (RCC, EO, OO, Assyr, Angl, P), not mine; that is your claim, not mine.

I have never once claimed this.

So regardless of what you try to say some 1900 years later, RCC believes the Bishop holds all power and authority and as such, could declare heretical and excommunicate the only verifiable and universally agreed upon valid apostlic succession. As well, those Romish Bishops could change the dates and days.

Romish???

Why don't you just call us the "N" word while you are at it?

Do you understand what a hateful and insulting pejorative that word is???

Do you even understand the line that you just now crossed?

Shame on you. Our conversation is ended.

Period.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LLOJ pops in

LLOJ pops out

 

[NewMan99]

In case nobody noticed it - I have a zero tolerance policy toward words like "Romish, Romanist, Popish, Papist" etc...if you ever want to get me out of any given conversation - just throw those words around. And then you can have fun all by yourselves. And if you are surprised that a Catholic would be HIGHLY offended by those words, then you really need to get out of your own little world and understand that there really are words that hurt others. People of color don't like the "n" word, and gay people don't like being called the "f-got" word, and so on. Come on people - I am not being unreasonably hyper-sensitive here...it doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that there are CHARITIBLE ways of communicating without using terms that offend others.

Play nice.

 

[Standing Up]

Shameless bump.

Anyone? What is the assumption if the Quartodecimans say Christ died on the 14th and Rome says Christ rose on Sunday?

Stop playing games. I have no clue what you are getting at. Just say it.

Anyone?

-snip-

I have assumed far too much on your part. My error.

But OF COURSE Polycarp succeeded AN Apostle (singular)- no doubt the Apostle John personally ordained him.-snip-

John and Phillip and the other Apostles is what it said. Plural.

-snip

Romish???

Why don't you just call us the "N" word while you are at it?

Do you understand what a hateful and insulting pejorative that word is???

Do you even understand the line that you just now crossed?

Shame on you. Our conversation is ended.

Period.

Have no idea what the problem is here. What does Romish mean to you? Texan describes someone from Texas. Perhaps I should have said Roman. The Roman Bishops could ... I'll change that.

 

[NewMan99]

John and Phillip and the other Apostles is what it said. Plural.

It said he CONVERSED with other Apostles. He was only ordained by one.

Have no idea what the problem is here. Texan describes someone from Texas. Perhaps I should have said Roman. The Roman Bishops could ... I'll change that.

Thanks for changing that, but fyi...romish = "n" word. And it has for a very very very long time. It tells me a lot about where a person comes from when they use that word. It also tells me something when they don't even know that the word is unacceptable. Unless you can give me a really compelling reason otherwise, I doubt very much I want to continue our conversation.

 

[Standing Up]

It said he CONVERSED with other Apostles. He was only ordained by one.



Thanks for changing that, but fyi...romish = "n" word. And it has for a very very very long time. It tells me a lot about where a person comes from when they use that word. It also tells me something when they don't even know that the word is unacceptable. Unless you can give me a really compelling reason otherwise, I doubt very much I want to continue our conversation.

I assume you love the truth. Am I wrong?

 

[Standing Up]

But Polycarp also was not only instructed by apostles, and conversed with many who had seen Christ, but was also, by apostles in Asia, appointed bishop of the Church in Smyrna, whom I also saw in my early youth, for he tarried [on earth] a very long time, and, when a very old man, gloriously and most nobly suffering martyrdom, departed this life, having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles, and which the Church has handed down, and which alone are true. To these things all the Asiatic Churches testify, as do also those men who have succeeded Polycarp down to the present time,—

We observe the exact day; neither adding, nor taking away. For in Asia also great lights have fallen asleep, which shall rise again on the day of the Lord's coming, when he shall come with glory from heaven, and shall seek out all the saints. Among these are Philip, one of the twelve apostles, who fell asleep in Hierapolis; and his two aged virgin daughters, and another daughter, who lived in the Holy Spirit and now rests at Ephesus; and, moreover, John, who was both a witness and a teacher, who reclined upon the bosom of the Lord, and, being a priest, wore the sacerdotal plate.
3. He fell asleep at Ephesus.
4. And Polycarp in Smyrna, who was a bishop and martyr; and Thraseas, bishop and martyr from Eumenia, who fell asleep in Smyrna.
5. Why need I mention the bishop and martyr Sagaris who fell asleep in Laodicea, or the blessed Papirius, or Melito, the Eunuch who lived altogether in the Holy Spirit, and who lies in Sardis, awaiting the episcopate from heaven, when he shall rise from the dead?
6. All these observed the fourteenth day of the passover according to the Gospel, deviating in no respect, but following the rule of faith. And I also, Polycrates, the least of you all, do according to the tradition of my relatives, some of whom I have closely followed. For seven of my relatives were bishops; and I am the eighth. And my relatives always observed the day when the people put away the leaven.
7. I, therefore, brethren, who have lived sixty-five years in the Lord, and have met with the brethren throughout the world, and have gone through every Holy Scripture, am not affrighted by terrifying words. For those greater than I have said 'We ought to obey God rather than man.' Acts 5:29

 

[NewMan99]

I assume you love the truth. Am I wrong?

I love Truth and I love discussing the Truth with people who are civil and reasonable.

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against against us. I forgive you. I am called to it. I ask forgiveness from our Father whom I offend each and every day. So I must forgive you too. And I do. Really - I do.

However...that doesn't mean I am at all convinced you even understand the nature of your offense, nor have you even apologized for it (although I am grateful you changed it). This does not bode well for the possibility of having a fruitful discussion. It tells me that you are likely at a place that is so anti-thetical to Catholicism that real dialog will be difficult at best.

God's Peace to you,

NewMan