From Where do the RCC and the EOC get the Authority they claim for themselves?

[calluna]

It is certain that he remained for a time at Antioch;

OK so far!

 

[chestertonrules]

OK so far!

Then let's continue!



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.

• That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not — "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter.
• St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Gef[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]en, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
• From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, Church History II.15, 3.40, 6.14); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Against Heresies 3.1). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
• Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (chapter 5): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles — St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chapter 4). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
• In his letter written at the beginning of the second century (before 117), while being brought to Rome for martyrdom, the venerable Bishop Ignatius of Antioch endeavours by every means to restrain the Roman Christians from striving for his pardon, remarking: "I issue you no commands, like Peter and Paul: they were Apostles, while I am but a captive" (Epistle to the Romans 4). The meaning of this remark must be that the two Apostles laboured personally in Rome, and with Apostolic authority preached the Gospel there.
• Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, Church History II.25).
• Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Against Heresies 3.3; cf. 3.1). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
• In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, Church History IV.14), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them" (see above).

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm

Continued in next post.

 

[chestertonrules]

Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In De Præscriptione 36, he says: "If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John". In Scorpiace 15, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross". As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book (On Baptism 5) that there is "no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber"; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, "to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Against Marcion 4.5).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, Church History II.25) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church". By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there" (i.e. at Rome).
There thus existed in Rome an ancient epigraphic memorial commemorating the death of the Apostles. The obscure notice in the Muratorian Fragment ("Lucas optime theofile conprindit quia sub praesentia eius singula gerebantur sicuti et semote passionem petri evidenter declarat", ed. Preuschen, Tübingen, 1910, p. 29) also presupposes an ancient definite tradition concerning Peter's death in Rome.
The apocryphal Acts of St. Peter and the Acts of Sts. Peter and Paul likewise belong to the series of testimonies of the death of the two Apostles in Rome.

 

[calluna]

Then let's continue!

That's when the garbage starts.



.

 

[chestertonrules]

That's when the garbage starts.



.

Feel free to make your point.


What fact are you disputing? Be specific please.

 

[calluna]

Feel free to make your point.


What fact are you disputing? Be specific please.

Do we really have to play juvenile games? We've all read that absurd propaganda you posted, many times before, and nobody gets to be convinced by it. You've read my long piece on this. Why have you not been specific about why it is wrong? That is what we are all waiting for, isn't it! Give us something worth reading!!!!

Or is that just not possible?

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Do we really have to play juvenile games? We've all read that absurd propaganda you posted, many times before, and nobody gets to be convinced by it. You've read my long piece on this. Why have you not been specific about why it is wrong? That is what we are all waiting for, isn't it! Give us something worth reading!!!!

Or is that just not possible?

You may be playing juvenile games and that is on you but the rest of us take our salvation very seriously.

I would also like you to make your point.

 

[chestertonrules]

Do we really have to play juvenile games? We've all read that absurd propaganda you posted, many times before, and nobody gets to be convinced by it. You've read my long piece on this. Why have you not been specific about why it is wrong? That is what we are all waiting for, isn't it! Give us something worth reading!!!!

Or is that just not possible?

I gave you a very long and detailed list of facts.

You didn't dispute a single one.

 

[calluna]

I gave you a very long and detailed list of facts.

You read what I wrote, then approved a reply that was not even worth reading. Then you merely bellowed the 'facts' that I had trashed.

Nothing ever changes!

 

[chestertonrules]

You read what I wrote, then approved a reply that was not even worth reading. Then you merely bellowed the 'facts' that I had trashed.

Nothing ever changes!

You didn't even respond.

I know why.

 

[calluna]

You didn't even respond.

Just following your example!

 

[calluna]

I would also like you to make your point.

There are those who contend that Peter was martyred at Rome. There is no evidence for this that comes anywhere near to satisfying the criteria of modern historians, who treat secondary evidence (and nothing better exists for this claim) according to the expected reliability of its authors.The naivete of the past has gone, and the "They would say that" test is now made. For this claim, in every case, the authors are suspect, having obvious vested interests, being often the survivors of persecution. In other words, the evidence in this case is as useful as a WW2 Nazi propaganda broadcast in identifying the close of WW2 action.

If Mt 16:18 was to be used as a basis for placing the church under imperial control (along with every other social entity in the Roman Empire- the church was never going to be an exception, if it survived at all) it was necessary to 'locate' Peter in Rome, where his 'successors' could remain under close control. As Peter's martyrdom was prophesied by Jesus, the logical course was to have his martyrdom chronicled in Rome. Peter was not a Roman citizen, was not apostle to Rome, was kept very busy from Anatolia to Persia, and there was no reason for him to go to Rome. It is unlikely that he ever went there, and if he did, it would never have been as a mere bishop or elder, one of many in that large city, and he could not have been the first bishop there anyway. Had he gone under Roman authority, he would never have been allowed contact with the church, and his existence in Rome would have been of no religious significance. Paul even wrote to apostles in Rome, so bishop Peter would have been under their authority! The Roman account of events and relationships, on all applicable counts, cannot be reconciled with Scripture, and it is no surprise whatever that, early in the Renaissance, independent readers of Scripture rejected it, and had to flee for their lives.

Succession is anyway discounted by Peter, Jude and Paul in their letters, that explicitly warn of false teachers actually inside the church as they wrote. The whole purpose of Christ's coming was to do away with external control as applied to Israel, and even the Israelites had no rulers intended for them, no bishops in the sense that Rome employed them. So it was utterly, deeply and fundamentally inimical to Christianity and Judaism to seek to create a hierarchy and associate it with Christianity. Monarchical bishops were almost certainly devised by Roman emperors to facilitate the erosion of democracy in the church, and control by themselves, which is precisely what any historian would predict would happen, as night follows day. It is quite possible, even probable, that the imperial court had assistance and advice from former Sadducees and Pharisees, who feared Christians as much as corrupt, avaricious Roman patricians did.

Similar considerations regarding church polity apply to the notion that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. This canard ignores the evidence in Acts that shows that the Jerusalem church was as democratic when advising Antioch as when it 'succeeded' Jesus Himself in replacing Judas. It is based on the flimsiest evidence, which fact is itself effectively self-contradictory. That 'evidence' is selective translation of a single word in Acts, which word has been otherwise accounted for here, but that alternative has been totally ignored.

There is still no real debate here, only shouting and posturing. Nothing more need be said.

 

[chestertonrules]

There are those who contend that Peter was martyred at Rome. There is no evidence for this that comes anywhere near to satisfying the criteria of modern historians, who treat secondary evidence (and nothing better exists for this claim) according to the expected reliability of its authors.The naivete of the past has gone, and the "They would say that" test is now made. For this claim, in every case, the authors are suspect, having obvious vested interests, being often the survivors of persecution. In other words, the evidence in this case is as useful as a WW2 Nazi propaganda broadcast in identifying the close of WW2 action.

If Mt 16:18 was to be used as a basis for placing the church under imperial control (along with every other social entity in the Roman Empire- the church was never going to be an exception, if it survived at all) it was necessary to 'locate' Peter in Rome, where his 'successors' could remain under close control. As Peter's martyrdom was prophesied by Jesus, the logical course was to have his martyrdom chronicled in Rome. Peter was not a Roman citizen, was not apostle to Rome, was kept very busy from Anatolia to Persia, and there was no reason for him to go to Rome. It is unlikely that he ever went there, and if he did, it would never have been as a mere bishop or elder, one of many in that large city, and he could not have been the first bishop there anyway. Had he gone under Roman authority, he would never have been allowed contact with the church, and his existence in Rome would have been of no religious significance. Paul even wrote to apostles in Rome, so bishop Peter would have been under their authority! The Roman account of events and relationships, on all applicable counts, cannot be reconciled with Scripture, and it is no surprise whatever that, early in the Renaissance, independent readers of Scripture rejected it, and had to flee for their lives.

Succession is anyway discounted by Peter, Jude and Paul in their letters, that explicitly warn of false teachers actually inside the church as they wrote. The whole purpose of Christ's coming was to do away with external control as applied to Israel, and even the Israelites had no rulers intended for them, no bishops in the sense that Rome employed them. So it was utterly, deeply and fundamentally inimical to Christianity and Judaism to seek to create a hierarchy and associate it with Christianity. Monarchical bishops were almost certainly devised by Roman emperors to facilitate the erosion of democracy in the church, and control by themselves, which is precisely what any historian would predict would happen, as night follows day. It is quite possible, even probable, that the imperial court had assistance and advice from former Sadducees and Pharisees, who feared Christians as much as corrupt, avaricious Roman patricians did.

Similar considerations regarding church polity apply to the notion that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. This canard ignores the evidence in Acts that shows that the Jerusalem church was as democratic when advising Antioch as when it 'succeeded' Jesus Himself in replacing Judas. It is based on the flimsiest evidence, which fact is itself effectively self-contradictory. That 'evidence' is selective translation of a single word in Acts, which word has been otherwise accounted for here, but that alternative has been totally ignored.

There is still no real debate here, only shouting and posturing. Nothing more need be said.

This doesn't address a single fact I posted.

 

[calluna]

This doesn't address a single fact I posted.

So you agree with it all.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

There are those who contend that Peter was martyred at Rome. There is no evidence for this that comes anywhere near to satisfying the criteria of modern historians, who treat secondary evidence (and nothing better exists for this claim) according to the expected reliability of its authors.The naivete of the past has gone, and the "They would say that" test is now made. For this claim, in every case, the authors are suspect, having obvious vested interests, being often the survivors of persecution. In other words, the evidence in this case is as useful as a WW2 Nazi propaganda broadcast in identifying the close of WW2 action.

If Mt 16:18 was to be used as a basis for placing the church under imperial control (along with every other social entity in the Roman Empire- the church was never going to be an exception, if it survived at all) it was necessary to 'locate' Peter in Rome, where his 'successors' could remain under close control. As Peter's martyrdom was prophesied by Jesus, the logical course was to have his martyrdom chronicled in Rome. Peter was not a Roman citizen, was not apostle to Rome, was kept very busy from Anatolia to Persia, and there was no reason for him to go to Rome. It is unlikely that he ever went there, and if he did, it would never have been as a mere bishop or elder, one of many in that large city, and he could not have been the first bishop there anyway. Had he gone under Roman authority, he would never have been allowed contact with the church, and his existence in Rome would have been of no religious significance. Paul even wrote to apostles in Rome, so bishop Peter would have been under their authority! The Roman account of events and relationships, on all applicable counts, cannot be reconciled with Scripture, and it is no surprise whatever that, early in the Renaissance, independent readers of Scripture rejected it, and had to flee for their lives.

Succession is anyway discounted by Peter, Jude and Paul in their letters, that explicitly warn of false teachers actually inside the church as they wrote. The whole purpose of Christ's coming was to do away with external control as applied to Israel, and even the Israelites had no rulers intended for them, no bishops in the sense that Rome employed them. So it was utterly, deeply and fundamentally inimical to Christianity and Judaism to seek to create a hierarchy and associate it with Christianity. Monarchical bishops were almost certainly devised by Roman emperors to facilitate the erosion of democracy in the church, and control by themselves, which is precisely what any historian would predict would happen, as night follows day. It is quite possible, even probable, that the imperial court had assistance and advice from former Sadducees and Pharisees, who feared Christians as much as corrupt, avaricious Roman patricians did.

Similar considerations regarding church polity apply to the notion that James was the first bishop of Jerusalem. This canard ignores the evidence in Acts that shows that the Jerusalem church was as democratic when advising Antioch as when it 'succeeded' Jesus Himself in replacing Judas. It is based on the flimsiest evidence, which fact is itself effectively self-contradictory. That 'evidence' is selective translation of a single word in Acts, which word has been otherwise accounted for here, but that alternative has been totally ignored.

There is still no real debate here, only shouting and posturing. Nothing more need be said.

LOL

I cannot have conversations where facts are flimsy evidence and what is taken for fact is fantasy.

I am done here.

 

[calluna]

I cannot have conversations where facts are flimsy evidence

Of course you cannot. About ten or fifteen years ago, an Irish Catholic bishop, having witnessed the complete devastation of Catholic arguments on the internet, admitted that the RCC was 'utterly vanquished'. This was no surprise to some of those who realized what the 'net would become, opportunity for real people to have a say, for the first time in the history of the world.

I am done here.

So is everyone else.

But there will still be posts to hide that fact.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Originally Posted by JacktheCatholic

LOL


I love how you throw out all history and facts for this.

I am done here. I cannot have conversations that ignore facts for fantasy.
​

Excellent! My sentiment precisely which is why I have not wasted my time in responding to the OP.

 

[prodromos]

There is still no real debate here, only shouting and posturing. Nothing more need be said.

And therein you have succinctly summed up the content of your post

John

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

LOL

I cannot have conversations where facts are flimsy evidence and what is taken for fact is fantasy.

I am done here.

2 Timothy 4:3 For shall be a time when the being sound teaching not they shall be tolerating, but according to the own desires to selves they shall be heaping up Teachers, being tickled of them the hearing
4 And from indeed the Truth the hearing of them they shall be turning-from, upon yet the myths shall be being turning to.

 

[prodromos]

About ten or fifteen years ago, an Irish Catholic bishop, having witnessed the complete devastation of Catholic arguments on the internet, admitted that the RCC was 'utterly vanquished'.

Hearsay is not evidence. I don't suppose you can provide any references to what you claim?

This was no surprise to some of those who realized what the 'net would become, opportunity for real people to have a say, for the first time in the history of the world.

True, now anyone with an opinion can pretend to be a historian. I'm reminded of all the rubbish produced when desktop publishing software put document design into the hands of people who had no clue about proper design, layout, aesthetics etc.

John