Please Provide Historical Proof That Peter Was The First Pope.

[racer]

Here's another link:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/nopapacy.htm

and another:

http://members.aol.com/jasonte2/denials.htm

 

[racer]

From NTRMin.org researcher, Jason Engwer's series Catholic, But Not Roman Catholic:

Cyprian

"For neither does any of us set himself up as a bishop of bishops, nor by tyrannical terror does any compel his colleague to the necessity of obedience; since every bishop, according to the allowance of his liberty and power, has his own proper right of judgment, and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. But let us all wait for the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is the only one that has the power both of preferring us in the government of His Church, and of judging us in our conduct there." - The Seventh Council of Carthage newadvent.org/fathers/0508.htm

5/25/02

Origen wrote a lot about Christian doctrine, church government, the authority of scripture, church tradition, etc. He never mentioned a papacy. Roman Catholic historian Robert Eno explains that "a plain recognition of Roman primacy or of a connection between Peter and the contemporary bishop of Rome seems remote from Origen's thoughts" (The Rise of the Papacy [Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1990], p. 43). Origen was one of the earliest interpreters of Matthew 16. He contradicted the Roman Catholic interpretation:

"And if we too have said like Peter, 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, 'Thou art Peter,' etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the church, add the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God. But if you suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, 'The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,' hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, 'Upon this rock I will build My church'? Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, 'I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,' be common to the others, how shall not all the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them? For in this place these words seem to be addressed as to Peter only, 'Whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven,' etc; but in the Gospel of John the Saviour having given the Holy Spirit unto the disciples by breathing upon them said, 'Receive ye the Holy Spirit,' etc....And if any one says this to Him, not by flesh and blood revealing it unto Him but through the Father in heaven, he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches, to every one who becomes such as that Peter was." (Commentary on Matthew, 12:10-11)

Catholics often quote passages in which Chrysostom refers to Peter as the first of the apostles, the leader of the apostles, etc. But they don't quote Chrysostom referring to *other* apostles having primacy in *other* passages. For example:

"James was invested with the chief rule [in Acts 15], and think it no hardship. So clean was their soul from love of glory. 'And after that they had held their peace, James answered,' etc. (v. 13.) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part." (Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles, 33)


Are the keys of Matthew 16 exclusive to Peter and the bishops of Rome? John Chrysostom didn't think so:

"the son of thunder [the apostle John], the beloved of Christ, the pillar of the Churches throughout the world, who holds the keys of heaven" (Homilies on the Gospel of John, 1:2)

7/4/02

Cyprian believed in a primacy of Peter, but explains that the primacy is chronological and symbolic, not jurisdictional:

"The Lord speaks to Peter, saying, 'I say unto thee, that thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' And again to the same He says, after His resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' And although to all the apostles, after His resurrection, He gives an equal power, and says, 'As the Father hath sent me, even so send I you: Receive ye the Holy Ghost: Whose soever sins ye remit, they shall be remitted unto him; and whose soever sins ye retain, they shall be retained;' yet, that He might set forth unity, He arranged by His authority the origin of that unity, as beginning from one. Assuredly the rest of the apostles were also the same as was Peter, endowed with a like partnership both of honour and power; but the beginning proceeds from unity." (On the Unity of the Church, 4)

Augustine explains that his view that Peter is the rock of Matthew 16 was later replaced by the view that Christ is the rock. Notice that he refers to his former view being *replaced*, not just adding a second interpretation to it. He says that the reader can decide for himself which interpretation is more likely. He expects the reader to choose between the two, not accept both. Thus, Augustine advocated the *rejection* of the view that Peter is the rock, and he said that others could do the same:

"In a passage in this book, I said about the Apostle Peter: 'On him as on a rock the Church was built.'...But I know that very frequently at a later time, I so explained what the Lord said: 'Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,' that it be understood as built upon Him whom Peter confessed saying: 'Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,' and so Peter, called after this rock, represented the person of the Church which is built upon this rock, and has received 'the keys of the kingdom of heaven.' For, 'Thou art Peter' and not 'Thou art the rock' was said to him. But 'the rock was Christ,' in confessing whom, as also the whole Church confesses, Simon was called Peter. But let the reader decide which of these two opinions is the more probable." (The Retractions, 1:20:1)

What we have, then, is *numerous* authority figures being appealed to, with the bishop of Rome being just one of them. The first letter is sent to multiple bishops, not just the bishop of Rome. The text of the letter refers to the plural "lords":

"Having been informed then of all these things, my lords, most honourable and devout, exhibit the courage and zeal which becomes you, so as to put a stop to this great assault of lawlessness which has been made upon the Churches." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 1:4)

Should we assume that the other bishops Chrysostom wrote to were Popes as well? How about when Chrysostom and other church fathers appeal to government officials, such as emperors, to settle disputes? Should we assume that those government officials have a Divinely approved primacy in matters of faith and morals? If appeals to the bishop of Rome for help are evidence of a Roman papacy, then why wouldn't such appeals for help to other bishops and government officials be evidence of *their* papal authority?

Though the bishop of Rome tried to help Chrysostom, his efforts failed. David Farmer explains:

"although his own people, the pope, and many western bishops supported him [John Chrysostom], he was exiled, first to Cucusus in Armenia and then to Pontus where he was killed by enforced travel in bad weather" (Oxford Dictionary of Saints [New York, New York: Oxford University Press, 1997] p. 267)

The bishop of Rome didn't seem to think he would be able to settle the dispute himself. He tried, instead, to get the authority of an ecumenical council to support Chrysostom:

"But what are we to do against such things at the present time? A synodical decision of them is necessary, and we have long declared that a synod ought to be convened, as it is the only means of allaying the agitation of such tempests as these: and if we obtain this it is expedient that the healing of these evils should be committed to the will of the great God, and His Christ our Lord. All the disturbances then which have been caused by the envy of the devil for the probation of the faithful will be mitigated; through the firmness of our faith we ought not to despair of anything from the Lord. For we ourselves also are considering much by what means the oecumenical synod may be brought together in order that by the will of God these disturbing movements may be brought to an end." (Correspondence of St. Chrysostom with the Bishop of Rome, Letter 4)

This Roman bishop says that a council would be the only means of settling the dispute. Apparently, he didn't think the churches of the world would accept commandments from him alone. But they might listen to an ecumenical council. He was right. John Chrysostom's critics continued to oppose him, unconvinced by the Roman bishop's support of Chrysostom.

Roman Catholic apologists tell us about the alleged jurisdictional primacy of the bishop of Rome, and they hold up past appeals to Rome for help as evidence of such authority. But when that help fails to settle the dispute, and when *other* entities are also appealed to for help, we're not often told about those things by these Catholic apologists.

When the bishop of Rome appeals to an emperor for help in settling a church dispute, should we assume that the emperor has more spiritual authority, and that the other churches wouldn't submit to the bishop of Rome unless the government was with him? When the Second Council of Constantinople claims authority over the bishop of Rome and excommunicates him, should we assume that councils therefore have authority over Roman bishops? Why do Roman Catholic apologists so often ignore such things or dismiss them as insignificant while, at the same time, seeing papal authority under every rock and behind every bush whenever Rome helps somebody or is appealed to for help?

 

[BBAS 64]

From the link I provided:

2. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority,3313 that is, the faithful everywhere, 416 inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

3. The blessed apostles, then, having founded and built up the Church, committed into the hands of Linus the office of the episcopate. Of this Linus, Paul makes mention in the Epistles to Timothy. To him succeeded Anacletus; and after him, in the third place from the apostles, Clement was allotted the bishopric. This man, as he had seen the blessed apostles, and had been conversant with them, might be said to have the preaching of the apostles still echoing [in his ears], and their traditions before his eyes. Nor was he alone [in this], for there were many still remaining who had received instructions from the apostles. In the time of this Clement, no small dissension having occurred among the brethren at Corinth, the Church in Rome despatched a most powerful letter to the Corinthians, exhorting them to peace, renewing their faith, and declaring the tradition which it had lately received from the apostles, proclaiming the one God, omnipotent, the Maker of heaven and earth, the Creator of man, who brought on the deluge, and called Abraham, who led the people from the land of Egypt, spake with Moses, set forth the law, sent the prophets, and who has prepared fire for the devil and his angels. From this document, whosoever chooses to do so, may learn that He, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, was preached by the Churches, and may also understand the apostolical tradition of the Church, since this Epistle is of older date than these men who are now propagating falsehood, and who conjure into existence another god beyond the Creator and the Maker of all existing things. To this Clement there succeeded Evaristus. Alexander followed Evaristus; then, sixth from the apostles, Sixtus was appointed; after him, Telephorus, who was gloriously martyred; then Hyginus; after him, Pius; then after him, Anicetus. Sorer having succeeded Anicetus, Eleutherius does now, in the twelfth place from the apostles, hold the inheritance of the episcopate. In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

​

Now, notice that Irenaeus said that Peter and Paul founded the church in Rome and committed it to the hands of Linus before they were martyred. There is no hint here that Peter was the first bishop of Rome. We could infer from this passage that both Peter and Paul were the first bishops, but I don't even think that technically that is implied in this passage either.

Good Day, Racer

Seems like we are on the same page... now I know I am the right track. I posted that a few posts ago.

Plus I just wanted to say

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Maximus]

Eusebius says St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Linus, whom he mentioned in his Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, has been shown to have been the first after Peter that obtained the episcopate at Rome (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book 3, Chapter 4).

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Eusebius says St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Thank you.

Bishop Eusebius lived from ca. 263-339
That's 200-250 years after the fact...


I understand that the first MENTION of Peter having ever even been in Rome - at all - and it's purely in passing - comes about a century after the Peter's death.


IF history is going to be our support for the self-claim, well - it's not too impressive. I could be considered, of course, but placing a HUGE self-claim and a HUGE aspect of Christianity on such seems a tad shaky to ME. But everyone can (and I guess does) decide for themselves. IF we were just talking history here, I'd probably say it's likely. But we're talking salvation here and a claim that divides Christ's Body in half. I kinda put a little higher bar, a higher standard there.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

All I can say after Maximus (Thank you Maximus!)is could the OP please provide historical proof that Peter was absolutly NOT the Pope?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

All I can say after Maximus (Thank you Maximus!)is could the OP please provide historical proof that Peter was absolutly NOT the Pope?

So, whatever the RC Denomination self-claims is true unless there's PROOF that it's not? Okay...

You might want to read the thread, "Protestant/Catholic, Sola Scriptura and Tradition" in this forum, and also "On the Basis of WHAT Can we Determine Which is Correct?"


Pax.


.

 

[BBAS 64]

Eusebius says St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

Good Day, Max

Hope you have been well, I do not see you around as much when the "IDD" was alive.

I am glad you posted the reference you did, as I was look at some other chapters in the same book. This work seems funny on this whole issue:

CHAPTER 21
Cerdon becomes the Third Ruler of the Church of Alexandria

After Nerva had reigned a little more than a year he was succeeded by Trajan. It was during the first year of his reign that Abilius, who had ruled the church of Alexandria for thirteen years, was succeeded by Cerdon. He was the third that presided over that church after Annianus, who was the first. At that time Clement still ruled the church of Rome, being also the third that held the episcopate there after Paul and Peter. Linus was the first, and after him came Anencletus,

CHAPTER 22
Ignatius, the Second Bishop of AntiochAt this time <A href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07644a.htm">Ignatius was known as the second bishop of Antioch, Evodius having been the first. Symeon likewise was at that time the second ruler of the church of Jerusalem, the brother of our Saviour having been the first.

Now, I am confused.... But I could be sleep deprived.

Peter was never the Bishop of Antioch??
Paul and Peter Held the episcipate in rome, then Linus-1, Anncletus -2, Clement -3.

The whole of #4

CHAPTER 4
The First Successors of the Apostles

That Paul preached to the Gentiles and laid the foundations of the churches "from Jerusalem round about even unto Illyricum," is evident both from his own words, and from theaccount which Luke has given in the Acts.

And in how many provinces Peter preached Christ and taught the doctrine of the new covenant to those of the circumcision is clear from his own words in his epistle already mentioned as undisputed, in which he writes to the Hebrews of the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. But the number and the names of those among them that became true and zealous followers of the apostles, and were judged worthy to tend the churches rounded by them, it is not easy to tell, except those mentioned in the writings of Paul. For he had innumerable fellow-laborers, or "fellow-soldiers," as he called them, and most of them were honored by him with an imperishable memorial, for he gave enduring testimony concerning them in his own epistles. Luke also in the Acts speaks of his friends, and mentions them by name. Timothy, so it is recorded, was the first to receive the episcopate of the parish in Ephesus, Titus of the churches in Crete. But Luke, who was of Antiochian parentage and a physician by profession, and who was especially intimate with Paul and well acquainted with the rest of the apostles, has left us, in two inspired books, proofs of that spiritual healing art which he learned from them. One of these books is the Gospel, which he testifies that he wrote as those who were from the beginning eye witnesses and ministers of the word delivered unto him, all of whom, as he says, he followed accurately from the first. The other book is the Acts of the Apostles which he composed not from the accounts of others, but from what he had seen himself. And they say that Paul meant to refer to Luke's Gospel wherever, as if speaking of some gospel of his own, he used the words, "according to my Gospel." As to the rest of his followers, Paul testifies that Crescens was sent to Gaul; but Linus, whom he mentions in the Second Epistle to Timothy as his companion at Rome, was Peter's successor in the episcopate of the church there, as has already been shown. Clement also, who was appointed third bishop of the church at Rome, was, as Paul testifies, his co-laborer and fellow-soldier. Besides these, that Areopagite, named Dionysius, who was the first to believe after Paul's address to the Athenians in the Areopagus is mentioned by another Dionysius, an ancient writer and pastor of the parish in Corinth, as the first bishop of the church at Athens. But the events connected with the apostolic succession we shall relate at the proper time. Meanwhile let us continue the course of our history.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/250103.htm


Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Pope= Bishop of Rome..... Pope= Papa Pope=Patriarch Our Orthodox brethren don't deny it because they know the truth. Our only issue is the issue of Papal Supremecy....but we do agree that Peter was the "First among equals"
I can't quite grasp how people will try to tear the Early Church down, which was Catholic and Orthodox.... we compiled all the sacred writings, preserved Christian history for you(especially the Bible) you accept the Bible but nothing else....and this all happened way after the Reformation.....even those men knew better....sheesh

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Pope= Bishop of Rome..... Pope= Papa Pope=Patriarch Our Orthodox brethren don't deny it because they know the truth. Our only issue is the issue of Papal Supremecy....but we do agree that Peter was the "First among equals"
I can't quite grasp how people will try to tear the Early Church down, which was Catholic and Orthodox.... we compiled all the sacred writings, preserved Christian history for you(especially the Bible) you accept the Bible but nothing else....and this all happened way after the Reformation.....even those men knew better....sheesh

Most of the world knows it....

Happy Birthday!

 

[BBAS 64]

All I can say after Maximus (Thank you Maximus!)is could the OP please provide historical proof that Peter was absolutly NOT the Pope?

Good Day, Epiphanygirl

That assumes that the history is clear on the title "pope" only being used in referance to the Bishop of Rome alone. Such a assumption is very problematic historicly. Proving a negitive is not a very logical way to make a point.

You may wish to read the whole of book 3, where Max's quote comes from.

Peace to u,

Bill

 

[Maximus]

Thank you.

Bishop Eusebius lived from ca. 263-339
That's 200-250 years after the fact...


I understand that the first MENTION of Peter having ever even been in Rome - at all - and it's purely in passing - comes about a century after the Peter's death.


IF history is going to be our support for the self-claim, well - it's not too impressive. I could be considered, of course, but placing a HUGE self-claim and a HUGE aspect of Christianity on such seems a tad shaky to ME. But everyone can (and I guess does) decide for themselves. IF we were just talking history here, I'd probably say it's likely. But we're talking salvation here and a claim that divides Christ's Body in half. I kinda put a little higher bar, a higher standard there.


Pax.


- Josiah


.

Eusebius based his history on the work of Hegesippus, who wrote a history of the Church in about 165. Unfortunately for us, Hegesippus' original work is lost.

The claim that St. Peter was Bishop of Rome did not divide the Church in half. It was accepted by the entire Church until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. At that time it became necessary for some to call it into question, after they had left the Church.

By the way, how do we know what books should be in the Bible?

The Bible itself does not say.

What work is it that mentions the complete canon of Scripture before the Council of Carthage in 397?

St. Athanasius mentions, if I recall correctly, a canon of 22 New Testament books in the 4th century.

Eusebius, writing at about the same time, mentions the New Testament canon, but he says the authenticity of some of the books - like Revelation, James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, and 2 and 3 John - was disputed.

If the Church can be trusted to have passed down by word of mouth the tradition of which books were inspired, then why can't she be trusted to have passed down the tradition that St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome?

 

[Axion]

I understand that the first MENTION of Peter having ever even been in Rome - at all - and it's purely in passing - comes about a century after the Peter's death.

IF history is going to be our support for the self-claim, well - it's not too impressive. I could be considered, of course, but placing a HUGE self-claim and a HUGE aspect of Christianity on such seems a tad shaky to ME. But everyone can (and I guess does) decide for themselves. IF we were just talking history here, I'd probably say it's likely. But we're talking salvation here and a claim that divides Christ's Body in half. I kinda put a little higher bar, a higher standard there.

There are none so blind as those who WILL not see.

The evidence that Peter was martyred in Rome and led the Church ( some of which has been rehearsed on this thread) is pretty overwhelming - more than enough to convince 99.9% of neutral learned observers. As for the others, if you showed them a signed inscription from the Emperor Nero verifying Peter's role in Rome and his death in the Roman Circus that lies under St Peter's - they would still say it wasn't enough, was forged, was improperly verified, or whatever.

Peter was appointed Leader of the Church by Jesus, and his successors carry that authority - end of story.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

So, whatever the RC Denomination self-claims is true unless there's PROOF that it's not? Okay...

You might want to read the thread, "Protestant/Catholic, Sola Scriptura and Tradition" in this forum, and also "On the Basis of WHAT Can we Determine Which is Correct?"


Pax.


.

Our faith has already preserved the truth through Bible+ Tradition....it has been this way from the very begining of Christianity...it is not for us to prove to you, but for you to prove to us that we are wrong..... Your proof goes back..well...some of you even deny what the Reformers belived so I guess within the past hundred years..... sorry....
We know that the very earliest of Christian worshipped in catacombs, we know that they were persecuted, martyred, etc..... I've given you the link that proves the essentials of Catholic preserving that same faith in the Eucharist, intercession of Saints, baptism,..... in the other thread.....it's for you to read and actually study....I've done my homework, go do yours.

 

[Maximus]

Good Day, Epiphanygirl

That assumes that the history is clear on the title "pope" only being used in referance to the Bishop of Rome alone. Such a assumption is very problematic historicly. Proving a negitive is not a very logical way to make a point.

You may wish to read the whole of book 3, where Max's quote comes from.

Peace to u,

Bill

No one is disputing the fact that the title of pope was used in other sees.

It was used, for example, of the Bishop of Alexandria. To this day the Bishop of Alexandria is referred to as pope. The title simply means "father" or papa.

The real issue is whether St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

He was.

The bishops of Rome also came to be called pope.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

Most of the world knows it....

Happy Birthday!

Thank you

 

[Epiphanygirl]

No one is disputing the fact that the title of pope was used in other sees.

It was used, for example, of the Bishop of Alexandria. To this day the Bishop of Alexandria is referred to as pope. The title simply means "father" or papa.

The real issue is whether St. Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.

He was.

The bishops of Rome also came to be called pope.

Yep... ROFL It's funny how our Churches are the ones that use the "title" but other people try to tell us what it means..... I swear, they put more emphasis on it then we do...and then they accuse of of paying him too much attention

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Our faith has already preserved the truth through Bible+ Tradition....

So your particular denomination self-claims...

it has been this way from the very begining of Christianity...

So your particular denomination self-claims...

it is not for us to prove to you, but for you to prove to us that we are wrong.....

Lost me there...

YOUR denomination makes the claim, but it's up to me to prove it wrong?

Doesn't the one making the claim have the burden of proof?

Okay, I claim I was born on the Planet Kabob. Prove me wrong! Can't? Well, then it MUST be right. Is that your position?

Your proof goes back..well...some of you even deny what the Reformers belived so I guess within the past hundred years..... sorry....

I didn't claim my denomination is the Church of Christ.
I didn't claim my denomination IS the "one only catholic church."
I didn't claim the leader of my denomination is infallible.
I didn't claim obedience to the leader of my denomination is absolutely necessary for salvation.
I didn't claim the leader of my denomination comes from a line that goes back to the first Bishop of Rome.
Shall I go on????


Pax.


- Josiah


.

 

[Epiphanygirl]

So your particular denomination self-claims...



So your particular denomination self-claims...





Lost me there...

YOUR denomination makes the claim, but it's up to me to prove it wrong?

Doesn't the one making the claim have the burden of proof?

Okay, I claim I was born on the Planet Kabob. Prove me wrong! Can't? Well, then it MUST be right. Is that your position?




I didn't claim my denomination is the Church of Christ.
I didn't claim my denomination IS the "one only catholic church."
I didn't claim the leader of my denomination is infallible.
I didn't claim obedience to the leader of my denomination is absolutely necessary for salvation.
I didn't claim the leader of my denomination comes from a line that goes back to the first Bishop of Rome.
Shall I go on????


Pax.


- Josiah


.

No , its not just "my denomination" Catholic's aren't a denomination...This self claim is by the earliest Churchs...Catholic/Orthodox...and Anglo-Catholics as well.... not gonna leave my Anglo brethren out.

What is this obsession with "self-claim" anyway"? Christ "self-claimed" didn't he? And as we are the Church that Christ founded on Peter...yeah, we self-claim then!!

 

[Epiphanygirl]

I didn't claim my denomination is the Church of Christ.
I didn't claim my denomination IS the "one only catholic church."

I didn't claim the leader of my denomination is infallible.
I didn't claim obedience to the leader of my denomination is absolutely necessary for salvation.
I didn't claim the leader of my denomination comes from a line that goes back to the first Bishop of Rome.
Shall I go on????

Because you can't.
Because you can't, because you can't, etc......
We can I think it's the "we can" that bothers you for some reason.