Protestant Poll: Peter in Rome?

[Philothei]

IF it is not in the scriptures we can pass it by as hearsay and not factual for a belief.

Then we should not televise or broadcast our services sine it is not in the bible also... Televangelism is not found in the bible... is it? Why practice it?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Televangelism is not found in the bible... is it? Why practice it?

Praxis is not Dogma.

There is no Dogma of "You Must Televise Worship Services" in any denomination, known to me.


Now, back to the issue of what contemporary, confirmable history do we have that Peter was in Rome, and how that therefore makes it true that he was the first specific POPE in the full, 2008 sense of that term in the RCC, and that he was therefore the institutional head of the specific, particular Catholic denomination and thus that specific denomination is infallible, taht when it speaks Jesus speaks, and all must accept whatever it says "with docility" because Peter was the first specific POPE of that specific institution.





.





.

 

[Philothei]

I was talking with Mama Z and she said belief not dogma...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Then we should not televise or broadcast our services sine it is not in the bible also... Televangelism is not found in the bible... is it? Why practice it?

Ya just can't stop progress and technology

 

[Trento]

If we are to hold it as truth for the Body of Christ then Yes it will be in the scriptures. IF it is not in the scriptures we can pass it by as hearsay and not factual for a belief.

I'll ask again where in the New Testament do we learn of there being a list of inspired
books and letters that together form a definitive literary body of work to be obeyed by all
Christians.


If all scripture is inspired, then we need to find out what books and letters
constitute inspired scripture. Does the New Testament tell us that? If you do not answer that you are fooling no one here who has a basic knowledge of Christian history.

 

[Philothei]

your avatar is a blast.. .LLOJ....lol.... I do feel like dancing

 

[Trento]

Ya just can't stop progress and technology

Yes thank God for bullet proof glass. That first bullet was close enough.

 

[Uphill Battle]

Yes thank God for bullet proof glass. That first bullet was close enough.

I've often wondered about that. If God's favorite needs bulletproof glass... what chance do the rest of us suckers have?

 

[Trento]

Now, back to the issue of what contemporary, confirmable history do we have that Peter was in Rome, and how that therefore makes it true that he was the first specific POPE in the full, 2008 sense of that term in the RCC, and that he was therefore the institutional head of the specific, particular Catholic denomination and thus that specific denomination is infallible, taht when it speaks Jesus speaks, and all must accept whatever it says "with docility" because Peter was the first specific POPE of that specific institution.

If you read the History of Rome I, Vol XI, col 637) you will find that both Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian III talk about the primacy of the Apostolic See in Rome, made firm on account of the merits of Peter, Chief of the Corona of Bishops.

Your own leader says; “I never approved of a schism, nor will I approve of it for all eternity. . . . That the Roman Church is more honored by God than all others is not to be doubted. St, Peter and St. Paul, forty-six Popes, some hundreds of thousands of martyrs, have laid down their lives in its communion, having overcome Hell and the world; so that the eyes of God rest on the Roman church with special favor. Though nowadays everything is in a wretched state, it is no ground for separating from the Church. On the contrary, the worse things are going, the more should we hold close to her, for it is not by separating from the Church that we can make her better. We must not separate from God on account of any work of the devil, nor cease to have fellowship with the children of God who are still abiding in the pale of Rome on account of the multitude of the ungodly. There is no sin, no amount of evil, which should be permitted to dissolve the bond of charity or break the bond of unity of the body. For love can do all things, and nothing is difficult to those who are united.”

Martin Luther to Pope Leo X, January 6, 1519
more than a year after the Ninety-Five Theses
quoted in The Facts about Luther, 356​

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy:
​

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility. The Church and Infallibility by B.C. Butler pgs. 136-137 (c. 1954
​

Protestant J.B. Lightfoot Church historian scholar-- commenting on Clements letter to the Cornithians A D 90

'It may perhaps seem strange to describe this noble remonstrance as the first step towards papal dominion. And yet undoubtedly this is the case'
​

St. Clement of Rome, pg 698.

On St. Clement of Rome (c. 96 AD), reckoned as the fourth Pope from St. Peter, Schaff states --
​

"...it can hardly be denied that the document [Clement to the Corinthians] reveals the sense of a certain superiority over all ordinary congregations. The Roman church here, without being asked (as far as appears), gives advice, with superior administrative wisdom, to an important church in the East, dispatches messengers to her, and exhorts her to order and unity in a tone of calm dignity and authority, as the organ of God and the Holy Spirit. This is all the more surprising if St. John, as is probable, was then still living in Ephesus, which was
​

nearer to Corinth than Rome." (Schaff, page 158)


For additional testimony, the Protestant scholar Dr. T. G. Jalland-- It is important to note that from the earliest records we have (late first century to early second century) there was a noticeable degree of traffic to Rome by a whole host of different personages. These people were both orthodox and heterodox. They traveled the roads of the Empire in no small degree to presumably present their philosophies to Rome for approval. This trend only increased throughout the subsequent centuries. Dr. Jalland raises some questions that bear reflecting upon concerning this unmistakable (and interesting) trend:

How can we explain this second century drang nach Rom? May there not have been, common to [the orthodox and the heterodox alike], that in some way or another, the Roman see had an inherent right to pronounce an opinion on their doctrine, and moreover their decision, i.e. whether favourable or adverse, would seriously affect the prospects of success in obtaining for their teaching general acceptance by the Church at large?. . . If the attitude of the Roman see was unfavourable . . . the teacher responsible for the condemned doctrine . . . usually stayed on in Rome . . . and in extreme cases managed to procure the election of a rival bishop of Rome. . . Thus, in a negative no less then in a positive direction there are strong indicators that de facto if not de jure the Roman see was being treated as the universal referee and its doctrine as the norm.

Protestant scholar John Lawson’s work The Biblical Theology of St. Irenaeus had this to say about the Bishop of Lyons and his view of the Roman church and its primacy:

[W]hat church can compare with Rome? She is the life-work of the two greatest Apostles, known of all and knowing all, she is a supreme witness to the unified voice of the Church. If it is necessary for each and all to consent to the voice of the whole Church, how necessary is it for all to consent to Rome? To S. Irenaeus Rome was most certainly an authority none must question, as she cannot be imagined as ever in error. The word ‘infallible’ to some extent begs the question, for the use of it imports into the discussion the results of later definition. It is nevertheless a word which is difficult to do without. With this proviso we may say that Irenaeus regarded Rome as the very corner-stone and typification of a whole structure of ecclesiastical infallibility.



​

Phillip Schaff Protestant Patristic and historical scholar-- HISTORY of the CHRISTIAN CHURCH
​

​

From the beginning of Chapter 4--41. AD 100 Progress in Consolidation.

In the external organization of the church, several important changes appear in the period before us. The distinction of clergy and laity, and the sacerdotal view of the ministry becomes prominent and fixed; subordinate church offices are multiplied; the episcopate arises; the beginnings of the Roman primacy appear; and the exclusive unity of the Catholic church develops itself in opposition to heretics and schismatics. The apostolical organization of the first century now gives place to the Catholic episcopal system.

Jesus peter and the Keys by Scott Butler


Care to produce ONE ancient quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then perhaps you has an argument. Yet, until such time, the ancient witness stands firm and consistent.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Care to produce ONE ancient quote that DENIES that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome, then perhaps you has an argument. Yet, until such time, the ancient witness stands firm and consistent.

I would be curious to see that also, as I do not read what the "ancients" have to say about the Bible anyway.

http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?t=6730673&page=7
Who really cares what the ECF's had to say?

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Trento,

YES, we all know, some wrote LONG after Peter's death, that Peter was in Rome.
Nice. Thank you for confirming what we all already knew.
That is no evidence that he was.
Nor is it evidence that he was a POPE there.
Nor that he was the POPE of the specific, particular CATHOLIC CHURCH.





.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

.......YES, we all know, some wrote LONG after Peter's death, that Peter was in Rome......

Well this is an interesting statement. Since Peter's death is not recorded in the Bible, and since you reject the ECF's writings about Peter, how do you know what year he died in? I'm curious as to what source you are using for the year of Peter's death?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Well this is an interesting statement. Since Peter's death is not recorded in the Bible, and since you reject the ECF's writings about Peter, how do you know what year he died in? I'm curious as to what source you are using for the year of Peter's death?

Well we do know at the time of these verses, they were both pretty close to "death"......

2 peter 1:14 Having known that speedily is the putting off of the booth/skhnw-matoV <4638> of me, according as also the Lord of us, Jesus Christ, makes evident to me.

2 Timothy 4:6 For I am already being poured out and the time of the my up-loosing/ana-lusewV <359> is come.
7 The ideal contest I have contested, the run/race I have finished, the faith I have kept

 

[CaliforniaJosiah]

Well this is an interesting statement. Since Peter's death is not recorded in the Bible, and since you reject the ECF's writings about Peter, how do you know what year he died in? I'm curious as to what source you are using for the year of Peter's death?

I was responding to two statements: one from 1519 and the other from 1954. Is it your position that St. Peter was the Pope of the Catholic Church in 1519 and 1954?


I noted the obvious. YES, we all know, it was claimed that Peter was in Rome. Actually, I'm not sure too many contest that (I don't) but it's not contemporary history, as I'd hope all would admit (but it seems not). Now, where I depart from this is at the point of what that means. Even if he was in Rome (and I'd say it's likely he was), so what? My sister was in Rome, too. She loved it. Meet nice people, took a lot of pictures, enjoyed the food. Now, what does that prove about the specific, particular Catholic denomination? Absolutely nothing. So with Peter. Now, it's interesting, because we have much better history for Peter being in Jerusalem and for Paul being in Rome and yet all that seems moot and is just dismissed because SOMEHOW, the RCC has to connect a LOT of dots in hopes of giving some credence to its remarkable claims of itself alone for itself alone, but as we see, right from the start, it's hardly solid - and it gets a lot worse from here.




.

 

[Trento]

Trento,

YES, we all know, some wrote LONG after Peter's death, that Peter was in Rome.
Nice. Thank you for confirming what we all already knew.

.

In the real world we know:

'...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.'
Protestant Patristic scholar Adolph . Harnack

Harnack is calling you a blind-man.

If evidence for Peter being in Rome be not deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate including the Table of contents of scripture.
The archaeological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it impossable to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martyrdom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism.

It is well established that Babylon is a code name for Rome. It is used in this way in the Revelation to St. John (The Apocalypse) six times:-- Examples

Revelation 14:8, "And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication."
​

Revelation 16:19, "And the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came in remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of his wrath

As you may know, some anti-Catholics like to associate the city/state of Rome with the Catholic Church. Of course, this is not Biblically sound. But they can’t have it both ways. If Babylon refers to Rome, then St. Peter was indeed writing from Rome.
​

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I was responding to two statements: one from 1519 and the other from 1954. Is it your position that St. Peter was the Pope of the Catholic Church in 1519 and 1954?

I thought you were referring to ECF wtritings. My mistake. I'm man enough to man-up to my goofs.

I noted the obvious. YES, we all know, it was claimed that Peter was in Rome. Actually, I'm not sure too many contest that (I don't)....

You don't? Well, thats good. Maybe you could convince Lamb.

 

[bbbbbbb]

In in my opinion,the word "pope" is an English language corruption. Latin based languages - such as Spanish or Italian - say "papa" which just means "father".

A good allegory is the word "Sunday". In Spanish they say "Domingo" which roughly translates as "Lords Day", but the English language gives us something totally different. Same with Easter; in Latin its the Pasch, from the word for Passover. But English gives us some pagan word.

So English really screws up Catholic terminology. Thats why I crack up when people say the the Bishop of Rome is not the same thing as the Pope. He is. Its just that in English we say pope. The weird thing is that we call our priests "father" but for some reason we call the pope "pope".

Id say his most accurate title is Bishop of Rome

Thank you. I agree with you concerning the meaning of the word, pope. Indeed, one might say that all priests are popes. However, it would be disingenuous to do so because the office of the Bishop of Rome has gained the title of Pope, or the Papacy, in popular nomenclature.

Because of the stated evolution of that office to the present time, it is, I believe, most accurate, to state that none of the gentlemen listed as holding that office during the first two centuries resembled the holder of the present office in any meaningful way, other than perhaps they might be considered to be fathers to other Christians.

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

I've often wondered about that. If God's favorite needs bulletproof glass... what chance do the rest of us suckers have?

He uses that glass for the same reason that we use seatbelts. The precaution is proportionate to the danger or threat.

For him to just go out without protection would be playing fast and loose with his life, and that would be a sin

 

[Tu Es Petrus]

Thank you. I agree with you concerning the meaning of the word, pope. Indeed, one might say that all priests are popes. However, it would be disingenuous to do so because the office of the Bishop of Rome has gained the title of Pope, or the Papacy, in popular nomenclature.

Because of the stated evolution of that office to the present time, it is, I believe, most accurate, to state that none of the gentlemen listed as holding that office during the first two centuries resembled the holder of the present office in any meaningful way, other than perhaps they might be considered to be fathers to other Christians.

Well, all I would say to that is, after two thousand years, it is logical that the massive changes in size and scope of the Body of Christ would be reflected in the size and scope of the office of its earthly pastor.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

He uses that glass for the same reason that we use seatbelts. The precaution is proportionate to the danger or threat.

For him to just go out without protection would be playing fast and loose with his life, and that would be a sin

Doesn't he have FAITH?

Matthew 21:21 Answering the Jesus said to them, "Verily I am saying to ye, if ever ye may be having Faith and no ye may be doubting, not only the of the fig-tree ye shall be doing, but even-ever to the Mountain, this ye may saying 'be being lifted up! and be being cast! into the Sea' it shall be becoming"; [Revelation 8:8]

Reve 8:8 And the second Messenger trumpets and as-like a Mountain, great to fire burning, was cast into the Sea and became the third of the Sea blood [Matthew 21:21/Hebrew 12:18]