RELIGION

[MrBiddle]

---

As a 4-year-old child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows:

"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 what-

soever thou shalt bind upon earth shall be bound in heaven,

and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth shall be loosed

in heaven.�

Those words, I was taught, spoken by Christ to the Apostle Peter, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Peter was the first pope, and that he was the rock on which Christ built His Church - the Roman Catholic Church, the only true Church. It is upon these two vitally important Scriptures, therefore, that the entire Roman Catholic monolith is supported. For, if Peter is not Catholicism’s foundation rock, if he was not the first pope, if he was not endowed with infallibility, then all its popes have been frauds, and all its claims of divine authorization are reduced to wishful vagaries. In this critical matter, history – not anti-Catholic "heretics" – is the Vatican’s most relentless, indefatigable enemy.

It shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway. Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches. Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss. The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.� In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.

Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter. That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.

“Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed,

on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son

of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son

of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.�

Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven. But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo – get this, now – in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY. Moreover, Augustine’s conviction – based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time.

Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lord’s brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successor as bishop of Rome, with binding and loosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to church historian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at once an issue, and Stephen’s effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I.

So, even when Constantine the Great convoked the famous Council of Nicaea early in the FOURTH CENTURY there was no pope and no papacy. Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Rome’s papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus – highest priest. Inasmuch as the Pontifex Maximus title is one of the many applied to Roman Catholic popes, Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time, should have had that title if he was the reigning pope. He was not the pope or a pope, and he was not even in attendance at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea.

In that fourth century, five episcopates emerged as jurisdictional centers to which individual independent churches could look for counsel in ecclesiastical matters. These five were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. In AD 387, just before the Roman Empire split into separate East and West divisions, Siricius, another bishop of Rome, once again tried to highjack Christendom, and with the same result as Calixtus and Stephen. Nobody paid any attention.

More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches. In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie, Augustine was the secretary. History shows he fully supported the synod’s decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See.

The actual hijacking of Christendom by the bishops of Rome, then, did not take place in the first 500 years after Christ. In truth, it hasn’t really taken place at all, because the eastern branch of Christendom has never accepted Rome’s self-assumed primacy. For the beginning of the successful takeover of the western branch of Christianity – the Latin churches - we must move to the very middle of the FIFTH CENTURY, to the episcopate of Leo 1 (Leo the Great), bishop of Rome AD 440-461. He assumed the title, “Primate of All Bishops,� and for validation of his theft obtained the endorsement of Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III. Wonderful! A self-styled “Vicar of Christ� seeking – not the approval of God - but the approval of a secular entity to be the “Vicar of Christ.�

Leo intimidated a lot of people by his various claims, one of which was, “Lord of the Whole Church,� but when he declared that resisting his absolute authority would condemn a soul to the fires of hell, the delegates to the AD 451 Council of Chalcedon put their collective feet down. Leo was denied his endorsement, and at the end of the fifth century, there still was no pope and no papacy. What amazes about all this is how the Vatican has been able to obliterate the actual early Church history, successfully replacing it with the fairytales of “apostolic succession� and an “unbroken chain of popes� stretching all the way back to Peter.

The first bishop of Rome to wield the kind of power for which the papacy is now known, was Gregory 1 (Gregory the Great) whose 14-year episcopate began in the very last decade of the SIXTH CENTURY – AD 590-604. But this man was adamantly opposed to the very papal office that the Vatican insists he occupied as the 64th successor to the Apostle Peter. In a letter to Maurice, the Emperor, Gregory had this to say:

“I confidently affirm that who so calls himself, or desires to be called Universal Priest, (Pontifex Maximus), in his pride goes before anti-Christ……St. Peter is not called Universal Apostle ….Far from CHRISTIAN (not Catholic) hearts be that blasphemous name.�

To the bishop of Antioch in another letter, Gregory wrote that the title of Universal (Catholic) Bishop was:

“profane, superstitious, haughty, and invented by the first apostate."

No matter that Gregory I refused such a signal honor, and believed that anyone claiming to be universal (katholikos) bishop would in fact be Anti-Christ. A successor, Boniface III, AD 607-8, coerced the Emperor, Phocas, to confer upon him that very title of Universal Bishop, papa, or pope, of all Christendom. The eastern churches refused to submit to his self-assumed authority, however, so Boniface and all his successors have had to settle for a partial monarchy ruling only the western churches. Historically, then Rome’s claims of a papacy begun with Peter and stretching down the annals of time to the present are proven falsehoods.

And, even after Boniface III succeeded in gaining for bishops of Rome the coveted title of papa, there was stubborn resistance to their claimed authority lasting into the ninth century. Then, in the episcopate of Nicholas I (Nicholas the Great), bishop of Rome AD 858-867, documents known today as the pseudo-Isidorean Decretals appeared on the stage of history. Contained in this fortuitous discovery were letters allegedly written by “popes� prior to Nicaea (AD 325) and from Clement 1 to Miltiades. All are blatant forgeries! (They had to be, for there were no popes and no papacy in that time frame.)

Also included in the collection were letters of popes from Sylvester 1 (4th century) to Gregory II (8th century) in which are more than 40 falsifications. But the most pope-friendly inclusion in the decretals was a document entitled, “The Donation of Constantine.� Thought to be authentic for 600 years, and used successfully by bishops of Rome as grounds for their claims to primacy, it actually contained the ultimate proof that popes and the papacy are NOT DIVINELY ORDAINED, but are simply another invention of mere mortals.

On the one hand, Rome teaches that Christ ordained Peter as the head of His Church, the rock on which it was founded, and the first pope. But for 600 years – from the ninth to the fifteenth century, the Donation of Constantine was invoked as the historical event granting to bishops of Rome ecclesiastical authority over all of Christendom and its episcopates, and temporal power over Rome and the entire Western Roman Empire.

Allegedly donated by Constantine the Great to Sylvester 1, bishop of Rome AD 314-335, it was used by Nicholas I to dispel opposition to popes and the papacy, and history shows that, from the ninth century to the present, bishops of Rome have been unopposed as exclusive occupants of the office of pope. In AD 1054, Leo IX tried to use the Donation of Constantine to secure control of the eastern as well as the western churches. The patriarch of Constantinople suggested Leo should mind his own business, and the split of the eastern (Orthodox) churches from Rome became permanent thereafter.

The Donation of Constantine was shown to be a deliberate forgery in AD 1440 by Lorenzo Valla, but not before the Vatican had used it to permanently secure its position of primacy over the entire western church, and to exercise nearly absolute control over kings and nations for 500 years as well. What is most interesting about this forged document and Rome’s use of it, is the secular source from which Rome allegedly derived its ecclesiastical and temporal power - its papacy. Where in history do we find Constantine invested with the power and authority to appoint a monarch over the Church of the living God? Isn’t the use of the Donation of Constantine by numerous popes eloquent proof that popes and the papacy are frauds, not initiated by Christ, but founded on the forged documents of men greedy for power?

[centepede]

1timothy 3:16 All scripture are given inspiration by God, and it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for instructions, unto all unrighteouseness.

That's second Timothy I guess (2 Tim 3: 16 ) nonetheless I hope you keep posting in here...

the disappearance of the theological expert you are rebuking is mysterious. But I hope people like you who accept the all-suffiency and inerrance of the Bible as compiled by God himself continue to post here.

thank you for your correction, may Thy God Blesses you more[br]Date Posted: September 13, 2005, 05:41:41 PM_________________________________________________

As a 4-year-old child in a family of devout Roman Catholics, I could recite by heart Matthew 16:18 and 19 long before I could read or write. On cue, when prompted by parent or sibling, I would emote as follows:

Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* Â* "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church,

......................
On Whom Is The Church Founded?
The Apostle Peter himself explained in the Bible on whom the church was founded. He said that Jesus was the cornerstone: This Jesus is the stone rejected by you the builders which has become the cornerstone. There is no salvation in anyone else, for there is no other name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved (Acts 4:11-12).
To have a Biblical basis for the papacy, the Roman Catholic church neglects the numerous passages such as the one above which clearly teach that Christ is the head and foundation of the church, and quotes a short part of a passage from the Gospel of Matthew. They neglect to realize that even if the church was founded on Peter, there is nothing in this passage to infer that his status was passed on to the popes. I quote that passage here, with a few verses which precede it, and will add to our understanding.
They replied, "some say John the Baptizer, others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets." "And you, who do you say that I am?"
"You are the Messiah," Simon Peter answered, "the Son of the living God!"
Jesus replied, "Blest are you, Simon son of Jonah! No mere man has revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. I for my part declare to you, you are "Rock," and on this rock I will build my church, and the jaws of death shall not prevail against it (Matthew 16:14-1. In Greek, the original language of the New Testament, Christ calls Peter "Rock" (masculine gender) then says "on this rock" (feminine gender) I will build my church. What is the rock on which the church is built? The usual Catholic interpretation is Peter, but the difference in gender makes this questionable. Then, just five verses ahead, Jesus reproves Peter with such severity that He calls him Satan. In the context itself then, it is equally possible that the "rock" upon which the church is founded is found in the statement that Peter made, You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.
If we will let the passages in other parts of the Bible that refer to the same subject help us decide who it is that the church is founded upon, we find that it is Christ. No one can lay a foundation other than the one that has been laid, namely Jesus Christ (1·Corinthians 3:11).
Peter certainly should have understood whether the church was founded on himself or on Christ, and he wrote that it was on Jesus Christ: For Scripture has it: "See, I am laying a cornerstone in Zion, an approved stone, and precious. He who puts his faith in it shall not be shaken." The stone is of value for you who have faith. For those without faith, it is rather, "A stone which the builders rejected that became a cornerstone." It is likewise "an obstacle and stumbling stone." Those who stumble and fall are the disbelievers in God's word; it belongs to their destiny to do so (1 Peter 2:6-. Peter understood Christ to be the cornerstone, the foundation of the church, and was obviously referring to Him in this passage.
Christ Himself said, Are you not familiar with this passage of Scripture: The stone rejected by the builders has become the keystone of the structure (Mark 12:10). The Jews understood that in saying this, Jesus was claiming to be their Messiah, and since they did not want Him to be their head they immediately tried to kill Him, stumbling on the stone, as the Scriptures had predicted. Later they succeeded, but He rose from the dead and became the stone upon which the church was founded. Will you accept Christ as the foundation and director of your life?
Returning then, to Matthew 16:14-18, with this background from the Scriptures, it seems clear that The rock to which Jesus referred was not Peter himself, but his confession: You are the messiah, the Son of the living God.
Even if this were not true, and Peter were the rock upon which the church was founded, there is still no Biblical reason to think that Peter's authority was passed on to others, and that the popes are his successors. Neither is there reason to believe that this idea was accepted by the early church. In fact the idea of a "pope" developed a little bit at a time and it was only in 1870 that the infallibility of the pope became a dogma. Even then there was a strong opposition to the idea from within the Roman Catholic church itself. There is just no real foundation to the idea that one man, other than Jesus Christ Himself, has the authority over us that the Pope claims to have, although there are good reasons why he may want us to believe it.
It is also rather confusing that the Pope ties his claim to authority, infallibility, and the right to have others bow down to him, to his being the successor to Peter. Peter certainly never claimed these things. Just the opposite! When one tried to bow before him he said, Get up! I am only a man myself (Acts 10:26).
In addition, Paul found it necessary to rebuke Peter very severely, not because he was infallible, but because he was wrong. He wrote, When Cephas (Peter) came to Antioch I directly withstood him, because he was clearly in the wrong (Gal. 2:11). Nor was this the first big mistake that Peter made. We all remember how Peter denied Christ three times at the very moment of our Lord's trial and condemnation. I don't want to take away anything from this great apostle, but it is not logical to claim that the pope's infallibility was handed down to him from a man who made mistakes and his authority over the church came from a man who refused to let people bow down to him.
Since the true church is founded on Jesus Christ, we should find a church that does not preach another salvation based on works and sacraments, but one which has as its base the Holy Bible, and the one name in the whole world given to men by which we are to be saved. Since virtually everything that can be known about Christ is found in the Bible, don't go to a church which has some other authority, whether it be the pope, the Book of Mormon, the Watch Tower, or even its own pastor's alleged communications with God. If you can be comfortable in a church without taking your Bible, there is probably something wrong.


I hope this will enlighten us.
[br]Date Posted: September 13, 2005, 06:15:22 PM_________________________________________________

kung wla paka ha ta gisakop sa mga Spaniards which sla man ang nka influensya sa atong country? Unsa ka ha possible naÂ* religion krun?

Probably Islam.

Betulkah? could be possible, raja word, is a bahasa Islam for the word king, no doubt islam dinhi. Raja Humabon, and many more.

[MrBiddle]

Centepede, indeed The Chief Cornerstone or Foundation Rock of the church (Eph. 2: 20, 1 Pet.2: 4 - 8, Deut. 32: 4, 15, 18, NAB 1 Cor. 3: 11 ) has been mentioned but for the sake of people who are new to the thread and choose to browse these later pages instead thanks for the recap.

I hope people like you or Meganda continue to keep watch here. Thanks.

God Bless.

[dacs]

... For, if Peter is not Catholicism’s foundation rock, if he was not the first pope, if he was not endowed with infallibility, then all its popes have been frauds, and all its claims of divine authorization are reduced to wishful vagaries. In this critical matter, history – not anti-Catholic "heretics" – is the Vatican’s most relentless, indefatigable enemy.

This is good. Now you are talking sense. Please remember your words. You are saying in your last statement that history is the most relentless and indefatigable enemy of the Catholic Church. I have to ask : what kind of history are you reading? You have been presented - time and again - verifiable facts of history; yet, you will not listen. Yeah, your kind of history is indeed the most relentless of all who would not obey Christ.

It shows, for example, that no bishop of Rome considered himself to have any greater authority than the many other bishops, nor sought monarchial authority over all Christendom, until the 3rd century was well underway.

"The church of God which sojourns at Rome to the church of God which sojourns at Corinth ... But if any disobey the words spoken by him through us, let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger."
Clement of Rome, Pope, 1st Epistle to the Corinthians, 1, 59:1 (A.D. 96)

"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the Church which has obtained mercy, through the majesty of the Mast High God the Father, and of Jesus Christ, His only-begotten Son; the Church which is sanctified and enlightened by the will of God, who farmed all things that are according to the faith and love of Jesus Christ, our God and Saviour; the Church which presides in the place of the region of the Romans, and which is worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of credit, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love..."
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Romans, Prologue (A.D. 110)

"There is extant also another epistle written by Dionysius to the Romans, and addressed to Soter, who was bishop at that time. We cannot do better than to subjoin some passages from this epistle, in which he commends the practice of the Romans which has been retained down to the persecution in our own days. His words are as follows: For from the beginning it has been your practice to do good to all the brethren in various ways, and to send contributions to many churches in every city. Thus relieving the want of the needy, and making provision for the brethren in the mines by the gifts which you have sent from the beginning, you Romans keep up the hereditary customs of the Romans, which your blessed bishop Soter has not only maintained, but also added to, furnishing an abundance of supplies to the saints, and encouraging the brethren from abroad with blessed words, as a loving father his children.' In this same epistle he makes mention also of Clement's epistle to the Corinthians, showing that it had been the custom from the beginning to read it in the church. His words are as follows: To-day we have passed the Lord's holy day, in which we have read your epistle. From it, whenever we read it, we shall always be able to draw advice, as also from the former epistle, which was written to us through Clement.' The same writer also speaks as follows concerning his own epistles, alleging that they had been mutilated: As the brethren desired me to write epistles, I wrote. And these epistles the apostles of the devil have filled with tares, cutting out some things and adding others. For them a woe is reserved. It is, therefore, not to be wondered at if some have attempted to adulterate the Lord's writings also, since they have formed designs even against writings which are of less accounts.' "
Dionysius of Corinth, To Pope Soter (A.D. 171), Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History,4:23

"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, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere."
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180)

Then, Calixtus I, whose most celebrated accomplishment recorded in Britannica is the transfer of the Roman Christians’ cemetery from the Via Salaria to the Via Appia, attempted to hijack our Lord’s legacy by citing Matthew 16:18 as the establishment of Peter and all succeeding bishops of Rome to be rulers over all the churches.

Putting a wagon in a garage does not make it an automobile; and declaring oneself to be the boss doesn’t produce a boss.

Who was the boss then? The bishop of Rome - as affirmed by the early Christian writings.

The great Tertullian, bishop of Carthage, ridiculed Calixtus and his claim, referring to him as a “usurper.�

Blunder! Tertullian was never a bishop of Carthage. Where are you getting this misinformation? Are you proud of it?

The online Catholic Encyclopedia has this excerpt from this link:

His extant writings range in date from the apologetics of 197 to the attack on a bishop who is probably Pope Callistus (after 21. It was after the year 206 that he joined the Montanist sect, and he seems to have definitively separated from the Church about 211 (Harnack) or 213 (Monceaux). After writing more virulently against the Church than even against heathen and persecutors, he separated from the Montanists and founded a sect of his own. The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine.

Do you know who the Montanists were and what they believe? Read about it - or you could just read it here.

In its Catechisms the Vatican quotes Tertullian whenever it is expedient, but you won’t find his appellation for Calixtus I in any RCC printed matter.

As you may have now known, your assertion is false. Do you want me to quote other published materials from the Catholic Church citing the works of Tertullian - or would you just maintain your unfounded assertion?

Nor will you find Rome confessing to the faithful Roman Catholic laity, that the great Augustine, joined by Cyril, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and delegates to the Council of Chalcedon, declared the rock upon which Christ would build His Church was Christ himself, not the Apostle Peter.

Maluoy na ko nimo, bay. Mauwawan gyud ka aning imong gipanulti.

“In the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her authority, inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The succession of priests keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep (Jn 21:15-19), down to the present episcopate.
“And so, lastly, does the very name of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house.
“Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should...With you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me... No one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion...For my part, I should not believe the gospel except as moved by the authority of the Catholic Church.�

- St. Augustine (AD 354-430 )
Against the Epistle of Manichaeus AD 397
(Contra Epistolam Manichaei Quam Vacant Fundamenti)

“It is to Peter himself that He says, ‘You are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church.’ Where Peter is, there is the Church. And where the Church, no death is there, but life eternal.�

St. Ambrose of Milan (A.D. 340 - 397)
Commentaries on Twelve of David's Psalms

“There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewhere is scattering.“

St. Cyprian of Carthage
Letter to his Clergy and to All His People

“When therefore, we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek among others the truth which is easily obtained from the Church. For the apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her [the Church] most copiously everything which pertains to the truth; and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. Let us suppose that the apostles had left us no written records. Would we not have been able to follow the precepts of the tradition that they handed down to those to whom they entrusted the Churches? It is this precept of tradition that is followed by many barbarian nations that believe in Christ who know nothing of the use of writing, or ink.�

St. Ireneaus, (A.D. 130-200)
Against Heresies

Note that this statement by St. Ireneaus also nullify the belief of sola scriptura (Bible alone) of the Protestant churches.

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ He says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. And to you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatever things you bind on earth shall be bound also in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth, they shall be loosed also in heaven.’ And again He says to him after His resurrection: ‘Feed my sheep.’ On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?�

St. Cyprian, (A.D. 251)
The Unity of the Catholic Church

"But since it would be too long to enumerate in such a volume as this the succession of all the churches, we shall confound all those who, in whatever manner, whether through self-satisfaction or vainglory, or through blindness and wicked opinion, assemble other than where it is proper, by pointing out here the successions of the bishops of the greatest and most ancient church known to all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul, that church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the apostles. With that church, because of its superior origin, all the churches must agree, that is, all the faithful in the whole world, and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained the apostolic tradition".

St. Irenaeus (disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John)
(Against Heresies 3:3:2 [A.D. 189]).

Do you want me to quote more sources?

That is not this writer’s opinion or pipedream. That is hard, cold, unyielding history. In his 13th sermon, preserved I believe by divine intent, Augustine made his belief perfectly clear.

“Thou art Peter, and on this Rock – petra – which thou hast confessed,

on this rock which thou hast known, saying: ‘Thou art Christ, the Son

of the living God,’ I will build my church upon Myself, who am the Son

of the living God; I will build it on Me, and not Me on thee.�

Please cite the source and I will check that out. Even the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (www.ccel.org) do not have that and this is a Protestant website. No Anti-Catholic websites (with any recognized claim to proper scholarship) had ever cited that. I wonder ...

Roman Catholic apologists have called this writer some unflattering names for stating that there was no pope and no papacy for more than 500 years after Christ returned to heaven. But history is history, and all the name calling in the world will not alter the fact that Augustine spoke the previously quoted words during his years in Africa as bishop of Hippo – get this, now – in the first third of the FIFTH CENTURY.

Is this the same St. Augustine of Hippo we are talking about who uttered in a general council 'The pope has spoken. The case is closed.'?

Moreover, Augustine’s conviction – based on a correct interpretation of the Scriptures - that Jesus Himself was the foundation rock of Christianity, was shared almost 100% by the churches existing at that time.

The Church must be so tiny then (probably composing only of one member - your so-called 'Augustine'; albeit, not the historical St. Augustine of Hippo) that you cannot find a decent amount of early Christian writings that support such claim.

Following the abortive attempt of Calixtus I to seize control of Christendom, Stephen I, bishop of Rome AD 253-257, took a shot at it citing as his authority some newly discovered documents now known as the pseudo-Clementine Letters and Homilies. This spurious collection contained a forged letter allegedly written by Peter to James the Lord’s brother in which he appoints Clement to be his successor as bishop of Rome, with binding and loosing authority unlimited. Since Linus and Cletus, according to church historian Eusebius, were, in that order, the first two known bishops of Rome, the authenticity of the purported Petrine letter was at once an issue, and Stephen’s effort failed as miserably as that of Calixtus I.

Any scholarly source you can cite? We are not that dumb, you know?

So, even when Constantine the Great convoked the famous Council of Nicaea early in the FOURTH CENTURY there was no pope and no papacy. Constantine, who is not listed as a pope in Rome’s papal lineage, himself assumed the leadership of the churches and took the title Pontifex Maximus – highest priest.

Assumed the leadership of the churches? Where did you get that? Pontifex Maximus the high priest of the pre-Christian Roman religion. You can read that here. It was not restricted to the pope alone until the ninth century - way after the death of Constantine.

Inasmuch as the Pontifex Maximus title is one of the many applied to Roman Catholic popes, Sylvester, bishop of Rome at the time, should have had that title if he was the reigning pope. He was not the pope or a pope, and he was not even in attendance at the AD 325 Council of Nicaea.

Might as well be. Pope Sylvestre sent his legates to the first ecumenical council of Nicaea. It would be absurd to send legates and attend the council himself. Alas, the pope was not given to absurdities.

In that fourth century, five episcopates emerged as jurisdictional centers to which individual independent churches could look for counsel in ecclesiastical matters. These five were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome.

Of which primacy is also to the see of Rome as attested to by all orthodox Christian writers.

In AD 387, just before the Roman Empire split into separate East and West divisions, Siricius, another bishop of Rome, once again tried to highjack Christendom, and with the same result as Calixtus and Stephen. Nobody paid any attention.

Really?

More history, easily checked by those seeking truth and not vindication of false teachings: at the FIFTH CENTURY Council of Carthage, (AD 412) convoked by that city’s bishop Aurelius, the assembled prelates drafted a letter to the bishop of Rome warning him not to accept for ruling appeals from African bishops, deacons or other clerics. Besides that, he was forbidden to send any further emissaries or legates to the African churches.

Council of Carthage at A.D. 412? Are you sure? Incidentally, it was at one of the council of Carthage where a list of the New and Old Testament books were given - and it agreed with the Catholic Bible. Yepey!

Cite sources of your assertion, bro. At the Synod of 397 at Carthage, a list of the books of Holy Scripture was drawn up. It is the Catholic canon (i.e. including the books classed by Protestants as "Apocrypha"). The latter synod, at the end of the enumeration, added, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon". Wow! Is that in support of your claim.

In another council of African churches, that one at Melvie, Augustine was the secretary. History shows he fully supported the synod’s decree of excommunication leveled at any in the African churches who would seek settlement of appeals or disputes outside of Africa or from the Roman See.

Ngek! Okay, cite your sources.

_________________________


I'll complete the commentary next time.

Shalom.

[misfit]

i doubt if people even take the time to read all this

[trickyboy]

i doubt if people even take the time to read all this

I hope you've read it

[whiteoleander]

well, i do . i read both sides posts and check the facts myself , if you are for the truth , then you'll give it a time to read through , who knows what you can find here ?

[MrBiddle]

Of which primacy is also to the see of Rome as attested to by all orthodox Christian writers.

Who were duped because they did not test all things.

[Cardinal Bunal]

in Roman Catholic faith, how can one be saved?
and I wonder why there are requiem masses held even for those who already are confirmed, took "Viaticum" on their deathbed if those two are one of the things that would already have saved them?

[dacs]

Of which primacy is also to the see of Rome as attested to by all orthodox Christian writers.

Who were duped because they did not test all things.

Hey! That's the only thing you could afford to post? Prove me wrong, bro.