The City That Sits On Seven Hills.

[Eutychus]

[quote]OK OK you got us. Any day now, the Pope is going to announce the Catholic Church (all Rites, not just the only one Budgie and Euty hate, the Roman one) is really built on seven hills (there being secret hills built by the Templars on the one hill the Vatican occupies) and that we will no longer support chastity, be anti-abortion, pro-social justice, etcetera. [/quote]


{ self censorship.....}

But you know what I want to say, and won't....

[Winchester]

No, I don't, because me just dumb pirate. Me not know what to expect from sleeping brain man.

[Oik]

Actually,

Saint Peter established Antioch first. The Peterine see was Antioch. It is only later that the Bishop of Rome comes into promience.

Here's a simple fact of Church Ecclesiology: It's not Rome that makes the Bishop, it is the Bishop that makes Rome. It is not Rome that gives Peter the prominence, it is Peter that gives Rome prominence.

The Pterine Primacy of the Bishop of Rome has little to do with Rome and everything to do with Saint Peter.


Ergo, the city on the hill isn't the Catholic Church because the original 'seat' or sede is the office of Saint Peter given by Christ, not a physical place or material thing.

Even if one could make the claim that somehow Saint Peter's office is somehow literally associated with a physical thing, that physical thing would have to be in Antioch, not Roma.

[Winchester]

Well boo-ya.

Well played.

[Eutychus]

[quote] Here's a simple fact of Church Ecclesiology: It's not Rome that makes the Bishop, it is the Bishop that makes Rome. It is not Rome that gives Peter the prominence, it is Peter that gives Rome prominence.[/quote]

So, Avignion was a VALID SEE for the seven consecutive popes then? And St. John's in Lateran was rendered an INVALID sede for the Bishop of Rome, since the "Bishop of Rome" was terrified to COME TO ROME, for fear of being killed, or lynched, or worse?

You ARE aware I would expect, that the "Bishop of Rome" actually NEVER came to Rome for hundreds of years, living in other cities around Italy, where a cup of poison, or an enraged spouse, was less a threat?

Was the Vatican invalid during those times too?

Just wondering....

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063209' date='Sep 14 2006, 11:20 PM']
So, Avignion was a VALID SEE for the seven consecutive popes then? And St. John's in Lateran was rendered an INVALID sede for the Bishop of Rome, since the "Bishop of Rome" was terrified to COME TO ROME, for fear of being killed, or lynched, or worse?

You ARE aware I would expect, that the "Bishop of Rome" actually NEVER came to Rome for hundreds of years, living in other cities around Italy, where a cup of poison, or an enraged spouse, was less a threat?

Was the Vatican invalid during those times too?

Just wondering....
[/quote]


Yeah and I'm just wondering when you'll answer my questions, as a mature adult.

Just wondering...

[Oik]

Eutychus,

Invalidity is a specific road to walk down. Why discuss it here? Avignon? Why are we speaking of Avignon?

As I said, the sede of Saint Peter is the office, not the Place. Later juridical, political, and moral issues have nothing to do with whether or not the see of Peter and therefore the physical location of the sede is Rome or Antioch or Avignon.


I am well a ware of the many sins of my breathren, and most of all myself. Sadly, I know the corruption that man, being clergy or laity, has littered history with.


As for the idea that Saint Peter was neither a Bishop or had never been to Rome, I wouldn't put much stock in that.

Saint Ignatios of Antioch, as you may know, provides us with a wealth of understanding of Ecclesiology and how it worked. This is substantial to be sure, considering he is writing around 100 AD.
The respect and Primacy of the Peterine office was very clear.

To be sure though, in not all places was the monepiscopate prevelant and certainly early on, the prebyteroi and episkopoi seemed to in many places not be distinct.

Now, the diakonia, this is very different. Saint Ignatios had a lot of love for the diakonia.

Needless to say, the face of Ecclesiology seemed to be different, but the office itself has nonetheless been the same from the moment Jesus handed it down to Saint Peter and the 12 Apostles.

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1062969' date='Sep 14 2006, 09:49 PM']
yeah, like the "English Martyrs?"

Who were convicted of POLITICAL TERRORISM { you think the Palestinians invented that?} who wanted to BLOW UP the parliament building, kill EVERY elected representative and the Queen, and were caught with 30 barrells of gunpowder in a tunnel directly UNDER the parliament building?

That was traced back to the Jesuit handlers and Rome?

Those kind of "Martyrs?"

Hmmmm???[/quote]Yeah, the Catholics had it coming to them. Nice way to justify evil.

I guess we should have killed all the Baptists and Episcopalians when they killed Abe Lincoln.

[Budge]

Things that prove Peter was never a Pope.

1. Christ refused to pick a Pope among the apostles.

Jesus over and over when the apostles disputed among themselves who the greatest was refuted those ideas.

Luk 9:46 ¶ [size=4]Then there arose a reasoning among them, which of them should be greatest.[/size]

Luk 9:47 And Jesus, perceiving the thought of their heart, took a child, and set him by him,

Luk 9:48 And said unto them, Whosoever shall receive this child in my name receiveth me: and whosoever shall receive me receiveth him that sent me: for he [size=4]that is least among you all, the same shall be great.[/size]

2. The Apostles Never Acknowledged Peter As Pope

Peter is even rebuked by Paul.

[quote]Paul considers himself Peter's equal. He says: 'I was not a whit behind the very chiefest apostles.' 2 Corinthians 11:5. If Peter had been Pope would he have dared to speak after this fashion?

Paul censured Peter openly. He says: 'When Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed.' See Galatians 2:11-16. How would Paul have dared to censure Peter openly for failure to practice what he preached in his action toward the Gentiles, if Peter had been Pope?[/quote]

3. Peter was completely silent about beinga Pope.

Christ's True Vicar on Earth is the HOLY SPIRIT.

[Oik]

Budge,

You don't have to use Scripture to prove to me that Peter wasn't pope.
The word pope is not formally proscribed until the late fourth, early fifth century.



As for Vicar, the word appears to be of latin etymology and means act in the place of. Since you are, I suppose a Trinitarian Christain, you believe that the Holy Spirit is God. Very clearly then, you wouldn't say that the Holy Spirit acts in the place of God. He is God.

Ergo, the Holy Spirit is not Christ' True Vicar on Earth.


Saint Peter was certainly first among equals and even as early as Saint Ignatios of Antioch, we have the written account and exhortation of such primacy.

The Peterine office of primacy was not debated until recent Church history. Even the Orthodox do not debate it. Only Protestants debate the primacy of the Peterine office. As far as I can see, Peterine Primacy was not formally questioned until Luther in the early 16th century. Now surely, this, along with the countless exhortations of Early Church Fathers spanning the enitre length, should be enough 'evidence' to convince you of the primacy of the Peterine office.

You may decline to assent, but you have 1500 years of tradition of the Catholic Church before Luther against you and 2000 years of tradition of those who are Orthodox, those of whom are not in communion with Rome.

[Eutychus]

[quote]Saint Peter was certainly first among equals and even as early as Saint Ignatios of Antioch, we have the written account and exhortation of such primacy. [/quote]

And what VERSE does any other Apostle acknowledge what you so blithely stated above?

There isn't ONE, you and I both know that, and there are many verses, INCLUDING in Peter's own writing that would indicate that even HE saw himself as merely a worker in the field for Jesus.

Given the massive forgeries endemic in the latter centuries of the first milleniem and thereafter, frankly many question the foundational validity of these documents . And as I have continually asked, how come no one ever responds to the FACT that the Franciscan's in Jerusalem FOUND the bones of Peter interred in the mout of Olives, published a book, and POOF....the coverup came into play big time.

The Petrine claims to supremacy, are non existant, and the succession aspect is even moreso, frankly ludicrous given the procession of hundreds of corrupt, incompetant, thugs, buggery and thuggery that constitutes an honest assesment of the line of malcontents that managed to murder and bribe thier way onto that throne.

[url="http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm"]http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html"]http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html[/url]

[Oik]

Eutychus,

I am not sure exactly what you are looking for.

You have quickly and cooly dismissed a few thousand years of accepted Apostolic tradition for both East and West.

You dismissed the writings of the Early Church.

I am very surprised you have not dismissed the Bible. The canon was not formally recognized until later. The Canon you accept was formally recognized much much much later.


As for the question of Saint Peter's bones, why don't you question that?


On the statement of burial and the questioning of primacy, I can only refer you to the writings of the Early Church. If you reuse the testimony handed down, what else can a saw to you?

As for the bones of Saint Peter, what relevance is it? What does it matter where he was buried or not buried? The Peterine office has nothing to do with bones or seats or cities. It is Saint Peter who makes Rome, not Rome who makes Saint Peter.

Saint Ignatios confirms the primacy. Clement and other confirm it.

As for the claim that Saint Peter never writes of his own primacy, nor other affirm it, I am not sure what you mean here. Not all of tradition is written in the Bible. The Christian accepts Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is especially important because it is the Sacred tradition that was the rule used to codify Sacred Scripture.

But, even if you wanted to point to the precurser of the priesthood, primacy, and hierarchy, you yourself are more than capable of seeking out those various happenings and influences in and from Judasim, both in Praxis and Doxa.

[KnightofChrist]

Eutychus,

Well seems you've highjacked this thread... guess its all you can do when you can not answer the tough questions asked of you, by me and others. If you would like to debate the primacy of peter, then start another thread. However if you wish to be a man, or an adult and answer the tough questions asked of you, then do so, if not I will take your refusal, and/or inability to answer as your defeat in this Debate, and every chance you give me, I will point it out yoru defeat to you, and others. As well as your and Budge's defeat in the theard "The Seven Missing Books." Its what you do in debates if you prove someone to be wrong, defeat them on a subject and that person keeps on bringing that topic up, you point out to that person that they have already been defeated on that subject.

I await your answers, or your defeat.
Peace in Christ,
KoC

[Socrates]

[quote name='Eutychus' post='1063602' date='Sep 15 2006, 03:01 PM']
And what VERSE does any other Apostle acknowledge what you so blithely stated above?

There isn't ONE, you and I both know that, and there are many verses, INCLUDING in Peter's own writing that would indicate that even HE saw himself as merely a worker in the field for Jesus.[/quote]
And following Peter, Pope Benedict XVI said the same of himself after being elected Pope.
Another title of the Papacy is "Servant of the Servants of God."


[quote]Given the massive forgeries endemic in the latter centuries of the first milleniem and thereafter, frankly many question the foundational validity of these documents . And as I have continually asked, how come no one ever responds to the FACT that the Franciscan's in Jerusalem FOUND the bones of Peter interred in the mout of Olives, published a book, and POOF....the coverup came into play big time.[/quote]
And this from the man who expects us to uncritically swallow all that conspiracy-theory nonsense about the Jesuits starting the Civil War and assasinating Lincoln?


[quote]The Petrine claims to supremacy, are non existant, and the succession aspect is even moreso, frankly ludicrous given the procession of hundreds of corrupt, incompetant, thugs, buggery and thuggery that constitutes an honest assesment of the line of malcontents that managed to murder and bribe thier way onto that throne.

[url="http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm"]http://biblelight.net/peters-jerusalem-tomb.htm[/url]

[url="http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html"]<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html[/url]</a>[/quote]
Buggery, thuggery, yada, yada, yada . . .
Nice rhymes. How about a little substance?
Anyway, on to business . . .

As for evidence of Petrine Supremacy, we can start with Matthew 16:18-19:[quote]And I say to 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 to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.[/quote]
Yes, it's one of those Bible verses Catholics like to repeat over and over, but it's also one anti-Catholics brush aside repeatedly.
If Christ did not intend to give Peter any special authority, what was Christ doing here? Was Christ just fooling around with all that "bound in heaven" stuff?

Here's just a few resources:

[b][url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_and_the_Papacy.asp"]Peter and the Papacy[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp"]Authority of the Pope (from the Early Church Fathers)[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp"]Origins of Peter as Pope[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp"]Peter's Successors (Church Fathers)[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Was_Peter_in_Rome.asp"]Was Peter in Rome?[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9202vbv.asp"]Peter's Primacy in the Bible[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1996/9610eaw.asp"]More on Peter's Primacy from Scripture[/url]

[url="http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/1998/9805chap.asp"]Peter and Galatians[/url][/b]

Edited September 16, 2006 by Socrates

[Eutychus]

[quote]I am not sure exactly what you are looking for.

You have quickly and cooly dismissed a few thousand years of accepted Apostolic tradition for both East and West.

You dismissed the writings of the Early Church. [/quote]

Yes, I did.

And here is why....

[quote] Built Upon Forgeries and Created Myths?


The Donation of Constantine was a known forgery that was used by Pope Stephen III (752-757) against the Franks, which successfully increase the powers and influence of the Roman Church. In the year 753 the Lombards threatened Rome, a barbarian tribe from the Baltic. Stephen approached Pepin, the king of the Franks. The Roman bishop showed the Frankish king a document that purports to be dated 30th March 315; a document that came to be called The Donation of Constantine The document tells the story of how Emperor Constantine, after being miraculously healed of leprosy, gave Pope Sylvester I (314-335), the regions of Italy surrounding Rome and pronounced Rome supreme over the other main centers of the church, namely, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

----------------------
It is important to add that Gregory not only used fake documents, he had a whole school set up to manufacture still more fraudulent documents:



Pepin, the king of the Franks.

this will become important in later studies


Now to my main point

Peter Says
there will arise a group of men that will do these things in order to bring into the church
Damnable Heresies
heresies that will beaver dam those who do and espouse these thing to hell
and they will do these things
Privily



Quote:

* privily #3919


from 3844 and 1521;
to introduce or bring in secretly or craftily


---------

To be dependent on a set of facts or properties in such a way
that change can occur
only after change has occurred in those facts or properties given.

--------


3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you:

* covetousness


avarice, i.e. (by impl.) fraudulency, extortion:— covetous (-ness) practices, greediness.

* with feigned words



To give a false appearance of: feign sleep.
To represent falsely pretend to:
feign authorship.
Spurious Documents = counterfeit[/quote]

[url="http://www.bereanpublishers.com/Cults/The%20Roman%20Catholic%20Church/forged_documents_and_papal_power.htm#3"]DOCUMENT ONE[/url]


Given the MASSIVE level of forgeries, today it is almost impossible to have much faith in any of the so called letters that were entrusted to those forgers in Rome.