Peter the First Pope?

[Elvisman]

Yeah, I can imagine how glorious and perfect the day will be when we have to address Charles Manson as our "Holy Father".

Eliakim and Peter would turn themselves around in their grave.

Not at all.
You see, Eliakim and Peter truly understood the office.
You don't . . .

[AVZ]

Yeah, I can imagine how glorious and perfect the day will be when we have to address Charles Manson as our "Holy Father".

Eliakim and Peter would turn themselves around in their grave.

Not at all.
You see, Eliakim and Peter truly understood the office.
You don't . . .

Perhaps indeed I do not fully grasp "the office", but I understand that the position is open for Charles Manson.
Better yet, how about Richard Dawkins?

[Elvisman]

Perhaps indeed I do not fully grasp "the office", but I understand that the position is open for Charles Manson.
Better yet, how about Richard Dawkins?

Ummm . . . BOTH would have to be Catholic. 
Neither fits the bill . . .

[highrigger]

You see, Eliakim and Peter truly understood the office.

elvisman,

Peter never held the office. He was never a bishop of the Roman church or anywhere. Thats real history and not myth.
Peace, JohnR

[LightHammer]

You see, Eliakim and Peter truly understood the office.

elvisman,

Peter never held the office. He was never a bishop of the Roman church or anywhere. Thats real history and not myth.
Peace, JohnR

No that's highrigger not history.

St. Peter was a presbyter-bishop. Get over it and move on with your life.

[Elvisman]

elvisman,

Peter never held the office. He was never a bishop of the Roman church or anywhere. Thats real history and not myth.
Peace, JohnR

Yeah - that's why it is documented in the Early Church.  Read Irenaeus' SECOND CENTURY document, "Against Heresies" where it lists Peter as the first Pope.

Do some REAL research and get back to me . . .  

[highrigger]

Yeah - that's why it is documented in the Early Church.  Read Irenaeus' SECOND CENTURY document, "Against Heresies" where it lists Peter as the first Pope.

Do some REAL research and get back to me . . .

elvisman,

Irenaeus does not say Peter was the first pope. But , regardless, the history he asserted is false. He had no way to know one way or the other as he came 150 years later. He was repeating myths and fabricated bishops lists known by modern historians to be false. Here is Gary Wills to explain the historical facts.

 Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession"
to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes."

I realize you pin all your religion on Peter being a pope but it is false. I dont know what you will do when you realize the facts of history. Maybe shout some more? Peace, JohnR

[LightHammer]

Yeah - that's why it is documented in the Early Church.  Read Irenaeus' SECOND CENTURY document, "Against Heresies" where it lists Peter as the first Pope.

Do some REAL research and get back to me . . .

elvisman,

Irenaeus does not say Peter was the first pope. But , regardless, the history he asserted is false. He had no way to know one way or the other as he came 150 years later. He was repeating myths and fabricated bishops lists known by modern historians to be false. Here is Gary Wills to explain the historical facts.

 Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be
handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had no
successor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession"
to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several
centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively
called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession.Even
so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes."

I realize you pin all your religion on Peter being a pope but it is false. I dont know what you will do when you realize the facts of history. Maybe shout some more? Peace, JohnR

I'm having a little trouble here.

St. Irenaeus isn't credible because in the 3rd century he had no way of knowing but Gary Willis, who specializes in American history, 2000 years later is supposed to know?

How exactly does thy work out for you?

[highrigger]

St. Peter was a presbyter-bishop. Get over it and move on with your life.

lighthammer,

A presbyter bishops was not a monarchical bishop. He was never in charge of any church. He never had any successors. He nevr ordained anyone. The bishops lists were fabricated.

I realize how you hate real history. It hurts, but I am here to keep reminding you of it. I love quoting Catholic historians. They tell the truth but you cannot stand even them because they have rejected the mythology you love.

But I can see at least you are backing off the bishop claim. You are learning from me little by little. Peace, JohnR

[Elvisman]

elvisman,

Irenaeus does not say Peter was the first pope. But , regardless, the history he asserted is false. He had no way to know one way or the other as he came 150 years later. He was repeating myths and fabricated bishops lists known by modern historians to be false. Here is Gary Wills to explain the historical facts.

 Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern U.,
Pulitzer Prize Winner
author of WHY I AM A CATHOLIC, wrote the following in his
Best Seller WHAT JESUS MEANT page 81.

"The idea that Peter was given some special power that could be handed on to a successor runs into the problem that he had nosuccessor. The idea that there is an "apostolic succession" to Peter's fictional episcopacy did not arise for several centuries, at which time Peter and others were retrospectively called bishops of Rome, to create an imagined succession. Even so, there has not been an unbroken chain of popes."

I realize you pin all your religion on Peter being a pope but it is false. I dont know what you will do when you realize the facts of history. Maybe shout some more? Peace, JohnR

I realize that you hang all of your anti-Catholic hopes on the like of Garry Wills, but I'll take the historical writings of the Early Church over Wills' revisionist opinions ANY day.

Here's a little homework assignment:
PROVE to us that Irenaeus' 2nd Century document, "Against Heresies" is false because I have not read one credible Church historian say that it is.

I EAGERLY await your response . . .

[LightHammer]

St. Peter was a presbyter-bishop. Get over it and move on with your life.

lighthammer,

A presbyter bishops was not a monarchical bishop. He was never in charge of any church. He never had any successors. He nevr ordained anyone. The bishops lists were fabricated.

I realize how you hate real history. It hurts, but I am here to keep reminding you of it. I love quoting Catholic historians. They tell the truth but you cannot stand even them because they have rejected the mythology you love.

But I can see at least you are backing off the bishop claim. You are learning from me little by little. Peace, JohnR

A presbyeter-bishop is still a bishop.   

You are feeling yourself way too much.

[broach972]

Hey don't get mad at me because you're clueless.

1. You have zero idea what the doctrine of infallibly entails.

2. St. Paul and St. Peter disputing has no bearing on the doctrine of infallibility. Go learn what it is. When you do you will realize that St. Paul and St. Peter and every single bishop wields infallibly.

You can't debate with Catholics about Catholic views until you actually know what those views are.

This is why discussing Catholic doctrine with non-Catholics can be quite frustrating.  I am very impressed by many of the posts of the Catholic members in this thread.  I am blown away by Lighthammer's and Elvisman's knowledge of the Catholic faith, not to mention history.  I will continue to enjoy the discussion.  Well done.

[Insight]

Hi Elvis

After reading some of your posts here in the Catholic forum, especially to Josiah and others who oppose your dogmas; it is clear that you struggle with anger.  I wonder if you can perceive this negative trait in your posting. The bold and italic text does not help you in this regard, only enhances and brings to light your strong frustration.   I have no interest in debating this post only in bringing to light a better way.

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)

Even if you spoke truth ( ) it would have no success until you learned the gentleness of the Master.

However, my best friend and brother was raised an RCC boy and he to this day struggles with spiritual anger.

If you want to chat privately the offer is there anytime.

Insight.

[Elvisman]

Hi Elvis

After reading some of your posts here in the Catholic forum, especially to Josiah and others who oppose your dogmas; it is clear that you struggle with anger.  I wonder if you can perceive this negative trait in your posting. The bold and italic text does not help you in this regard, only enhances and brings to light your strong frustration.   I have no interest in debating this post only in bringing to light a better way.

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)

Even if you spoke truth ( ) it would have no success until you learned the gentleness of the Master.

However, my best friend and brother was raised an RCC boy and he to this day struggles with spiritual anger.

If you want to chat privately the offer is there anytime.

Insight.

I’ve never gotten angry on this forum.  I simply won’t allow some of you to misrepresent the truth.

It always makes me chuckle when anti-Catholics like yourself, who LOVE to misrepresent the truth to less-catechized Catholics finally come up against more educated Catholics.  After being slapped in the face with the truth – you guys ALL say the same things:  “You’re mean

[Insight]

Hi Elvis

After reading some of your posts here in the Catholic forum, especially to Josiah and others who oppose your dogmas; it is clear that you struggle with anger.  I wonder if you can perceive this negative trait in your posting. The bold and italic text does not help you in this regard, only enhances and brings to light your strong frustration.   I have no interest in debating this post only in bringing to light a better way.

A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger. (Proverbs 15:1)

Even if you spoke truth ( ) it would have no success until you learned the gentleness of the Master.

However, my best friend and brother was raised an RCC boy and he to this day struggles with spiritual anger.

If you want to chat privately the offer is there anytime.

Insight.

I’ve never gotten angry on this forum.  I simply won’t allow some of you to misrepresent the truth.

It always makes me chuckle when anti-Catholics like yourself, who LOVE to misrepresent the truth to less-catechized Catholics finally come up against more educated Catholics.  After being slapped in the face with the truth – you guys ALL say the same things:  “You’re mean