The Church At Rome

[TexUs]

In other words, you can't find it.

No, I am just not going to type from my book online just to prove you wrong. Like I said, see the Wikipedia article if you want another reference, but MINE that I used, is in my book.

A Christian Church was already established in Rome BEFORE St. Paul went to Rome. When St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he was addressing it to Christians who had already heard the Gospel (See Romans 1:6-7). From his letter, it is obvious that St. Paul have never been to Rome when he wrote that letter (See Romans 1:11-13). Therefore, it was not St. Paul who established that Church in Babylon nor any of his converts. It was St. Peter.

Everything you said was true except the last four words.

"Paul couldn't have founded it, therefore... it MUST have been Peter"... You realize there were millions of people that could've founded it, right? And yet you select Peter, LOL.

 

[Selene]

[/size]
No, I am just not going to type from my book online just to prove you wrong. Like I said, see the Wikipedia article if you want another reference, but MINE that I used, is in my book.

Really....TexUs. And of course, you can't even provide the weblink to Wikipedia? You are not going to type it simply because it does not exist. That is the truth.

[/size]
Everything you said was true except the last four words.

"Paul couldn't have founded it, therefore... it MUST have been Peter"... You realize there were millions of people that could've founded it, right? And yet you select Peter, LOL.

My brother, all the historical documents show that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. If it was someone else who founded the Catholic Church, the historical documents would name that person as the first bishop of Rome. But no such documents exist.

As I said, how do you know that the first President of the United States was George Washington? You know because of the historical documents. The people during the first century also knew how to write, and there are documents showing that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. The same thing is true with the Churches in the East. In fact, do you not know that even the Orthodox Churches have a Pope? The Catholic Church is not the only Church that has a Pope. The only reason why the media follows the Catholic Pope instead of the Orthodox Popes is because of all the Christian denominations, it is only the Catholics that became a nation like Israel, thus making our Pope more than just a religious leader, but also a Head of State....just like the Prime Minister of Israel.

 

[TexUs]

Really....TexUs. And of course, you can't even provide the weblink to Wikipedia? You are not going to type it simply because it does not exist. That is the truth.

http://tinyurl.com/67rzohl


Do I have to start linking you to Bible passages too because you can't lookup the references I provide?

My brother, all the historical documents show that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. If it was someone else who founded the Catholic Church, the historical documents would name that person as the first bishop of Rome. But no such documents exist.

You're right that no documents exist. I've asked you and aspen many times to provide the historical documents FROM THE PERIOD PETER WAS ALIVE, not made up theory after the fact, that identified him as being the bishop of Rome, and neither one of you have been able to do so.

As I said, how do you know that the first President of the United States was George Washington? You know because of the historical documents.

Yep. We do.
The difference is that there are accounts and historical documents of people that LIVED WITH, and OBSERVED HIM, as the President that verify it.


All the Catholics have is made up stories hundreds of years later when someone dreamed the idea up.

 

[veteran]

A Christian Church was already established in Rome BEFORE St. Paul went to Rome. When St. Paul wrote his letter to the Romans, he was addressing it to Christians who had already heard the Gospel (See Romans 1:6-7). From his letter, it is obvious that St. Paul have never been to Rome when he wrote that letter (See Romans 1:11-13). Therefore, it was not St. Paul who established that Church in Babylon nor any of his converts. It was St. Peter.

The oldest Christian Church in Rome is the Roman Catholic Church, and it is this Church that claimed to be established by Christ through the Apostle Peter. It is this Church that can trace its lineage to the Apostle Peter. Do you know of another Christian church in Rome that is much older than the Catholic Church?

You must have just skipped over what I posted from the Roman historian Tacitus, and Paul's salutation to Pudens, Claudia, and Linus in 2 Tim.4:21.

The name of the first Church at Rome was Titulus, which was then later named after St. Prudentia. The name Prudentia is in connection with the Pudens of Tacitus' history, and no doubt the Pudens which Apostle Paul addressed in Timothy. Per that Roman history, Claudia was the wife of Pudens, and Linus was their son. And no doubt that's exactly who Apostle Paul was addressing.

Rom 16:13
13 Salute Rufus chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.
(KJV)

That's most likely the "Rufus" Paul also addressed his salute to in his Epistle to the Romans, the same Rufus Prudens.

King Arviragus and Gladys, both Christians from early 1st century Britain, were already living in the Platium Britannicum in Rome when Paul wrote his Epistle to the Romans, and to Timothy.


"The regions of Britain which have never been penetrated by the Romans have received the religion of Christ" (Tertullian in Def. Fidei, p. 179).

"...the apostles passed beyond the ocean to the Isles called the British Isles" (Eusebius in Demonstratio Evangelica, Bk. 3, chap. 5).

"Paul, liberated from his first captivity at Rome, preached the Gospel to the Britons and others in the West… and the Cymry" (Theodoret in D. Civ. Gracae Off., Bk. 9).

"Aristobulus, whom Paul saluted was bishop of Britain" (Dorotheous in Synopsis de Apostol., Synops. 9, 23).

"The mother church of the British Isles is the Church in insula Avallonia." (Bishop Usher, 17th century).

"Britain, partly through Joseph of Arimathea, partly through Fugatus and Damianus, was of all kingdoms the first that received the Gospel." (Polydore Vergil).

"Meanwhile, these islands received the beams of light - that is, the Holy precepts Christ, the true Sun - at the latter part, as we know, of the reign of Tiberius Caesar." (British historian Gildas A.D. 516-570).

But of course, the conquering victors get to write the history, and Rome had certainly done a lot of revisionism on Britain's early Christian traditions, replacing it with Catholic tradition from Rome instead.

 

[Selene]

[/size][/size]
http://tinyurl.com/67rzohl


Do I have to start linking you to Bible passages too because you can't lookup the references I provide?

My brother, this is what your weblink says:

The author identifies himself in the opening verse as "Peter, an apostle of Jesus", and the view that the epistle was written by St. Peter is attested to by a number of Church Fathers: Irenaeus (140-203), Tertullian (150-222), Clement of Alexandria (155-215) and Origen of Alexandria (185-253). Some scholars believe the author was not Peter, but an unknown author writing after Peter's death.[sup][2][/sup] These scholars estimate the date of composition to range from 75 to 112 AD. The traditional view, and that of the original church fathers, was that the book was written by Peter. There is no substantive evidence to disprove this and so traditionally the book is thought to have been written sometime before 64-65 AD by Peter himself.[sup][3][/sup]

As you can see, even the weblink you provided showed that the "original Church fathers says that the book was written by Peter, and that there is no evidence to disprove this." Furthermore, the weblink you provided even says that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome. It is now a historical fact that St. Peter was the first bishop of Rome. Even the weblink that you provided recognized that historical fact. Tradition says that the Apostle Peter founded the Church in Rome and in Antioch. The Church at Antioch can also trace their lineage to the Apostle Peter just as the Armenian Church can trace their lineage to the Apostles Bartholomew and Thaddeus.

You're right that no documents exist. I've asked you and aspen many times to provide the historical documents FROM THE PERIOD PETER WAS ALIVE, not made up theory after the fact, that identified him as being the bishop of Rome, and neither one of you have been able to do so.

Yep. We do.
The difference is that there are accounts and historical documents of people that LIVED WITH, and OBSERVED HIM, as the President that verify it.

TexUs, if you had examined the records of the early fathers, you would have known that some of those people who wrote about St. Peter being the first bishop of Rome was there at the time when Peter was the first bishop of Rome. For example, Clement of Rome (who later became Pope) wrote in his letter to the Corinthians that it was St. Peter who ordained him as priest.

 

[TexUs]

Tradition says that the Apostle Peter founded the Church in Rome and in Antioch.

*News Flash*
Tradition is not historical fact.

For example, Clement of Rome (who later became Pope) wrote in his letter to the Corinthians that it was St. Peter who ordained him as priest.

Does it state Peter was the Bishop or Pope?
What chapter of First Clement is this in?

 

[Selene]

[/size]
*News Flash*
Tradition is not historical fact.


Does it state Peter was the Bishop or Pope?
What chapter of First Clement is this in?

TexUs, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Pope only means "father." Benedict XVI is the Bishop of Rome. If you can believe that Gengis Khan was the ruler of the Mongels despite the fact that Ghengis Khan never wrote a letter, then it stands to reason that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome because there is historical documents showing that. The letter that Clement wrote to the Church in Corinthia is a historical written document.

 

[TexUs]

TexUs, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome. Pope only means "father." Benedict XVI is the Bishop of Rome. If you can believe that Gengis Khan was the ruler of the Mongels despite the fact that Ghengis Khan never wrote a letter, then it stands to reason that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome because there is historical documents showing that. The letter that Clement wrote to the Church in Corinthia is a historical written document. [/size]

Are you unable to provide a reference to the chapter this is found in?

I'm not going to read 50 or 60 chapters if it's not even in it. If you say it's in it, surely you must know where. Unless, of course, you've never actually read it yourself.

 

[Selene]

Are you unable to provide a reference to the chapter this is found in?

I'm not going to read 50 or 60 chapters if it's not even in it. If you say it's in it, surely you must know where. Unless, of course, you've never actually read it yourself.

Below is the weblink to the historical document showing that Clement was ordained as a priest by the Apostle Peter in Rome. Because it is a long document, you can find it in Chapter 32, which I quoted for you below.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertulle.htm

Below is a quote from that historical document: It is found in Chapter 32 of this document that Pope Clement was ordained as a priest by the Apostle Peter:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records [2165] of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs [2166] ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,'a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit [2167] their registers: [2168] as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [2169] In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed

 

[TexUs]

Let me remind you of your original statement, Selene.

My brother, all the historical documents show that the Apostle Peter was the first bishop of Rome.

Now, let's look at what you quoted.

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records [2165] of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs [2166] ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,'a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit [2167] their registers: [2168] as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [2169] In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed

What you fail to notice, is this doesn't prove Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

So as before, the burden of proof still rests upon you to provide any kind of evidence that Peter was the first. All this says is he was ordained by Peter. The Apostles that SPOKE FOR CHRIST... OBVIOUSLY had ordination authority- this is nothing new.

So, Selene, yet I still wait for the document that proves Peter was the first Pope.

 

[Selene]

What you fail to notice, is this doesn't prove Peter was the Bishop of Rome.

So as before, the burden of proof still rests upon you to provide any kind of evidence that Peter was the first. All this says is he was ordained by Peter. The Apostles that SPOKE FOR CHRIST... OBVIOUSLY had ordination authority- this is nothing new.

So, Selene, yet I still wait for the document that proves Peter was the first Pope.

Well, excuse me...I thought you were asking for the information about Clement being ordained by the Apostle Peter since that was in my last post to you. As for the Apostle Peter being the Bishop of Rome, that information was already given in my Post #10. Check my post #10.

 

[TexUs]

Well, excuse me...I thought you were asking for the information about Clement being ordained by the Apostle Peter since that was in my last post to you. As for the Apostle Peter being the Bishop of Rome, that information was already given in my Post #10. Check my post #10.

You said this:


"TexUs, if you had examined the records of the early fathers, you would have known that some of those people who wrote about St. Peter being the first bishop of Rome was there at the time when Peter was the first bishop of Rome. For example, Clement of Rome (who later became Pope) wrote in his letter to the Corinthians that it was St. Peter who ordained him as priest."


Sounds to me like your example was supposed to be evidence of Peter being the first Pope.


Your post #10 doesn't prove anything. I don't think you can prove Babylon being Rome... Even though I personally agree with you in that regard- we need to keep in mind that it could be wrong.
That said, the text doesn't even support Peter being IN Babylon anyway.
Was Peter in Rome at some point? Sure. Did he write letters from it? Who knows.

Was he the Pope of Rome? I've yet to see any evidence for that at all.

 

[Anastacia]

I don't get this topic. A church can be taken over by ravenous wolves. The true believers will be scattered.


John 10:12 The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it.

Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

 

[jacobtaylor]

Below is the weblink to the historical document showing that Clement was ordained as a priest by the Apostle Peter in Rome. Because it is a long document, you can find it in Chapter 32, which I quoted for you below.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertulle.htm

Below is a quote from that historical document: It is found in Chapter 32 of this document that Pope Clement was ordained as a priest by the Apostle Peter:

But if there be any (heresies) which are bold enough to plant themselves in the midst Of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records [2165] of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [that first bishop of theirs [2166] ] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men,'a man, moreover, who continued stedfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit [2167] their registers: [2168] as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter. [2169] In exactly the same way the other churches likewise exhibit (their several worthies), whom, as having been appointed to their episcopal places by apostles, they regard as transmitters of the apostolic seed

I did some looking around about this document it was written by Tertullian about 200 AD. Its not first person evidence its simply a statement that evidence in the form of letters was produced as legal evidence.
Tertullian also writes that the churches were already in question during this time as to their doctrine and questionable apostolic succession. Tertullian started sects of his own that were latter reconciled to the now Catholic Church by St. Augustine. The Catholic encyclopedia credits Tertullian for several doctrines that are found in the and some that are not.

http://www.newadvent...then/14520c.htm

Tertullian taught against
the making of idols
astrology, selling of incense

He supported
forgiveness of certain sins, and insisting on new fasts
Here he emphasizes the reality of Christ's Body and His virgin-birth, and teaches a corporal resurrection. But he seems to deny the virginity of Mary,
211 AD. He now terms the Catholics "Psychici", as opposed to the "spiritual" Montanists. The cause of his schism is not mentioned.
develops his own doctrine of the Holy Trinity
his division of sin into three classes.

For these sins there is forgiveness, though the sinner has strayed from the flock. How is forgiveness obtained? We learn this only incidentally from the words: "That kind of penitence which is subsequent to faith, which can either obtain forgiveness from the bishop for lesser sins, or from God only for those which are irremissible" (On Pudicity 18). Thus Tertullian admits the power of the bishop for all but "irremissible" sins. The absolution which he still acknowledges for frequent sins was obviously not limited to a single occasion, but must have been frequently repeated. It is not even referred to in "De paen", which deals only with baptism and public penance for the gravest sins. Again, in "De pudicitia", Tertullian repudiates his own earlier teaching that the keys were left by Christ through Peter to His Church (Scorpiace 10); he now declares (On Pudicity 21) that the gift was to Peter personally, and cannot be claimed by the Church of the Psychici. The spiritual have the right to forgive, but the Paraclete said: "The Church has the power to forgive sins but I will not do so, lest they sin afresh."

What I did learn from reading several different sources is that Tertullian was bouncing around with doctrine that is hard to find in the letters of the NT.
The church for lack of a better term was all over the board even at this early date.
The result is there are no original letters confirming Apostolic founding only second hand testimony.
Of course this went on until Roman law in the 4th century made it a crime to worship in any other church except the established Roman Catholic Church.
Besides all the hype about letters, I fail to find that letters are a form of divine evidence that teachings are inspired by God. This type of evidence was apparently enough to satisfy the Roman legal system, to this very day.

Just as Anastacia quoted it didn't take long for the wolfs to scatter the flock.
Acts 20:29 I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock.

 

[TexUs]

I did some looking around about this document it was written by Tertullian

Ahh, you're right. I didn't even look. I trusted him that it was as he said it was (written by Clement).

I guess that's what I get for trusting a Catholic's word when it comes to their traditions.


So, Selene... You didn't even produce for me what you even promised!

 

[Selene]

You said this:


"[font="tahoma][size="2"]TexUs, if you had examined the records of the early fathers, you would have known that some of those people who wrote about St. Peter being the first bishop of Rome was there at the time when Peter was the first bishop of Rome. For example, Clement of Rome (who later became Pope) wrote in his letter to the Corinthians that it was St. Peter who ordained him as priest."[/size][/font]
[font="tahoma][size="2"]
[/size][/font]
Sounds to me like your example was supposed to be evidence of Peter being the first Pope.

Your post #10 doesn't prove anything. I don't think you can prove Babylon being Rome... Even though I personally agree with you in that regard- we need to keep in mind that it could be wrong.
That said, the text doesn't even support Peter being IN Babylon anyway.
Was Peter in Rome at some point? Sure. Did he write letters from it? Who knows.

Was he the Pope of Rome? I've yet to see any evidence for that at all.

TexUs, my post #10 showed that it was St. Peter who established the Church in Babylon. My posted stated the following, which you ignored:

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

And if you had bothered to read my post, it showed that St. Peter was in Rome, and I even cited the historical documents.

 

[Selene]

I did some looking around about this document it was written by Tertullian about 200 AD. Its not first person evidence its simply a statement that evidence in the form of letters was produced as legal evidence.
Tertullian also writes that the churches were already in question during this time as to their doctrine and questionable apostolic succession. Tertullian started sects of his own that were latter reconciled to the now Catholic Church by St. Augustine. The Catholic encyclopedia credits Tertullian for several doctrines that are found in the and some that are not.

What you quoted from the Catholic Encyclopedia does not even say that Tertullian was questioning apostolic succession. What you quoted was Terullian questioning Mary's virginity and that he developed his own doctrine of the Holy Trinity as well as classes of sin. But nowhere does it mention apostolic sucession. The one I gave quoted Tertullian supporting apostolic succession.


Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops). The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is even illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.

As for Tertullian, as I said, there is nothing in your quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia that shows Tertullian stating that he was questioning apostolic succession. Below is a quote from Tertullian's own letter regarding apostolic succession. As you can see from what I placed in bold, Tertullian spoke of a Church in Rome in which Clement was ordained by the Apostle Peter in the same way that Polycarp was placed by the Apostle John. Clement became a Pope.

"[The apostles] founded churches in every city, from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches. Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification. Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but the one primitive Church, [founded] by the apostles, from which they all [spring]. In this way, all are primitive, and all are apostolic, while they are all proved to be one in unity" (Demurrer Against the Heretics 20 [A.D. 200]).

"[W]hat it was which Christ revealed to them [the apostles] can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by declaring the gospel to them directly themselves . . . If then these things are so, it is in the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic churches—those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the churches received from the apostles, the apostles from Christ, [and] Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto proceed from falsehood" (ibid., 21).

"But if there be any [heresies] which are bold enough to plant [their origin] in the midst of the apostolic age, that they may thereby seem to have been handed down by the apostles, because they existed in the time of the apostles, we can say: Let them produce the original records of their churches; let them unfold the roll of their bishops, running down in due succession from the beginning in such a manner that [their first] bishop shall be able to show for his ordainer and predecessor some one of the apostles or of apostolic men—a man, moreover, who continued steadfast with the apostles. For this is the manner in which the apostolic churches transmit their registers: as the church of Smyrna, which records that Polycarp was placed therein by John; as also the church of Rome, which makes Clement to have been ordained in like manner by Peter" (ibid., 32).

"But should they even effect the contrivance [of composing a succession list for themselves], they will not advance a step. For their very doctrine, after comparison with that of the apostles [as contained in other churches], will declare, by its own diversity and contrariety, that it had for its author neither an apostle nor an apostolic man; because, as the apostles would never have taught things which were self-contradictory" (ibid.).

"Then let all the heresies, when challenged to these two tests by our apostolic Church, offer their proof of how they deem themselves to be apostolic. But in truth they neither are so, nor are they able to prove themselves to be what they are not. Nor are they admitted to peaceful relations and communion by such churches as are in any way connected with apostles, inasmuch as they are in no sense themselves apostolic because of their diversity as to the mysteries of the faith" (ibid.).

We are an Apostolic Church, and we are not the only Apostolic Church. The Orthodox Churches are also Apostolic because they can also trace their lineage to an Apostle in the first century.

 

[jacobtaylor]

TexUs, my post #10 showed that it was St. Peter who established the Church in Babylon. My posted stated the following, which you ignored:

Lactantius, in a treatise called The Death of the Persecutors, written around 318, noted that “When Nero was already reigning (Nero reigned from 54–68), Peter came to Rome, where, in virtue of the performance of certain miracles which he worked by that power of God which had been given to him, he converted many to righteousness and established a firm and steadfast temple to God.”

And if you had bothered to read my post, it showed that St. Peter was in Rome, and I even cited the historical documents.

Lactantius is nothing more than a catholic member proclaiming the church to be founded by an Apostle again. Its no different than your reference to Tertullian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lactantius
Lucius Caecilius Firmianus Lactantius was an early Christian author (ca. 240 – ca. 320) who became an advisor to the first Christian Roman emperor, Constantine I, guiding his religious policy as it developed,[1] and tutor to his son.

If chapter 2 were true and not simply a political affirmation just what does it prove? That God threw the Roman empire established a church under the penalty of death to all that denied it? Is that what Jesus commanded, a christian jihad to kill and persecute all non conformist under the power of Rome? If thats what you believe then good for you, I can't quite accept that foundation. This went on until just a couple hundred years ago. Do you believe the catholic church today is the only legitimate church? Is this where you are heading with this topic?

 

[Anastacia]

My replies to Selene in blue.

Apostolic succession is the line of bishops stretching back to the apostles. All over the world, all Catholic bishops are part of a lineage that goes back to the time of the apostles, something that is impossible in Protestant denominations (most of which do not even claim to have bishops). The role of apostolic succession in preserving true doctrine is even illustrated in the Bible. To make sure that the apostles’ teachings would be passed down after the deaths of the apostles, Paul told Timothy, "What you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first three generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, and the generation Timothy will teach.
2 Timothy 2:2 DOES NOT support the Catholic's teaching of "Apostolic Succession."

As for Tertullian, as I said, there is nothing in your quote in the Catholic Encyclopedia that shows Tertullian stating that he was questioning apostolic succession. Below is a quote from Tertullian's own letter regarding apostolic succession. As you can see from what I placed in bold, Tertullian spoke of a Church in Rome in which Clement was ordained by the Apostle Peter in the same way that Polycarp was placed by the Apostle John. Clement became a Pope.
You give so much clout to Tertullian?! Even after you know he questioned the virginity of Mary mother of Jesus!?!
You can't add or subtract from God's Word, no matter how much Catholics think it should be so. There is only Apostolic Succession for those who practice man made commands.

We are an Apostolic Church, and we are not the only Apostolic Church. The Orthodox Churches are also Apostolic because they can also trace their lineage to an Apostle in the first century.

 

[rockytopva]

I think it is important to see that the church of Rome is the Catholic (Thyatirean) church. In which... If folks want to follow is their own business. They have come up with a list where they tell their followers that Peter was the first Pope and there was a lineage that followed...

1. St. Peter (32-67)
2. St. Linus (67-76)
3. St. Anacletus (Cletus) (76-88)
4. St. Clement I (88-97)
5. St. Evaristus (97-105)
6. St. Alexander I (105-115) And so on and so forth

This opened the doors for the spirit of Jezebel to come in and attempt to dominate the whole Christian church. To deny the Pope then was to deny the Christian church itself and justified the use of torture and death to those who would not submit.

In which I have got to say... None for me! Not that I think that there will be no Catholics in heaven... I just like to keep myself as free from these earthly bondage's as possible.