Was Peter EVER in Rome?greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread |
Peter's Presence in Rome"Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars[of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. " Clement of Rome,The First Epistle of Clement,5(c.A.D. 96),in ANF,I:6
"I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you." Ignatius of Antioch,Epistle to the Romans,4(c.A.D. 110),in ANF,I:75
'You have thus by such an admonition bound together the plantings of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth." Dionysius of Corinth, Epistle to Pope Soter,fragment in Eusebius' Church History,II:25(c.A.D. 178),in NPNF2,I:130
"Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome,and laying the foundations of the Church." Irenaeus,Against Heresies,3:1:1(c.A.D. 180),in ANF,I:414
"As Peter had preached the Word publicly at Rome, and declared the Gospel by the Spirit, many who were present requested that Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered his sayings, should write them out." Clement of Alexandria, fragment in Eusebius Church History,VI:14,6(A.D. 190), in NPNF2,I:261
'We read the lives of the Caesars: At Rome Nero was the first who stained with blood the rising blood. Then is Peter girt by another(an allusion to John 21:18), when he is made fast to the cross." Tertullian, Scorpiace,15:3(A.D. 212),in ANF,III:648
"[W]hat utterance also the Romans give, so very near(to the apostles), to whom Peter and Paul conjointly bequeathed the gospel even sealed with their own blood." Tertullian, Against Marcion,4:5(inter A.D. 207-212),in ANF,III:350
"It is, therefore, recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and that Peter likewise was crucified under Nero. This account of Peter and Paul is substantiated by the fact that their names are preserved in the cemeteries of that place even to the present day. It is confirmed likewise by Caius, a member of the Church, who arose under Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. He, in a published disputation with Proclus, the leader of the Phrygian heresy, speaks as follows concerning the places where the sacred corpses of the aforesaid apostles are laid: 'But I can show the trophies of the apostles. For if you will go to the Vatican or to the Ostian way, you will find the trophies of those who laid the foundations of this church.' " Gaius, fragment in Eusebius' Church History,2:25(A.D. 198),in NPNF2,I:129-130
"Peter...at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer this way." Origen,Third Commentary on Genesis,(A.D. 232) fragment in Eusebius 3:1:1,in NPNF2,X:132
"Thus Peter, the first of the Apostles, having been often apprehended, and thrown into prison, and treated with igominy, was last of all crucified at Rome." Peter of Alexandria,The Canonical Epistle,Canon 9(A.D. 306),in ANF,VI:273
"[W]hich Peter and Paul preached at Rome..." Lactantius,The Divine Institutes,4:21(A.D. 310),in ANF,VII:123
"Peter...coming to the city of Rome, by the mighty cooperation of that power which was lying in wait there..." Eusebius,Ecclesiastical History,II:14,5 (A.D. 325),in NPNF2,X:115
"This man[Simon Magus],after he had been cast out by the Apostles,came to Rome...Peter and Paul,a noble pair,chief rulers of the Church, arrived and set the error right...For Peter was there, who carrieth the keys of heaven..." Cyril of Jerusalem,Catechetical Lectures,6:14-15(c.A.D. 350),in NPNF2,VII:37-38
"And Peter, who had hid himself for fear of the Jews, and the Apostle Paul who was let down in a basket, and fled, when they were told, 'Ye must bear witness at Rome,' deferred not the journey; yea, rather, they departed rejoicing..." Athanasius,Defence of his Flight,18(c.A.D. 357),in NPNF2,IV:261
"I think it my duty to consult the chair of Peter, and to turn to a church whose faith has been praised by Paul...My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross." Jerome,To Pope Damasus,Epistle 15 (A.D. 377),in NPNF2,VI:18
"Where the Cherubim sing the glory, where the Seraphim are flying, there shall we see Paul, with Peter, and as a chief and leader of the choir of the Saints, and shall enjoy his generous love. For if when here he loved men so, that when he had the choice of departing and being with Christ, he chose to be here, much more will he there display a warmer affection. I love Rome even for this, although indeed one has other grounds for praising it, both for its greatness, and its antiquity, and its beauty, and its populousness, and for its power, and its wealth, and for its successes in war. But I let all this pass, and esteem it blessed on this account, that both in his lifetime he wrote to them, and loved them so, and talked with them whiles he was with us, and brought his life to a close there. Wherefore the city is more notable upon this ground, than upon all others together. And as a body great and strong, it hath as two glistening eyes the bodies of these Saints. Not so bright is the heaven, when the sun sends forth his rays, as is the city of Rome, sending out these two lights into all parts of the world. From thence will Paul be caught up, from thence Peter. Just bethink you, ... what a sight Rome will see, when Paul ariseth suddenly from that deposit, together with Peter, and is lifted up to meet the Lord. What a rose will Rome send up to Christ! what two crowns will the city have about it! what golden chains will she be girded with! what fountains possess! Therefore I admire the city, not for the much gold, not for the columns, not for the other display there, but for these pillars of the Church." Chrysostom,Epistle to the Romans,Homily 32 (c.A.D. 391),in NPNFI,XI:561-562
"Which was mere to the interest of the Church at Rome, that it should at its commencement be presided over by some high-born and pompous senator, or by the fisherman Peter, who had none of this world's advantages to attract men to him?" Gregory of Nyssa,To the Church at Nicodemia,Epistle 13 (ante A.D. 394),NPNF2,V:535
"For if the lineal succession of bishops is to be taken into account, with how much more certainty and benefit to the Church do we reckon back till we reach Peter himself, to whom, as bearing in a figure the whole Church, the Lord said: 'Upon this rock will I build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it !' The successor of Peter was Linus, and his successors in unbroken continuity were these: -- Clement, Anacletus, Evaristus, Alexander, Sixtus, Telesphorus, Iginus, Anicetus, Pius, Soter, Eleutherius, Victor, Zephirinus, Calixtus, Urbanus, Pontianus, Antherus, Fabianus, Cornelius, Lucius, Stephanus, Xystus, Dionysius, Felix, Eutychianus, Gaius, Marcellinus, Marcellus, Eusebius, Miltiades, Sylvester, Marcus, Julius, Liberius, Damasus, and Siricius, whose successor is the present Bishop Anastasius. In this order of succession no Donatist bishop is found. But, reversing the natural course of things, the Donatists sent to Rome from Africa an ordained bishop, who, putting himself at the head of a few Africans in the great metropolis, gave some notoriety to the name of 'mountain men,' or Cutzupits, by which they were known." Augustine,To Fortunatus,Epistle 53(A.D. 400),in NPNFI,I:298
"But some people in some countries of the West, and especially in the city,[ie. Rome] not knowing the reason of this indulgence, think that a dispensation from fasting ought certainly not to be allowed On the Sabbath, because they say that on this day the Apostle Peter fasted before his encounter with Simon[Magus]." John Cassian,Institutes,X(ante A.D. 435),in NPNF2,XI:218
"The whole world, dearly-beloved, does indeed take part in all holy anniversaries[of Peter & Paul], and loyalty to the one Faith demands that whatever is recorded as done for all men's salvation should be everywhere celebrated with common rejoicings. But, besides that reverence which to-day's festival has gained from all the world, it is to be honoured with special and peculiar exultation in our city, that there may be a predominance of gladness on the day of their martyrdom in the place where the chief of the Apostles met their glorious end. For these are the men, through whom the light of Christ's gospel shone on thee, O Rome, and through whom thou, who wast the teacher of error, wast made the disciple of Truth. These are thy holy Fathers and true shepherds, who gave thee claims to be numbered among the heavenly kingdoms, and built thee under much better and happier auspices than they, by whose zeal the first foundations of thy walls were laid: and of whom the one that gave thee thy name defiled thee with his brother's blood." Pope Leo the Great(regn. A.D. 440-461),Sermon LXXXII(ante A.D. 461),in NPNF2,XII:194
Some non-Catholic historians
"Some Protestant controversialists have asserted that Peter was never in Rome...I think the historical probability is that he was...Protestant champions had undertaken the impossible task of proving the negative, that Peter was never in Rome. They might as well have undertaken to prove out of the Bible that St. Bartholomew never preached in Pekin...For myself, I am willing, in absence of any opposing tradition, to accept the current account that Peter suffered martyrdom at Rome. If Rome, which early laid claim to have witnessed that martrydom, were not the scene of it, where then did it take place? Any city would be glad to claim such a connexion with the name of the Apostle, and none but Rome made the claim...If this evidence for Peter's martydom be not be deemed sufficient, there are few things in the history of the early Church which it will be possible to demonstrate" G. Salmon "Infallibilty of the Church" (Grand Rapids:Baker,1959) pp. 348-9(a critic of the Catholic faith)
"...to deny the Roman stay of Peter is an error which today is clear to every scholar who is not blind. The Martyr death of Peter at Rome was once contested by reason of Protestant prejudice.' A. Harnack
'It is sufficient to let us include the martyrdom of Peter in Rome in our final historical picture of the early Church, as a matter of fact which is relatively though not absolutely assured. We accept it, however facts of antiquity that are universally accepted as historical. Were we to demand for all facts of ancient history a greater degree of probability, we should have to strike from our history books a large portion of their contents." Oscar Cullman "Peter, Disciple, Apostle, Martyr" (London:SCM,1962) p. 114
"That Peter and Paul were the most eminent of many Christians who suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero is certain..." F.F. Bruce "NT History" (New York:Doubleday,1971) p. 410
"It seems certain that Peter spent his closing years in Rome" JND Kelly "The Oxford Dictionary of Popes" (Oxford:Oxford,1986) p. 6
"The martrydom of both Peter and Paul in Rome...has often been questioned by Protestant critics, some of whom have contended that Peter was never in Rome. But the archeaological researches of the Protestant Historian Hans Lietzmann, supplemented by the library study of the Protestant exegete Oscar Cullman, have made it extremely difficult to deny the tradition of Peter's death in Rome under the emperor Nero. The account of Paul's martydom in Rome, which is supported by much of the same evidence, has not called forth similar skepticism." Jaroslav Pelikan, "The Riddle of Catholicism", (New York:Abingdon,1959) p. 36
This text may downloaded and viewed for private reading only. This text may not be used by another Web site or published, electronically or otherwise, without the written permission of the copyright holder.
Joseph A. Gallegos © 1997 All Rights Reserved.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), November 21, 2002
Listen with your ears, and not your mouth Timmy.
-- . (.@......), November 21, 2002.
Thanks Gail,I will read the 3 post - that you made especially for me. :)
God Bless!!!
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), November 21, 2002.
Tim, why haven't you retracted your statement that "Peter was never in Rome"? Your teachers are teaching you LIES!!!!
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 10, 2002.
Elpidio, I hope you read the above.Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 13, 2002.
Yes Gail, I did. My argument is that from the canonical writings, there is not a 100% proof was at Rome. Everything is possible. But that Peter was there before Paul, I doubt it. He should have mentioned him at the end of the Letter to the Romans. He should vave met Peter at Rome when he ( Paul) was taken prisoner to that city to meet the Emperor. Not even the Jewish leaders there knew Peter. I believe saint Paul was our first Pope. If Peter went there, then he was our second. The fact that our church is apostolic is more than enough.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 16, 2002.
Right, Elpidio, no truth existed after the closing of the canon! How completely ridiculous. Why, then, how can we KNOW anything, for sure, if it happened after scripture was written? We can'tknow how the automobile was made, how the airplane was created. We can't know whether there really was such a person as Abraham Lincoln or Adolph Hitler. My goodness! What a pathetic argument . . .Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 16, 2002.
Whoops, I guess Jesus made a mistake when he gave the Shepherd's Mantle to Peter -- HE MEANT TO GIVE IT TO PAUL! And never mind that Paul wasn't even around for YEARS after Christ's ascension. Boy, did those Church fathers get things mixed up.Historical revisionism has become an artform in our era. Truth is relative and practically obselete. But Elpidio, if you can't trust the Church Fathers writings as to matters of faith, (some of whom actually canonized the scripture), then you also cannot rely on that scripture itself. Afterall, maybe they sat down and wrote the N.T. canon themselves!
Sorry for the sarcasm. I am truly weary of trying to invoke a rational conversation with intellectually dishonest people, who think the Bible leapt out of nowhere, formed itself out of nothing, and then lied dormant for 1,500 years until the Deformation . . . Oh, I mean, Reformation.
Gail
P.S. Look at the evidence. It is overwhelming.
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 16, 2002.
Gail,I just wanted to say how impressed I am by you. Thank you!
In Christ.
-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), December 17, 2002.
As I am of you, Mr. Huether!Love,
Gail
-- Gail (rothfarms@socket.net), December 17, 2002.
Elpidio, you wrote:
"I believe saint Paul was our first Pope. If Peter went there, then he was our second. The fact that our church is apostolic is more than enough."What do you mean, "our" first Pope and "our" church?
You aren't even Christian (much less Catholic) any more. On another thread, you revealed that you don't believe in the divinity of Jesus.Please be honest from now on. JFG
-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), December 18, 2002.
John,
Elpidio should be honest, I know. But I doubt very much he feels all the things he's said here up to now. He doesn't know WHAT he believes. One day it's ''our'' Church, the next day who knows. He acts as if Christ were a mythical character, but I don't think he's ever seriously tried facing the truth. If you Google up his name, you'll see his association with some esoteric, stuff-and-nonsense group which calls itself a church in L.A. --This is the source I think, of his grandiose metaphysical hodge-podge. He launches off on pseudo- philosophical bragadocchio to puff up his narcissism.Poor soul, the best thing that could have happened to him was stumbling into a Catholic group; he'll have a chance to come down to earth for a change. His roots are calling to him; and for this we have to thank God.
Let's pray for Elpidio. He'll return to the faith someday. His kind always does; though some wait until they're faced with death. That's when they send for the Padre.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 18, 2002.
I don't understand the word esoteric. Yes, Eugene and John, one day I will die, like all mortals do. But your eyes won't be there to see it, unfortunately. I will probably even attend your funeral, if you invite me. It has taken 20 years to finally find the true God. Saint Paul did not believe Jesus was God, if he ever, he could have been stoned time and time again he entered a synagogue.Since in the Roman Empire even the Emperor was worshipped as a God, why not Jesus, once the Empire became Christian in 325 AD?
I have seen Jesus, I have talked to God... A vision no one can rob...
It took Paul 17 years to be fully accepted as an apostle sent by Jesus Christ, because of the vision he had on the road. His old friends from Judaism turned their backs on him, yet he persevered. He is the main reason there are 1600 million people who believe in Jesus Christ. Somehow, along the way, his message is now the property of the Protestants.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 18, 2002.
Elpidio Gonzalez,"Saint Paul did not believe Jesus was God"????????
Would you say that to his face if he was standing right in front of you? You are talking about a man that was closer to God than you or I will probably ever be.
Where do you get this?
-- Tim (tlw97@cox.net), December 18, 2002.
Tim, As a Protestant I will answer you from scripture, Paul’s letters, which are the oldest letters and most common, and therefore less tainted by manuscript corruption. (the only one I don’t think is his but probably Barnabas’ is Hebrews Paul wasn’t a priest or Levite. This letter has the point of view of a priest or Levite.) I will let the scriptures do most of the talking. Notice that Paul’s defense says he had a revelation from Jesus. How Paul says people must turn to God. So God is the focus. Notice the Gentile should turn to God. From Acts: 26). Agrippa said to Paul…. [6] Now I stand here to be judged for the hope of the promise made by God to our fathers, …13] at noon, O King, I saw on the way a light from the sky, brighter than the sun, shining around me and those who traveled with me. [14] When we had all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice saying to me in the Hebrew language, 'Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me? It is hard for you to kick against the goads.' [15] "I said, 'Who are you, Lord?' "He said, 'I am Jesus, whom you persecute. …[17] delivering you from the people, and from the Gentiles, to whom I send you, [18] to open their eyes, that they may turn from darkness to light and from the power of Satan to God, that they may receive remission of sins and an inheritance among those who are sanctified by faith in me.' …and also to the Gentiles, that they should repent and turn to God, doing works worthy of repentance. [21] For this reason the Jews seized me in the temple, and tried to kill me. [22] Having therefore obtained the help that is from God, I stand to this day testifying both to small and great, saying nothing but what the prophets and Moses did say should come, [23] how the Christ must suffer, and how he first by the resurrection of the dead should proclaim light both to these people and to the Gentiles." … See how Paul says he has done nothing against his Jewish religion. If he had said Jesus is God he could had been stoned now to death for blasphemy. If he wanted to let his people know Jesus is God, this is another great opportunity. Acts Ch 28)… [17] It happened that after three days Paul called together those who were the leaders of the Jews. When they had come together, he said to them, "I, brothers, though I had done nothing against the people, or the customs of our fathers, still was delivered prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans, [18] who, when they had examined me, desired to set me free, because there was no cause of death in me. …[23] When they had appointed him a day, they came to him into his lodging in great number. He explained to them, testifying about the Kingdom of God, and persuading them concerning Jesus, both from the law of Moses and from the prophets Notice in the introduction to Romans how Paul mentions Jesus and God. Notice how Paul thanks God first. Notice what says of the Son. He must be from the seed of David: That is, Joseph is his father on this Earth. Notice he says Men must glorify God. Romans 1: Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, set apart for the gospel of God, [2] which he promised before through his prophets in the holy Scriptures, [3] concerning his Son, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, [4] who was declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, … [7] to all who are in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [8] First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for all of you, that your faith is proclaimed throughout the whole world. [9] For God is my witness, whom I serve in my spirit in the gospel of his Son, how unceasingly I make mention of you always in my prayers, [10] requesting, if by any means now at last I may be prospered by the will of God to come to you… [21] Because, knowing God, they didn't glorify him as God.. Again see the introduction to 1 Corinthians Corinthians . The Father is mentioned first. 1. Paul, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ through the will of God, and our brother Sosthenes, [2] to the assembly of God which is at Corinth; those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in every place, both theirs and ours: [3] Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ. [4] I always thank my God concerning you, for the grace of God which was given you in Christ Jesus;… [9] God is faithful, through whom you were called into the fellowship of his Son, Jesus Christ, our Lord... See the oldest creed at 1 Corinthians. No mention of Jesus been called God. Who raised Jesus from the dead? Also if death came by one man, then….the resurrection came by one…….fill in the blank, my friend… 1 Corinthians Ch 15 1)Now I declare to you, brothers, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which you also stand, [2] by which also you are saved, if you hold firmly the word which I preached to you … [8] and last of all, as to the child born at the wrong time, he appeared to me also. [9] For I am the least of the apostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the assembly of God... [14] If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain, and your faith also is in vain. [15] Yes, we are found false witnesses of God, because we testified about God that he raised up Christ, whom he didn't raise up, if it is so that the dead are not raised... [21] For since death came by man, the resurrection of the dead also came by man. [22] For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all will be made alive. [23] But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then those who are Christ's, at his coming. [24] Then the end comes, when he will deliver up the Kingdom to God, even the Father; when he will have abolished all rule and all authority and power…All are yours, [23] and you are Christ's, and Christ is God's. Notice also in Paul’s le letter to Galatians the same introduction. Notice how he calls Jesus the Son. Jesus is never called God by Paul. See how he says the glory should be for God the Father.Galatians I.1) Paul, an apostle (not from men, neither through man, but through Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead), [2] and all the brothers who are with me, to the assemblies of Galatia: [3] Grace to you and peace from God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ, [4] who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil age, according to the will of our God and Father …[5] to whom be the glory forever and ever. Amen. [6] I marvel that you are so quickly deserting him who called you in the grace of Christ to a different gospel; …[12] For neither did I receive it from man, nor was I taught it, but it came to me through revelation of Jesus Christ. …[15] But when it was the good pleasure of God, who separated me from my mother's womb, and called me through his grace, [16] to reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the Gentiles, I didn't immediately confer with flesh and blood… [23] but they only heard: "He who once persecuted us now preaches the faith that he once tried to destroy." [24] And they glorified God in me.
You could do the same to each letter. Paul wasn’t preaching that Jesus was God. He was preaching about the resurrection of the Christ: Jesus of Nazareth. It took me more than 20 years to see this. God is not Jesus. I read my first complete Bible at 13. This coming from a Roman Catholic.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 19, 2002.
You may be a genius from the age of 13 Epidio. But you haven't advanced except in narcissism. Take this sentence: ''I have seen Jesus, I have talked to God... A vision no one can rob.'' Save it for the science fiction channel, Vato.The closest you've come to a vision was on LSD. Now you know what Saint Paul thought.
Is there anything you don't know? You know the painter of Our Lady of Guadalupe. You know where Saint Peter was in 48 A.D. You know what I'm going to be experiencing on a night with a full moon five years from now.
You can cook and you can ride in the Kentucky Derby; and you know who the winner is (not you.)
Elpidio-- thanks for showing up here. We needed the laughs. No hard feelings!
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.
Elpidio,Whether or not you read the bible and understand from a "canonical" level where Peter and Paul ultimately wound up is not as much relevant as the simple fact there is more than enough evidence, from history, that Peter ultimately died in Rome.
Also, I am curious, what relevance does you having visions, learning to read the bible at a young age, and having prophecies have to do with your faith? The Saints had countless visions, prophecies, and knew and read the bible the same way a lover reads love letters until they can be recited from fond memory. However, the difference was always the fact that despite any vision, be it God, Mary, the Saints, or even demons, they never trusted those visions until "reaffirmed" in some way that the vision came from God, and not the other "One." In fact, it just so happens that St. Pio was greeted by a "deceased friend" but got the feeling something was not right, so he immediately asked that the person repeat after him, "Jesus, I love you" the "person" was unable to do so, and therefore vanished. Also, the saints, when they had visions, never placed their faith in those visions, nor did they boast of them, rather, they distrusted them until proven true, and rarely ever admitted them to anyone, save their spiritual director. You might do well to seek out a spiritual director; someone that is trained and better equipped in dealing with these situations.
If you are having visions that is a great thing, but when you start placing your faith in them then the devil has got you where he wants you. You look to the visions as God and therefore misplace what it is you truly believe for something you were told you should believe. Personally, I would be leary of your visions simply because they seem to be leading you away from the Church, not further into it. When God truly wants to reveal Himself and make Himself known to others He would not work against the same Church He built, rather, He would draw those He revealed Himself to to the fullness of that Church.
I am not trying to scold you, and I am more than positive you can find many planks in my own eye, but the fact of the matter is what you know and how well you know it means little if that same knowledge given and revealed by God through the Church works against the same Church. Like it or not, revelation did not come falling out of the sky one night and a Chuch was immediately born, rather, it had to develop over time, through Tradition, beginning before Christ came, but finding its fulfillment in Him. That same Church is responsible for the history you know, the theology you have learned, and even the Scriptural study you have obviously admantly pursued. Granted, a majority of Scripture scholarship has come from Protestant Churches, specifically the newer stuff, but had the Catholic Church not had a beginning, Protestantism would never have come into being. In that sense, the Protestants are indebted to Catholics for helping to "found" their many many sects.
Keeping that in mind, as St. Thomas Aquinas said after he had a vision with regard to his writings, "all is straw." Arguably one of the greatest minds the Church has seen and he refers to his writings as nothing more than "straw." How much more is your knowledge, our knowledge. what you have learned, what we have learned. what you have seen, what we have seen? If we place everything in that than we have yet to see how finite we really are. As St. Paul reminds, it is all nothing, "without love."
Knowledge means nothing without temperance, and visions are empty without a prudent distrust of self.
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 20, 2002.
You have a valid argument Seminarian.I received a lot of my knowledge from the catholic Church: they gave me the books in Greek and Latin of several works, like the Didache, the letters of Ignatius,... They gave me God's name as Yavé ( from the Catholic Bible La Biblia Latinoamericana), and the list goes on.
Sometimes I think God chose the wrong man to reveal himself and his Son, Jesus Christ. There are many others better than me. Even in this forum, I think Chris Butler has a better intellect than me. Why God didn't appear to Chris, I have no idea. I often wonder how Chris would sound if God appeared to him in a revelation.I have more shortcomings than him.I never asked God to reveal himself to me, nor his Son. Every revelation comes with a prophecy or a command. Yahweh gave me a command. Jesus a prophecy. Everything in a 4 part dream vision. Of this, the Pope knows already.
I don't expect people to believe. Their own people didn't believe Moses, Jeremiah, Jesus, why should they believe me? It took 40 years for the Israelites to reach Canaan for not listening to Moses. Jerusalem was destroyed for not listening to Jeremiah. Jerusalem was destroyed again for not listening to Jesus.
Do you remember in the book of Samuel, how young Samuel received a revelation from God, telling him that the House of Eli would be destroyed, and not served more as high priests? Do you remember the reasons? Why did you think I wrote to the Pope? To say "Hi"?
Count to me all of God's prophets that were believed right away. Find me those that were not persecuted. Like the prophet who prophesied against Jeroboam II, I was just a shepherd tending the flock when Yahweh called me. yet, I don't consider myself a prophet, but a math teacher. That is why I am.
You, just like Kiwi, are just beginning a journey of truth, my dear seminarian. There was a time I was a trinitarian, Saint Athanasius was my champion of orthodoxy like Leo the Great. Gone are those days.
May Yahweh our God, and the God of our Lord and messiah Jesus Christ guide you in the truth, even if is painful. It is painful when your friends turn against you,...
-- (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.
Blessed Christmas, Eugene, to imitate one of the Ladies in our forum. I don't write as much because I am busy at work.You are right. I am not allowed to gamble. Remember how those soldiers gambled the clothes of of our Lord and savior Jesus Christ? Do you know any person that talked to God ever gambling to make money? I don't even believe in horoscopes. That is prohibited in Deuteronomy. What are you afraid , Eugene? Are you scared of the ghost of Christmas future?
Shoot! I forgot, you are a ghostbuster!
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.
Merry Christmas anyway, amigo.It's ironic you signed as egonsalez@srla here. EGO tells the story.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.
You, just like Kiwi, are just beginning a journey of truth, my dear seminarian. There was a time I was a trinitarian, Saint Athanasius was my champion of orthodoxy like Leo the Great. Gone are those days.Thank you for your recognition that I am on "a journey," however, I think it better that a spiritual director tell me exactly where on that journey I actually am.
Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems that everything you say has an overwhelming air of pride, as though "you know something I don't know." Granted, that may be the case, and so be it if it is true, but I am beginning to think that you think since you are having visions that you are more qualified to give me spiritual advice than someone who has had many more years of experience, manifested through his own struggles, and the struggles of others.
Again, you cite some of the greatest Trinitarian Saints and yet debunk them as though they are nothing. Yet, and here is my concern for you again, if these visions are truly from God, then why are you being driven AWAY from the Church, and not further into it? Those days are not "gone" until you are dead and buried, those days can be revisited and that belief can be rekindled but, and forgive me for saying so, your pride is not letting you see your pride. You pride is affirming yourself, not God. Your pride is destroying your faith, these visions, if they are from God, are destroying your faith.
Please, and I wish you no ill will, I would recommend that you see an experienced spiritual director, someone that is aware of these things, and someone who is willing to help you understand.
Like I said, I am more than positive that you can find a thousand planks in my own eye, more than positive that you can see some pride in my own posts, but you seem to believe that you have already attained perfection, and through that same perfection wish to dismantle the same Church that has brought you to God in the first place.
You know if you don't wish to see a spiritual director, then at least try what St. Pio did. Ask this person in your vision to say the name of Jesus, "every knee must bend in the heavens on the earth and under the earth" at that name. If this person/persons cannot utter His word, I would be leary about who it is that is appearing to you. Remember, even the devil can appear as an angel of light, don't let his deception blind you to the light that is Christ.
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 20, 2002.
Yes,Eugene. It tells a story. the story of how the Gonzalez family created the kingdom of Castile. Castile united more kingdoms into what is Spain. Spain conquered what is Mexico and New Mexico, so you and I would be commicating in Spanish from time to time.Suerte, Eugene. Hasta la vista. Qué Dios Yavé y su hijo Jesucristo te acompañen en esta navidad, guiandote siempre por el buen camino.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.
Everyone will bend the knee, my dear seminarian., except God.Notice seminarian that I have never tried to say that I am better than you because I have visions. I don't control God. God controls me. He comes whenever he pleases, not when I ask him to come.I would be lying if I said I do. If you feel that I think I better than you, then forgive me. That is not my intention.
Not even I know verything, just like Jesus didn't know the time and the hour of the end.
When I talk to you I mostly use scripture, either from the Bible or the other patristic writings, not my visions.
-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), December 20, 2002.
Pues, Elpidio,Los Chavez vienen del estirpe de un Maese de Campo que colonizo las tierras de Nuevo Mexico. La capital se llamo Santa Fe, c. 1609 --No ganaron masque la buena suerte de entrar en Estados Unidos con el tratado de Guadalupe Hidalgo-- He tenido como primo un senador de Estados Unidos, el desaparecido Dennis Chavez, en paz descanze. No fuimos en mi familia sus partidarios; y que le hace.
Pero buenos Catolicos, te aseguro. Dios nos otorgo fe y buena voluntad para el projimo; y juicio para jamas habrirle las puertas a la Cosa Mala. La fortaleza no se aprende de los libros, Elpidio. Dios te la tiene que ensenar. Has venido a un sitio para comenzar tu educacion espiritual; no mates tus esperanzas, hermano.
-- eugene c. chavez (chavezec@pacbell.net), December 20, 2002.
Everyone will bend the knee, my dear seminarian., except God.Indeed, which is why if you ask this being for His name, they should be able to utter the name of Jesus with no problem.
Notice seminarian that I have never tried to say that I am better than you because I have visions. I don't control God. God controls me. He comes whenever he pleases, not when I ask him to come.I would be lying if I said I do. If you feel that I think I better than you, then forgive me. That is not my intention.
Agreed. However, despite your good intentions there still seems to be that air of pride that exists. You may not be able to see it, but I, and apparently a couple of others see it as well.
Not even I know verything, just like Jesus didn't know the time and the hour of the end.
But that does not negate the value of the Trinity, Jesus and God-the- Father are not two separate entities. I am curious how can someone who held so tightly to Athanasius easily abandon what he, and many Saints have said with regard to the Trinity? You know if you really want I did a paper for my Revelation and Faith class on the Trinity, in an effort to prove the existence of the Trinity from Scripture, Tradition, and Magisterium. I could let you read that if it might help you to see its existence in the three "places." If not, don't worry about it, it is merely an offer and nothing more.
When I talk to you I mostly use scripture, either from the Bible or the other patristic writings, not my visions.
Indeed, but out of fear of beating a dead horse here, your visions still have an effect on your overall beliefs. You have testified to this fact many times. Just because you quote Scripture and Tradition to me does not always necessarily mean you believe what you say to me, nor that you haven't been tainted by these visions you are having.
I am sure it is exciting and special in a way feeling as though your place is to save the world, as it seems these visions are indicating. However, if are to look back on the history of the saints, and to see their place with regard to visions, they were not instructed to save the world as much as they were to save the Church. The Church is given saints to revitalize what was lost and lacking the Church, not in the world. The world is passing away, it is fleeting, but the Church will remain until it is "time."
St. Francis, a very well-known saint was not told to save the world, but the Church. St. Leo had a vision of the destruction of the Church, not of the world. He was to save the Church, not the world. One of St. Pio and Therese of the Little Flower's greatest difficulties were attacks against the faith, not the world. St. Paul the great missionary and St. Peter, the person with whom the keys were given. These were all saints whose call was to save the Church, not the world. Their visions were not to create a new Church but to revitalize the same Church, not to go against the dogmas and doctrines of the Church, but to reaffirm and revitalize their teaching. Even the recently ordained St. Escriva, one who "lacked" visions, did not seek to create a new Church, but to revitalize it anew. He speaks admantly about remaining "Roman" and "becoming more Roman everyday." He also spoke of how important it is to teach, learn, and adhere to the teachings and doctrines of the faith.
These visionaries never set out to create their own Church, they were never called to bring new "revelation" to the world, there will be no more new revelation until the end of time. They all were called to revitalize the revelation we were already given. Repetitive, yes, but I don't know what other way to show you the danger in denying the Church. Even St. Paul an admant persecutor of the Church, in his vision, was asked why he was persecuting "me." Persecution of the Church, is persecution of God. Now, I ask you, if these visions are legitimate, then why would God set Himself against His own Church?
Again, I wish you well, and you are in my prayers.
God Bless
-- (seminarian@ziplip.com), December 20, 2002.