Question:
Simon Peter founded many different churches, what is this theory?
Skylar
2012-06-01 13:41:08 UTC
My friend says that Simon Peter traveled throughout the world, founding many different religions. What is this theory called, if it has a name? Or is it just another of his homemade conspiracy theories? Cannot find anything on Google to refute it based on Catholic doctrine, so a URL would be helpful also.
Thirteen answers:
cristoiglesia
2012-06-01 15:28:36 UTC
I have heard of a lot of ridiculous things taught about the Catholic Church its original apostolic leadership but I have never heard anyone claim that there was more than one Church founded by the disciples of our Lord. All of the congregations they founded were certainly Catholic.St. Peter founded the bishopric of Antioch and the bishopric of Rome. There simply is no evidence from any source to the contrary whether one searches the Bible, the writings of the fathers or history all are in agreement that Jesus and the disciples founded one Church the Catholic Church. God bless!



In Christ

Fr. Joseph
?
2012-06-01 15:07:02 UTC
Saint Peter founder two Catholic Churches. Which would be the now Oriental Orthodox, the Antiochian Church 37 AD http://syrorthodoxchurch.com/english-Dateien/church.html . And then afterwards travelled to Rome and Founded the Catholic Church in Rome, where the Vatican is (this has been explained by St. Irenaeus of Lyon, and in later tradition; in such works as Catalogus Liberianus in 354 AD., Explain that St. Peter founded the Church in Rome.



Some Sources :



St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (5:13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111). http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm#IV





For a better understanding, you should research the five major Churches; Jerusalem, Alexandria, Antioch, Rome, & Constantinople.



Oremus pro invicem.
?
2012-06-01 13:57:10 UTC
Your friend is a messin with yer Head. He was The number one Apostle and helped start and keep going a lot of Christian Churches.



God Bless Ya,

Chicago Bob

imasinner



There is more joy in Jesus in one day.

Than there is in the World 365/24/7

I know, I tried them both.

Numbers 6:24-26
?
2012-06-01 13:55:59 UTC
Your incorrect the only places which St. Peter traveled from Jerusalem was Antioch, and Rome. Now St. Peter's successor was named at Rome because that is where St. Peter was martyred. And his successor was St. Linus. St. Paul had also founded the church of Rome and was martyred in Rome, but the thing is there could only be one Bishop of Rome. And because St. Peter was the leader of the Apostles his successor was given the title of Bishop of Rome. And yes, St. Peter was the founder of the church of Antioch. When the Great Schism happened during the Middle Ages one of the only Eastern Church that remained in full communion with the church of Rome was the Maronite Catholic Church otherwise one of the churches of Antioch.

The other thing that many don't realize that Jerusalem did not remain the main headquarters for Christianity it had moved to Rome. The last Patriarch of Jerusalem was St. James the Just who was martyred. Because of the civil turmoil of Jerusalem and because the Christian persecutions were so sever Christianity was practically nonexistent in Jerusalem. Now during the 4th century the Patriarchy was reestablished in Jerusalem because the Christian persecutions ended. So from the 1st century to the 4th century there was no Patriarch (Bishop) of Jerusalem.
Daver
2012-06-02 13:57:08 UTC
ALL the Apostles founded MANY parishes, but the parishes all belong to the same One True Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. We know this because all the different parishes they founded all believed in a common Dogma. That's what makes them One Church, the common Dogma.



They would only be "several churches" if there were "several dogmas", founded by the same person? That's logically impossible!
Andres
2012-06-01 13:47:11 UTC
that's the craziest thing I ever heard. do you not know? have you not read? Simon Peter said "there is no name under heaven by which man can be saved" and by that he meant the name of Jesus. Look it up it's in the Acts. Peter didn't found the church, Christ did. and yes he was an apostle of Jesus and followed him till it cost him his life. Your freind is hallucinating and would be laughed at by anybody you should laugh that off too. BTW focus on the bible, why do you focus on "catholic doctrine'?
Otto
2012-06-01 13:49:48 UTC
Yes this is a "homemade theory".

Apostle Peter never founded different churches.



He preached the good news of God's kingdom especially in Babylon, but he was not in Roma.

Bible teaches that apostle Paul was in Roma.
?
2012-06-01 13:47:13 UTC
He founded different Churches in diff parts of the empire not diff religions
anonymous
2012-06-01 14:11:15 UTC
Jesus did NOT build His church on Peter! This is a lie from Satan that the catholics spread around because their church is a false church.



Jesus is the True Church!

Jesus is the Foundation of the True Church!

Jesus is the Head of the True Church!



The catholics teach otherwise because their hearts are hard toward Jesus!
Moi
2012-06-01 13:48:04 UTC
I have never heard that theory but it is not at all scriptural. Peter founded the church at Babylon but scripture never once puts him anywhere near Rome.
G
2012-06-01 14:05:46 UTC
What is the point? Who cares about this? Turn off the breaks and let go.

Just do it. Unconditionally.
anonymous
2012-06-01 13:43:27 UTC
Many embarrassing moments have been prevented with salt peter
anonymous
2012-06-01 13:43:33 UTC
Seeing that the RCC kept the Bible, the only means of salvation, from the people for hundreds of years and persecuted and burnt to death those seeking the Bible it is pretty clear of what spirit it is.



Not surprisingly the true church would keep itself hidden from such an antichristian spirit !



The Bible shows you false. The early church was entirely Jewish and the RCC did not arise until Constantine.



Always the lying deceits from the RCC to pretend authority.







Since the true faith that God gives comes only from His word, the Bible and it is by that word that any are born again by the Spirit of God, it matters not what you say, or Martin Luther, or any man.







So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.



Seeing ye have purified your souls in obeying the truth through the Spirit unto unfeigned love of the brethren, see that ye love one another with a pure heart fervently:

Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.





We can well see why the RCC kept the Bible from the people and what its true nature is.





Thank God that he has made His word freely and widely available so that we can be delivered from the abomination of the RCC.



The following random quotes from the book Ten Series of Meditations on the Mystery of the Rosary, by John Ferraro, is intended to give an overview of Roman Catholic dogma concerning the Virgin Mary. Ferraro's book was given the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur, which is an official statement by the Roman Catholic Church that the book "is free of doctrinal or moral error." Therefore, we can take these quotes as official Roman Catholic doctrine: it will explain to you perhaps the reason titles are given to Mary in Roman Catholicism

(a) She [Mary] is co-Redemptrix of the human race.



(b) The church and the saints greet her thus: "You, O Mary, together with Jesus Christ, redeemed us."



(c) God has ordained that no grace will be granted to us except through Mary. It is a doctrine preached by all the saints that no grace will come to us from heaven without passing through Mary's hands. No one will be saved nor obtain mercy except through You, O' heavenly lady. Remember this well, no one will enter heaven without passing through Mary as one would pass through a door. O' Mary, our salvation is in your hands.



(d) During His passion, Mary suffered in her heart all the pains that Jesus suffered in His body. For this reason, God exalted her so greatly.



(e) Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she gave us Jesus pledge of our salvation. Furthermore, she is co-Redemptrix of the human race, because with Christ she ransomed mankind from the power of Satan.



(f) Jesus redeemed us with the blood of His body, Mary with the agonies of her heart.



(g) We were condemned through the fault of one woman; we are saved through the merits of another woman. Just as Eve was the root of death for everyone, so Mary was the source of life for everyone.



(h) Mary is our co-Redemptrix because she suffered in her heart whatever was lacking in the passion of Christ. Are we obligated to Jesus for His passions? -- so we are indebted to Mary for her participation in His passions. She gave birth to Jesus with joy; she gave birth to us, brothers of Jesus, in anguish and sorrow.



(i) Mary, Queen of the Apostles: She is queen of apostles because she formed them and directed them in their preaching. Mary is Queen of Apostles because by herself she routed all the heresies. Mary is Queen of Apostles because she is mother of grace and channel of mercy. She is Queen of Apostles because in her every hope is life and virtue. She is Queen of Apostles because she is conqueror of the Infernal Dragon. (Emphasis added.)



(j) If we spread devotion to Mary, we will gain heaven -- "Who explains me will have life everlasting."



All of the above are blasphemous and counter the truth of salvation ,that all are saved by faith in Christ alone, one of the 5 sola’s of the Reformation that we as Protestants need to re affirm.



This is absolute blasphemy. Nowhere in the Scriptures is Mary exalted this way. Not one time do we find the Apostles or early Christians praying to her. None of the Apostolic epistles to the churches even mention her. Everything the roman catholic church says about Mary is based on human thinking apart from divine revelation.



I renounced all this false and heretical teaching about Mary as well as Roman Catholicism and her pope completely when I embraced the Reformed Protestant faith and became a Presbyterian. It is dangerous and upsetting when I hear any protestant becoming soft on the Roman catholic tradition of praying to Mary. It is repugnant and an blasphemy and an abomination in my own mind now as a Protestant.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...