RELIGION....(part 2)

[d_guy1024]

---

Instead of commenting, y not share ur own belief? Let me share mine as well, thanks amigos!

1. In many religions in the world except Buddhism, the ultimate head of the religion is always a God with supernatural power. This God is almighty, who knows the past and the future, and controls all beings in the universe. This God is worshipped by mankind. Only those who believe in this God can be saved and attain eternal happiness.

Buddhism teaches that every man in the universe is his own lord, controls his own destiny, and is not controlled by any other man or any supernatural God. Sakyamuni attributed His own enlightenment, achievements and results to His own great efforts and wisdom.

Buddhism teaches that a person's luck or misfortune, success or failure is determined by that person's deeds - good or bad, and his efforts. The Buddha can show him the way, but he has to do the work himself. In Buddhism, there is no superior being like God that is higher than all men. The Buddha was a man, and every man can become a Buddha.

2. Buddhahood Is Attained, Not Born

Sakyamuni, like all of us, was an ordinary man. Through His wisdom and practice, He was enlightened and became a Buddha. Every man can follow Sakyamuni's footstep to practise Buddhism and become enlightened.

"Buddha" is only a term we use to refer to a person who has been enlightened. it is like referring to someone who can "preach, teach and solve confusion" as "teacher". There is not only one teacher. Anyone can become a teacher, and there can be teachers everywhere. Similarly, Buddha does not refer to Sakyamuni only. Everyone can become a Buddha. There can be Buddhas everywhere, in this world, in another world, and in another universe.

3. Buddhism Does Not Reject Other Religions

Most of the religions in the world only recognize their religion to be the only "truth faith", and reject other religions as "superstition."

Buddhism teaches that among all religions in the world, there is only difference in the complexity of the teachings, with very little difference in good or bad, right or wrong. Every religion which can exist in this world for over one thousand years must provide useful benefits to mankind, to be accepted and followed for such a long time. Otherwise, these religions would have been filtered by human wisdom and be discarded.

In the 2500 years of the history of Buddhism, it has always existed peacefully with other religions, there has never been any incident in history where the spreading or preaching of Buddhism had created conflict with other religions resulting in bloodshed. Buddhism is truly a most tolerant, understanding or peaceful religion.

Buddhists are taught: "Do not only respect your own religion and snub other religions, you should also respect other religions. This way, besides helping your own religion to grow, you also fulfil your responsibility to other religions. Otherwise, while hurting other religions, you are hurting your own religion as well." This kind of tolerance and sincerity is one of the most treasured characteristics of Buddhism.

From the perspective of Buddhism, "true faith" has no country boundary, and it doe require the trademark of a religion. It does not belong to any one religion, or to any one person at any one time. The "true doctrine" preached h the Buddha is not His exclusive possession, the Buddha was simply one of the discoverer of the Truth. Just like Newton discovered the law gravity, he did not possess the law.

That is why Buddhism teaches that all reasonable, and everlasting doctrines of any religion are also considered to be Buddhist principles, and many Buddhist principles are also part of the teachings of other religions.

"Love thy enemy" came from the Christian bible. Buddhism unquestionably recognizes this virtuous truth, and this saying is also stressed in a similar manner in the teachings of Buddhism. A number of the Christian Ten Commandments are also very similar to the five Precepts (rules) of Buddhism.

4. Buddhism Is Compatible with Science

There is no conflict between Buddhism and science, their mutual goal is to pursue "truth" and "fact". Many teachings of Buddhism are actually compatible with the modern science discoveries.

a. The Buddha said "Space has no end, and there are endless number of worlds." This means that the universe has no limit, and has an endless number of stars and planets.

It was only after Galileo started to observe stars with a telescope, that man has a more advance knowledge of astronomy. Man began to understand and accept that the earth is not the centre of the universe. The earth is only a small planet in this solar system, and the universe has an endless number of solar systems.

Over 2500 years ago, without a telescope, the Buddha told us about the endless space and countless number of stars, He was indeed an enlightened wise man to describe the truth about the great mysterious and overwhelming universe.

b. The Buddha also talked about endless lives in this world and other worlds. He pointed to a cup of water and said that there were eighty four thousand lives in the water (84,000 signifies a large quantity).

Today, scientists cannot deny the possibility of the existence of life in other stars or planets. Under a microscope, a cup of water has millions of micro living organisms. Over 2500 years ago when the Buddha was able to reveal such true fact without a microscope he certainly had amazing wisdom.

c. One Of the principles Of Buddhism states that nothing is unchangeable, substance can be destroyed and can be created.

This contradicted with scientific theories until Einstein's atomic theory E=MC2 proved that matter can be converted into energy (disappearance of substance) and matter can also be converted from energy (creation of substance).

d. The Buddha once said that for the time it took him to finish a sermon on earth, thousands of years have passed in another world. This seemingly unbelievable tale did not seem so absurd any more after Einstein invented his Theory of Relativity.

In the history of mankind, science had been regarded as a threat to religious conceptions of man and the universe from the time of Galileo, Bruno and Copernicus who were instrumental in altering erroneous notions of the universe. The theory of evolution and modern phycology went against accepted principles of many religions dealing with man and his mind as recorded in their "sacred writings." However, basic principles of Buddhism are in harmony with the findings of science and not opposed to them in anyway.

On May 19th, 1939, Albert Einstein, the great scientist of the atomic age, delivered a remarkable speech on "Science and Religion" in Princeton, New Je rsey, U.S.A. He said that "There is no conflict between science and religion, science asks what the world is, and religion asks what humankind and society should become." Einstein expressed this appreciation of Buddhism, "The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. It should transcend a personal God and avoid dogmas and theology. Covering both the natural and the spiritual, it should be based on a religious sense arising from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity. Buddhism answers this description." Highly appreciative references to Buddhism were also made by philosophers, scientists, historians, psychologists and thinkers of modern age including H.G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, Aldous Huxley, C.G. Jung, Erich Fromm etc.

Science without morality spells destruction. Science plus religion like Buddhism can save the world and make it a happy place for people to live in. More importantly, Buddhism moves beyond the limitations of science.

5. Buddhism Is Democratic and Free

In other religions, the words spoken by the founder are "orders" that cannot be refused, and "gospel truth" that cannot be doubted. Anyone who doubts or does not follow the gospel will be "punished" by God. There were stories in other religion's "holy book" that men were punished severely by God because they did not follow God's orders.

In Buddhism scriptures, there is no record of any anger expressed by the Buddha. There was no punishment exercised by the Buddha. In the forty-five years of the Buddha's teaching life, He had always been kind, calm, and peaceful, to both good and bad people.

The Buddha never forced His disciples to accept His teachings. He constantly encouraged them to doubt and to question. He said "small doubts result in small realization, only great doubts result in great realization, no doubt results in no realization."

In His last days, the Buddha said to His followers: "I never think of you as my students or my disciples, I am just one of you, being with you frequently. I never force anyone to listen to me, and I do not want anyone to obey me." How kind and touching!

People cannot be forced to accept true faith. They cannot be persuaded to accept what they do not understand, or what they do not like. That is politics, not religion. True faith will only flourish under democracy and total freedom. After careful thoughts and repeated differentiation, the spirit and value of a true faith will truly shine.

In Buddhism, the spirit of allowing and encouraging its disciples to freely doubt, question or even explore the teachings of the founder of the religion, is certainly unique amongst the world religions. Among all religions in the world, only Buddhism's founder and its scriptures are permitted to be doubted, discussed and explored and questioned. Buddhism welcome people with research spirit, independent character, and wisdom to study Buddhism.

Buddhism invites anyone to come and see for himself and permits him to accept only those facts, which agree with reason, logic and truth. It encourages the seeker of a new way to discard hearsay, blind faith, miracles and magic. Principles of Buddhism invite criticism and testing. Buddhism is therefore a most appealing and most compelling factor that leads the modern minds in the world today.

[Cardinal Bunal]

Really now? So kindly show me that complete, authoritative canon that pre-dates the Church Councils. Well? Just claiming there was one doesn't prove squat. Name the document containing such a canon. Show the accurate historical reference. THIS IS PROBABLY THE TENTH TIME I'VE CHALLENGED YOU TO DO SO.

What authoritative document are you talking about? You look for one in the premise that the Roman Catholic Church is THE SAME universal faction as founded by Christ and built-up by his apostles. The congregations who had the Documents..... or, the teachers and presbyters of the churches for that matter are NOT the same kind or the same group of apostates as the leaders of the RCC are and always have been neither are they apostates like those heretical scribes and private interpreters of Scripture in the 1st century.

;b

And also, speaking of the 1st century there were other sources of authority (if that's what you like to call it) other than the Scriptures. They were the presbyters and leaders of the church (1 Tim. 3: 15) but NOT the same kinds of false teachers of the Roman church who do not put up with sound teaching and have turned to myths. Despite my admitting this, the Scriptures are NOT incomplete either. It is, was always, and can be a complete rule of faith. What was officially WRITTEN WORD at a time when The Books were not totally written was sufficient enough to be called that. How much more after the times that it is already complete?

None? I thought so.

Yes, none but this among other things you say to disprove undenominational Christians (yes NOT all undenominationals are cults or "Christian by name") - among other things, this very argument hangs on the premise that both fact and the very writings inspired by God testify to: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the same church founded by Christ. You can count it as one of the churches, the biggest denomination... but it is an apostate church. No, I'm not throwing anyone off here.... I'm just reminding you ;b

weeeeee!

[mannyamador]

The congregations who had the Documents.....

So produce the evidence! Any wacko can claim some "congregation" had some list. You have to PROVE it. So far, you have not even been able to do so. No evidence. ZERO. Your fantasy remains just that: a FANTASY.

The bottom line is that you haven't produced a shred of histrical evidence to back up your ridiculous claim.

They were the presbyters and leaders of the church (1 Tim. 3: 15) but NOT the same kinds of false teachers of the Roman church

Another false claim. PROVE IT.

There was only one Church then founded by Christ, and it is the same Catholic Church we have now. As evidence, there is an unbroken line of FORMAL authority, from the Apostles and early leaders to the current bishops, from Peter to the current Pope. This is documented by historians such as Irenaeus, who documented the earliest Popes from Peter to his time.

In contrast, you have NOT been able to show me a break in the formal passing of authority in the Church. I am STILL WAITING for you to show me where and when the alleged break occurred. Well? WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE? Some wacky perosnal interpretation of some verses is NOT evidence. You have come up with NOTHING. You have totally failed to substantiate your claim that the Catholic Church is not the same Church Christ founded. Your unsupported claims are pure garbage.

Despite my admitting this, the Scriptures are NOT incomplete either. It is, was always, and can be a complete rule of faith. What was officially WRITTEN WORD at a time when The Books were not totally written was sufficient enough to be called that. How much more after the times that it is already complete?

This ridiculous claim competely fails on several points!:

• The alleged "Books" themselves do not make such a claim (their being a "complete rule of faith"). You can't even cite one verse to support this wacko claim. NOT ONE!
  
  
• You still cannot even substantiate HOW you know which books comprise "The Books". So how do you know it was sufficient? On whose authority do you base the canon of "The Books"? Yours? Please...
  
  
• It is self-contradictory. You write:
  "What was officially WRITTEN WORD at a time when The Books were not totally written was sufficient enough to be called that. How much more after the times that it is already complete?"
  
  Well, something that is ALREADY sufficient does not become more so by addition. If it does, then it was INSUFFICIENT to begin with. Go back to Logic 101!
  
  
  
• You talk of the "officially written word". Who made it "official"? Where is that canon I have been asking you to produce? None? Oh yeah, maybe you misplaced it somewhere? Sure...

Yes, none but this among other things you say to disprove undenominational Christians (yes NOT all undenominationals are cults or "Christian by name") - among other things, this very argument hangs on the premise that both fact and the very writings inspired by God testify to: The Roman Catholic Church is NOT the same church founded by Christ. You can count it as one of the churches, the biggest denomination.

So how about showing the evidence to prove this wacko theory? None, right?. None, right?

There's a word to describe the act of ccntinuing to repeat unfounded accusations and refusing to provide evidence to back it up when challenged.

It's called LYING.

[Gwynhuever]

Instead of commenting, y not share ur own belief? Let me share mine as well, thanks amigos!

agree ko nimo diha bro... by the way i am catholic but i also follow buddhism teachings and read the quran....pero Jesus for me is the greatest sage jud...fan jud ko niya...

[shoeless_rebel]

hala ka woi...

unsay may imong relihiyon ug baroganan nyor?

do you even have the slightest idea what u are talking about? please check several pages back (prolly 20 pages back).

anway, for your benefit newbie...

i will post again... i am an agnostic ok? i dont have a religion ok? for me there is just no way for us humans to know if there is really a god (i know a lot of you will flame me for this). that is my belief and we can post and counter post till oblivion but in the end it is futile. the debate about religion goes back eons. and until now after all the smoke, funfare and bloodshed there is no clear winner. thats the main reason why i'm not trying to go against anybody in this particular topic because this is an endless debate and we should learn from history that long after our flesh turns to dust there will always be a debate like these with exactly the same words and exactly the same points as our erudite posters are throwing each other here.

mao na ako baroganan, wala ko relihiyon nyor.

this post is for educational purposes and has nothing to do whatsoever with the debate at hand.

fire away amigos!

[Cardinal Bunal]

The alleged "Books" themselves do not make such a claim (their being a "complete rule of faith"). You can't even cite one verse to support this wacko claim. NOT ONE!

But I've cited many that oppose the claim that the Scriptures are nothing without the teachings or "extended commentaries of faith by the RCC."
Ergo? The Scriptures are complete, and nothing is lacking.

Not every word is a term, mind you.

[d_guy1024]

Instead of commenting, y not share ur own belief? Let me share mine as well, thanks amigos!

agree ko nimo diha bro... by the way i am catholic but i also follow buddhism teachings and read the quran....pero Jesus for me is the greatest sage jud...fan jud ko niya...

Religious strife must be avoided at all cost; under no circumstance should it be allowed. People may hold different religious beliefs, but the bottom line is that we are all human beings. We all seek happiness and desire peace. Religion should bring people together. It should unite the potential for good in people's hearts toward benefiting society and humanity and creating a better future.

- These excerpts are from "For Today and Tomorrow," a book of daily inspirationals by SGI President Daisaku Ikeda

[mannyamador]

But I've cited many that oppose the claim that the Scriptures are nothing without the teachings or "extended commentaries of faith by the RCC."

You've cited PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS of verses by people who claim that they support such a ridiculous teaching, but you have failed to cite even one verse that actually does affirm your claim! Ergo, the Scriptures themselves DO NOT make such a claim.

By the way, the issue is not whether the Scriptures are nothing. It is whether they ALONE are THE SOLE and COMPLETE rule of faith. You have not been able to prove they are. And the Scriptures themselves DO NOT make that claim.

You've got to do better than that. Making wacko claims and accusations without proof is really no different from LYING.

[lightbringer]

"To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them."Â* Isaiah 8:20

Worship yourself, treat yourself with ultimate respect. Be your own God.

Â*i am an agnostic ok? i dont have a religion ok?

I would like to address to those who MAKE NO PRETENSION TO RELIGION whatever. I have heard hundreds of persons in my short life excuse their sin by saying, "Well, I make no profession," and I have always thought it one of the strangest excuses, one of the most wild vagaries of apology to which the human mind could ever make resort. Take an illustration, which I have used before. To-morrow morning, when the Lord Mayor is sitting, there are two men brought up before him for robbery. One of them says he is not guilty, he declares that he is a good character, and he is an honest man in general though he was guilty in this case. He is punished. The other one says, "Well, your worship, I make no profession; I'm a down right thorough thief, and I don't make any profession of being honest at all." Why you can suppose how much more severe the sentence would be upon such a man. Now, when you say I do not make any profession of being religious, what does that mean? It means that you are a despiser of God and of God's law; it means that you are in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity. You that boast of making no profession of religion, you are boasting you know not what of. You would think it a strange thing for a man to boast that he made no profession of being a gentleman, or no profession of being honest, or no profession of being sober, or no profession of being chaste. You would shun a man who did this, at once. And you who make no pretensions to religion, just make your trial the more easy for there will be no need for any dispute concerning you. When the scales of justice are lifted up at last you will be found to be light weight, and that upon your own confession. I cannot imagine you urging such a plea as that when God shall judge you. "My Lord, I made no profession." "What" saith the King, "did my subject make no profession of obedience?" "O Lord, I made no profession." "What!" saith the Creator, "make no profession of acknowledging my rights?" "I made no profession of religion." "What!" saith the Judge, "did I send my Son into the world to die, and did this man make no profession of casting his soul upon him? What! did he make no profession of his need of mercy? Then he shall have none. Does he dare tell me to my face that he never made any profession of faith in Christ, and never had anything to do with the Saviour? Then insomuch as he despised my Son, and despised his cross, and rejected his salvation, let him die the death;" and what that death is with its everlasting wailings and gnashing of teeth, eternity alone can tell.
O sinner! thou hast some part and lot in my text Thou art "unstable as water." Let me remind thee that though thou makest no profession of religion now, there was a time when thou didst. Strong man! you are laughing now: I repeat it, there was a time when you did talk about religion; it is not quite gone from your memory yet. You lay sick with fever for six weeks: do you recollect when the delirium came on, and they all thought that you must die? Do you recollect when your poor brain was right for a moment how you asked the physician whether there was any hope for you, and he would not exactly say "NO," but he looked so blank at you, that you understood what it meant? Do you recollect the agony with which you looked forward to death? Do you recollect how you groaned in your spirit, and said, "O God, have mercy upon me?" Do you recollect that you got a little better, and you told your friends that if you lived you would serve God? "Oh! it is all over now," you say, you were a fool! Yes, you were a fool, that is true, you were a fool, to have said what you did not mean and to have lied before God. You do not profess religion! But you remember the last time the terrific thunder and lightning came. You were out in the storm. A flash came very near you. You are a bold man, but not so bold as you pretend to be. You shook from head to foot, and when the thunder clap succeeded, you were almost down on your knees, and before you knew it you were in prayer. "Please God I get home to-night," you said, "I shall not take his name in vain again!" But you have done it. You are unstable as water. You went sometime ago to a church or a chapel—I mind not which: the minister told you plainly where you were going. You stood there and trembled; tears ran down your cheeks, you did not knock your wife about that Sunday, you were a greet deal more sober that week, and when your companion said you looked squeamish, you denied it, and said you had no such thoughts as he imagined. "Unstable as water." Oh! and there are some of you worse than that still: for not once, nor twice, but scores of times you have been driven under a faithful minister, to the very verge of what you thought repentance, and then, just when something said in your heart, "This is a turning point," you have started back, you have chosen the wages of unrighteousness, and have again wandered into the world. Soul! my heart yearns for thee! "Unstable as water thou shalt not excel." No, but I pray the Lord to work in thee something that will be stable; for we all believe—and what I say is not a matter of fiction, but a thing that you believe in your own hearts to be true—we all believe that we must stand before the judgment bar of God, and ere long give account of the things done in the body, whether they be good or whether they be evil. Friend, what account wilt thou give of thy broken vows, of thy perjured soul? What wilt thou have to say why judgment should not be pronounced against thee? Ah! sinner, you will want Christ then! What would you give then for one drop of his blood? "Oh! for the hem of his garment! Oh, that I might but look to him and be lightened. Oh, would to God that I might hear the gospel once again!" I hear you wailing, when God has said, "Depart ye cursed!" And this is the burden of your song "Fool that I was, to have despised Jesus, who was my only hope, to have broken my promise, and gone back to the poor vain world that deluded me, after all!" And now I hear him say "I called, but ye refused, I stretched out my hand, but no man regarded; now I will laugh at your calamity, and mock when your fear cometh." I always think those two last sentences the most awful in the Bible. "I will laugh at your calamity." The laugh of the Almighty over men that have rebelled against him, that have despised him, and trodden his gospel underfoot! "I also will laugh at your calamity I will mock when your fear cometh." Rail at that if you like, it is sure, sirs. Remember that all your kicking at God's laughter will not make him leave it off; remember that all your rebellious speeches against him shall be avenged in that day, unless ye repent, and that speak as ye will against him your blasphemy cannot quench the flames of hell, nor will your jeers slay the sword of vengeance: fall it must, and it will fall on you all the more heavily because you did despise it.
Hear the gospel, and then farewell. Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God was born of the Virgin Mary and became a man, he lived on earth a life of holiness and suffering; at last he was nailed to the cross, and in deep woe he died. He was buried; he rose again from the deed, he ascended into heaven. And now God "commandeth all men everywhere to repent;" and he telleth them this—"Whosoever believeth on the Son of God shall not perish, but have eternal life." And this is his gospel. If you this day feel yourself to be a sinner, if that be a feeling wrought in you by the Holy Spirit and not a casual thought flashing across the soul, then Christ was punished for your sins; and you cannot be punished; for God will not punish twice for one offense. Believe in Christ; cast your soul on the atonement that he made; and although black as hell in sin, you may this day find yourself, through the efficacious blood of Christ, whiter than the snow. The Lord help thee, poor soul, to believe that the Man who died on Calvary was God, and that he took the sin of all believers upon himself—that thou, being a sinner and a believer, he has taken thy sins, and that therefore thou art free. Thus believe, and by faith thou wilt have peace with God through Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom also we have received the atonement.
[ftp][/ftp]

[mannyamador]

Apostolic Succession (Part I)
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01641a.htm

Apostolicity as a note of the true Church being dealt with elsewhere, the object of the present article is to show:

• That Apostolic succession is found in the Catholic Church.
• That none of the separate Churches have any valid claim to it.
• That the Anglican Church, in particular, has broken away from Apostolic unity.

ROMAN CLAIM

The principle underlying the Roman claim is contained in the idea of succession. "To succeed" is to be the successor of, especially to be the heir of, or to occupy an official position just after, as Victoria succeeded William IV. Now the Roman Pontiffs come immediately after, occupy the position, and perform the functions of St. Peter; they are, therefore, his successors. We must prove

• that St. Peter came to Rome, and ended there his pontificate;
• that the Bishops of Rome who came after him held his official position in the Church.

As soon as the problem of St. Peter's coming to Rome passed from theologians writing pro domo suâ into the hands of unprejudiced historians, i.e. within the last half century, it received a solution which no scholar now dares to contradict; the researches of German professors like A. Harnack and Weizsaecker, of the Anglican Bishop Lightfoot, and those of archaeologists like De Rossi and Lanciani, of Duchesne and Barnes, have all come to the same conclusion: St. Peter did reside and die in Rome. Beginning with the middle of the second century, there exists a universal consensus as to Peter's martyrdom in Rome;

• Dionysius of Corinth speaks for Greece,
• Irenaeus for Gaul,
• Clement and Origen for Alexandria,
• Tertullian for Africa.
• In the third century the popes claim authority from the fact that they are St. Peter's successors, and no one objects to this claim, no one raises a counter-claim.
• No city boasts the tomb of the Apostle but Rome.

There he died, there he left his inheritance; the fact is never questioned in the controversies between East and West. This argument, however, has a weak point: it leaves about one hundred years for the formation of historical legends, of which Peter's presence in Rome may be one just as much as his conflict with Simon Magus. We have then to go farther back into antiquity.

• About 150 the Roman presbyter Caius offers to show to the heretic Procius the trophies of the Apostles: "If you will got the Vatican, and to the Via Ostiensis, you will find the monuments of those who have founded this Church." Can Caius and the Romans for whom he speaks have been in error on a point so vital to their Church?
• Next we come to Papias (c. 138-150). From him we only get a faint indication that he places Peter's preaching in Rome, for he states that Mark wrote down what Peter preached, and he makes him write in Rome. Weizsaecker himself holds that this inference from Papias has some weight in the cumulative argument we are constructing.
• Earlier than Papias is Ignatius Martyr (before 117), who, on his way to martyrdom, writes to the Romans: "I do not command you as did Peter and Paul; they were Apostles, I am a disciple", words which according to Lightfoot have no sense if Ignatius did not believe Peter and Paul to have been preaching in Rome.
• Earlier still is Clement of Rome writing to the Corinthians, probably in 96, certainly before the end of the first century. He cites Peter's and Paul's martyrdom as an example of the sad fruits of fanaticism and envy. They have suffered "amongst us" he says, and Weizsaecker rightly sees here another proof for our thesis.
• The Gospel of St. John, written about the same time as the letter Clement to the Corinthians, also contains a clear allusion to the martyrdom by crucifixion of St. Peter, without, however, locating it (John 21:18, 19).
• The very oldest evidence comes from St. Peter himself, if he be the author of the First Epistle of Peter, of if not, from a writer nearly of his own time: "The Church that is in Babylon saluteth you, and so doth my son Mark" (1 Peter 5:13). That Babylon stands for Rome, as usual amongst pious Jews, and not for the real Babylon, then without Christians, is admitted by common consent (cf. F.J.A. Hort, "Judaistic Christianity", London, 1895, 155).

This chain of documentary evidence, having its first link in Scripture itself, and broken nowhere, puts the sojourn of St. Peter in Rome among the best-ascertained facts in history. It is further strengthened by a similar chain of monumental evidence, which Lanciani, the prince of Roman topographers, sums up as follows: "For the archaeologist the presence and execution of Sts. Peter and Paul in Rome are facts established beyond a shadow of doubt, by purely monumental evidence!" (Pagan and Christian Rome, 123).

ST. PETER'S SUCCESSORS IN OFFICE

St. Peter's successors carried on his office, the importance of which grew with the growth of the Church. In 97 serious dissensions troubled the Church of Corinth. The Roman Bishop, Clement, unbidden, wrote an authoritative letter to restore peace. St. John was still living at Ephesus, yet neither he nor his interfered with Corinth. Before 117 St. Ignatius of Antioch addresses the Roman Church as the one which "presides over charity... which has never deceived any one, which has taught others." St. Irenaeus (180-200) states the theory and practice of doctrinal unity as follows:

With this Church [of Rome] because of its more powerful principality, every Church must agree, that is the faithful
everywhere, in this [i. e. in communion with the Roman Church] the tradition of the Apostles has ever been
preserved by those on every side. (Adv. Haereses, III)

The heretic Marcion, the Montanists from Phrygia, Praxeas from Asia, come to Rome to gain the countenance of its bishops; St. Victor, Bishop of Rome, threatens to excommunicate the Asian Churches; St. Stephen refuses to receive St. Cyprian's deputation, and separates himself from various Churches of the East; Fortunatus and Felix, deposed by Cyprian, have recourse to Rome; Basilides, deposed in Spain, betakes himself to Rome; the presbyters of Dionysius, Bishop of Alexandria, complain of his doctrine to Dionysius, Bishop of Rome; the latter expostulates with him, and he explains. The fact is indisputable: the Bishops of Rome took over Peter's Chair and Peter's office of continuing the work of Christ [Duchesne, "The Roman Church before Constantine", Catholic Univ. Bulletin (October, 1904) X, 429-450]. To be in continuity with the Church founded by Christ affiliation to the See of Peter is necessary, for, as a matter of history, there is no other Church linked to any other Apostle by an unbroken chain of successors. Antioch, once the see and centre of St. Peter's labours, fell into the hands of Monophysite patriarchs under the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius at the end of the fifth century. The Church of Alexandria in Egypt was founded by St. Mark the Evangelist, the mandatory of St. Peter. It flourished exceedingly until the Arian and Monophysite heresies took root among its people and gradually led to its extinction. The shortest-lived Apostolic Church is that of Jerusalem. In 130 the Holy City was destroyed by Hadrian, and a new town, Ælia Capitolina, erected on its site. The new Church of Ælia Capitolina was subjected to Caesarea; the very name of Jerusalem fell out of use till after the Council of Nice (325). The Greek Schism now claims its allegiance. Whatever of Apostolicity remains in these Churches founded by the Apostles is owing to the fact that Rome picked up the broken succession and linked anew to the See of Peter. The Greek Church, embracing all the Eastern Churches involved in the schism of Photius and Michael Caerularius, and the Russian Church can lay no claim to Apostolic succession either direct or indirect, i.e. through Rome, because they are, by their own fact and will, separated from the Roman Communion. During the four hundred and sixty-four between the accession of Constantine (323) and the Seventh General Council (787), the whole or part of the Eastern episcopate lived in schism for no less than two hundred and three years: namely from the Council of Sardica (343) to St. John Chrysostom (389), 55 years; owing to Chrysostom's condemnation (404-415), 11 years; owing to Acadius and the Henoticon edict (484-519), 35 years; total, 203 years (Duchesne). They do, however, claim doctrinal connection with the Apostles, sufficient to their mind to stamp them with the mark of Apostolicity.