Posted on 09/11/2014 12:08:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
There are one billion Roman Catholics worldwide, one billion people who are subject to the Pope’s authority. How, one might ask, did all of this happen? The answer, I believe, is far more complex and untidy than Catholics have argued. First, I will give a brief explanation of what the Catholic position is, and then, second, I will suggest what I think actually took place.
The Catholic Explanation
The traditional Catholic understanding is that Jesus said that it was upon Peter the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18−19; see also John 21:15−17; Luke 22:32). Following this, Peter spent a quarter of a century in Rome as its founder and bishop, and his authority was recognized among the earliest churches; this authority was handed down to his successors. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) re-affirmed this understanding. Apostolic authority has been handed on to the apostles’ successors even as Peter’s supreme apostolic power has been handed on to each of his successors in Rome.
The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts. It is true that Irenaeus, in the second century, did say that the church was founded by “the blessed apostles,” Peter and Paul, as did Eusebius in the fourth century, and by the fifth century, Jerome did claim that it was founded by Peter whom he calls “the prince of the apostles.” However, on the other side of the equation are some contradictory facts. Ignatius, for example, en route to his martyrdom, wrote letters to the bishops of the dominant churches of the day, but he spoke of Rome’s prominence only in moral, not ecclesiastical, terms. At about the same time early in the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, a small work written in Rome, spoke only of its “rulers” and “the elders” who presided over it. There was, apparently, no dominant bishop at that time. Not only so, but in the second and third centuries, there were numerous instances of church leaders resisting claims from leaders in Rome to ecclesiastical authority in settling disputes.
It is, in fact, more plausible to think that the emergence of the Roman pontiff to power and prominence happened by natural circumstance rather than divine appointment. This took place in two stages. First, it was the church in Rome that emerged to prominence and only then, as part of its eminence, did its leader begin to stand out. The Catholic church has inverted these facts by suggesting that apostolic power and authority, indeed, Peter’s preeminent power and authority, established the Roman bishop whereas, in fact, the Roman bishopric’s growing ecclesiastical prestige derived, not from Peter, but from the church in Rome.
The Actual Explanation
In the beginning, the church in Rome was just one church among many in the Roman empire but natural events conspired to change this. Jerusalem had been the original “home base” of the faith, but in a.d. 70, the army of Titus destroyed it and that left Christianity without its center. It was not unnatural for people in the empire to begin to look to the church in Rome since this city was its political capital. All roads in that ancient world did, indeed, lead to Rome, and many of them, of course, were traveled by Christian missionaries. It is also the case that the Roman church, in the early centuries, developed a reputation for moral and doctrinal probity and, for these reasons, warranted respect. Its growing eminence, therefore, seems to have come about in part because it was warranted and also, in part, because it was able to bask in some of the reflected splendor of the imperial city.
Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops. Furthermore, at the third Council of Carthage in 256, he asserted that the Roman bishop should not attempt to be a “bishop of bishops” and exercise “tyrannical” powers.
Already in the New Testament period, persecution was a reality, but in the centuries that followed, the church suffered intensely because of the animosities and apprehensions of successive emperors. In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.
The pope’s emergence to a position of great power and authority was, then, long in the making. Just how far the popes had traveled away from New Testament ideas about church life was brutally exposed by Erasmus at the time of the Reformation. Pope Julius II had just died when, in 1517, Erasmus penned his Julius Exclusus. He pictured this pope entering heaven where, to his amazement, he was not recognized by Peter! Erasmus’ point was simply that the popes had become rich, pretentious, worldly, and everything but apostolic. However, he should have made his point even more radically. It was not just papal behavior that Peter would not have recognized as his own, but papal pretensions to universal authority as well.
Perhaps one should look to the board in one's own eye. The very same could be said of your 'average church going' Romanist.
The average pastor preaching whatever he feels like preaching does not need to have any type of religious education and most don’t.
To the contrary - I know of *no* church that would accept a pastor who had no credentials. Even among the independent Evangelicals.
Neither can catholics. I worked with seven catholics and four Protestants in my department. On occasion conversations would move to religious matters...Remarkably the Protestants could always defend what they believed and why...the catholics had very little they could contribute because they only know what they are taught to know..and didn't even retain that sufficient to explain why they believed as they do. And you can forget knowing any scripture at all...they were blank slates every time.
It is indeed contrary to how the church began, with common folk following itinerant preachers whom the magisterial stewards of Scripture and its promises rejected. As the church began, so has it continued, with God raising up men from without the (yet needed) magisterium to correct it.
belated ping to 184
You are facing another example of Roman cultism, when the adherent evidently will not or cannot objectively examine evidence or arguments in order to ascertain their validity, but will only post propaganda or parrot polemics for them, then resort to ad hominems in lieu of an argument when the specious nature of them is exposed.
These serve and have served to provide evidence of why one should not be a RC (though this can occur outside it), or at least that type, and thus they provide a Divine service of what to avoid.
You’re just aggravated because the Catholic Church has no abortion for any reason, while your protestant pals 99% of the time think it’s fine to murder the child in cases of rape, incest, and “life” of the mother. In otherwords murder the child because of the way the child was conceived. Murder is murder, is murder.
“To the contrary - I know of *no* church that would accept a pastor who had no credentials. Even among the independent Evangelicals”.
Now that’s funny. Tell me what type of preaching credentials “Pastor” Joel Osteen holds.
The religious education received by Catholic priests DWARFS anything received by the average of protestant pastors.
Catholic priests must have a four-year university degree in Catholic philosophy plus an additional four to five years of graduate-level seminary formation in theology with a focus on Biblical research. A Master of Divinity is the most common degree. Many have PHDs.
Absolutely amazingly in-credible!!! Your desperate mind-reading response is so absurd that it won the contest for such desperation this week. You are at the top of the list. No more even needs to be said! You continue to display why one should not be a RC. Yikes!
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
...”evidence of why one should not be a RC”....
Am not so sure evidence would be helpful to catholics since scripture and it’s clear teaching doesn’t....they are so accustomed to “add ons” throughout it’s history they tweak any evidence, contrary to their teachings, into their rituals etc.
It takes the Lord to remove their stubborn and willful blindness ... if they’re not ready for the truth of the evidence they’ll just bury their heads in the sand...again.
...”Tell me what type of preaching credentials “Pastor” Joel Osteen holds”....
He’s ‘a motivational speaker’ who sells his wares to those who want to feel like they’re being religious. IMO one who enjoys fully making merchandise of his followers.
Unfortunately he’s one of the many out there today selling their wares under a false mask of Christianity.....and they will increase as Jesus said they would.
For that matter Rome certainly sells its wares in abundance as well. There’s a huge market for all their idols and trinkets and they certainly aren’t going to give those revenues up.
Not Christian Protestants....I've never known any who are “fine” with facing such enormous difficult decisions, rather heart wrenching circumstances where they lean heavily on the Lord for His guidance.
Being a pastor/teacher/overseer is a spiritual GIFT. Like you said, the NT qualifications for such a leader never says a word about "formal" training. In fact, it is being "able to teach":
It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, peaceable, free from the love of money.(I Timothy 3:1-3)
The things which you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses, entrust these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. (2 Timothy 2:2)
The Lord's bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, (2 Timothy 2:24-25)
An elder must be blameless, faithful to his wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer manages God’s household, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather, he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined. He must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. (Titus 1:6-9)
I'd rather have a pastor sold out for the Lord and the gospel who is called by God and gifted by the Holy Spirit for the ministry than a man with years of seminary and a dozen doctorates but with no fire for God.
Amen!
I honestly don't know who you're talking about. Certainly not the people I go to church with. Like I've mentioned before, the only "church" people I know who were actively in favor of abortion (and participated in it) were my Catholic in-laws up in the Chicago area. Everybody else I talk to about it on the Protestant side is against it, so-called special cases included. Your statement just doesn't map to reality. I wish I could figure out why. But it doesn't.
Indeed.
"Though I might also have confidence in the flesh. If any other man thinketh that he hath whereof he might trust in the flesh, I more:Circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, an Hebrew of the Hebrews; as touching the law, a Pharisee;Concerning zeal, persecuting the church; touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless.But what things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ.Yea doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I have suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but dung, that I may win Christ." (Philipians 3:4-8)
Indeed it does. But if the Lord could ride this donkey (who sadly still bucks too much) that no man ever rode (well), then He can do so to others if they fear Him.
No doubt that is possible....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.