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.
Because the person he is directing this desperate mind-reading response to does not exist, nor do those whom he describes exist as "pals," while Rome treats such characters as members in life and in death, and thus he must own them as such unless he wants to be in schism.
And what Rome does constitutes what she really believes.
Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. (James 2:18)
Your statement just doesn't map to reality. I wish I could figure out why. But it doesn't.
You are presuming rationality in attempting to reason with a Roman who more severely exhibits the problem of mindless devotion to a false object of security. May God grant him and all grace to see and submit to the Truth in salvation and worship.
99% you say? Do you have data to back up that statement?
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.
Too bad that teaching doesn't include a basic knowledge of Scripture.
Indoctrinating them in Catholicism doesn't accomplish much except making them loyal purveyors of Catholicism.
Let me add homosexual “weddings” to the list of abominations allowed by some protestant faiths.
They might not think it’s “fine” to allow abortion but it is allowed by the vast majority of protestant politicians and in 2012 it was the official position of Romney and before him GW Bush.
“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”.
Joel Osteen I think comes on at 8 at night.
“Too bad that teaching doesn’t include a basic knowledge of Scripture”.
Darwin Award Winner for 2014. First place.
I'm sure he appreciates the free advertising, but, no thanks, I won't be watching with you.
Irrelevant to your fallacious and immature assertion, except to further indict you, but in contrast to me, as you must own your church and those it treats as members, let me add sanction of sodomy to the list of abominations implicitly allowed by Rome of members. See treatment of Teddy K in life and in death for an example. Not exactly 1Cor. 5. And what one does and overall effects constitutes what one believes, not mere words. (Ja. 2:18; Mt. 7:20)
Stats (^ arrow refers to lst ref. source). Resorting to dismissing them crying liberal conspiratorial bias only lessens you credibly even more, if possible:
40% Roman Catholics vs. 41% Non-R.C. see abortion as "morally acceptable"; Sex between unmarried couples: 67% vs. 57%; Baby out of wedlock: 61% vs. 52%; Homosexual relations: 54% vs. 45%; Gambling: 72% vs. 59% http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx
Committed Roman Catholics (church attendance weekly or almost) versus Non-R.C. faithful church goers (see the below as as morally acceptable): Abortion: 24% R.C. vs. 19% Non-R.C.; Sex between unmarried couples: 53% vs. 30%; Baby out of wedlock: 48% vs. 29%; Homosexual relations: 44% vs. 21%; Gambling: 67% vs. 40%; Divorce: 63 vs. 46% ^
Comparing 16 moral behaviors, Catholics were less likely to say mean things about people behind their back, and tending to engage in recycling more. However, they were also twice as likely to view pornographic content on the Internet, and were more prone to use profanity, to gamble, and to buy lottery tickets. ^
In a survey asking whether one approves or rejects or overall sees little consequence (skeptical) to society regarding seven trends on the family (More: unmarried couples raising children; gay and lesbian couples raising children; single women having children without a male partner to help raise them; people living together without getting married; mothers of young children working outside the home; people of different races marrying each other; and more women not ever having children), 42% of all Protestants were “Rejecters” of the modern trend, 35% were Skeptics, and 23% were “Approvers.” Among Catholics, 27% were Rejecters, 34% were Approvers, and 39% were Skeptics. (Among non religious, 10% were Rejecters, 48% were Approvers, and 42% were Skeptics.) Pew forum, The Public Renders a Split Verdict On Changes in Family Structure, February 16, 2011 http://pewsocialtrends.org/2011/02/16/the-public-renders-a-split-verdict-on-changes-in-family-structure/#prc_jump
50 percent of Protestants affirmed gambling was a sin, versus 15 percent of Catholics; that getting drunk was a sin: 63 percent of Protestants, 28 percent of Catholics; gossip: 70 percent to 45 percent: homosexual activity or sex: 72 percent to 42 percent. Ellison Research, March 11, 2008 http://ellisonresearch.com/releases/20080311.htm http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080312/study-behaviors-americans-consider-sinful.htm
In a 2010 LifeWay Research survey 77 percent of American Protestant pastors (57% of mainline versus 87% evangelical) strongly disagree with same-sex marriage, with 6% percent somewhat disagreeing, and 5% being somewhat in agreement and 10 percent strongly agreeing. (5% of evangelical).
Only 3% of evangelical pastors (versus 11% mainline) somewhat agree that there is nothing wrong with homosexual marriage.
11% of evangelical pastors (versus 30% mainline) somewhat agree that homosexual civil unions are acceptable, with 67% of the former and 38% of the latter strongly disagreeing with homosexual civil unions. October 2010 LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 randomly selected Protestant pastors. http://www.lifeway.com/ArticleView?storeId=10054&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&article=LifeWay-Research-protestant-pastors-oppose-homosexual-marriage
A 2002 nationwide poll of 1,854 priests in the United States and Puerto Rico reported that 30% of Roman Catholic priests described themselves as Liberal, 28% as Conservative, and 37% as Moderate in their Religious ideology. 53 percent responded that they thought it always was a sin for unmarried people to have sexual relations; 32 percent that is often was, and 9 percent seldom/never. However, nearly four in 10 younger priests in 2002 described themselves as conservative, and were more likely to regard as "always a sin" such acts as premarital sex, abortion, artificial birth control, homosexual relations, etc., and three-fourths said they were more religiously orthodox than their older counterparts. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_2_39/ai_94129129/pg_2
The survey also found that 80% of Roman Catholic priests referred to themselves as “mostly” heterosexual in orientation, with 67% being exclusively heterosexual, 8% leaning toward heterosexual, 5% completely in the middle, and 6% leaning toward homosexual and 9% saying they are homosexual, for a combined figure of 15% on the homosexual class. Among younger priests (those ordained for 20 years or less) the figure was 23%. ^
A combined 15 percent of the clergy polled identified themselves as "gay (9%) > or more (6%) on the homosexual side." Among younger priests 23 percent did so. Los Angeles Times (extensive) nationwide survey (2002). http://www.bishop-accountability.org/resources/resource-files/reports/LAT-Priest-Survey.pdf
17 percent of the priests said "definitely" , and 27% said "probably," a homosexual subculture'--defined as a `definite group of persons that has its own friendships, social gatherings and vocabulary'--exists in their diocese or religious order. ^
After examining the official web sites of 244 Catholic universities and colleges in America, the TFP Student Action found that 107 – or 43% have pro-homosexual clubs. TFP Student Action Dec. 6. 2011; studentaction.org/get-involved/online-petitions/pro-homosexual-clubs-at-107-catholic-colleges/print.html
39 percent of Roman Catholics and 79 percent of born-again, evangelical or fundamentalist American Christians affirm that homosexual behavior is sinful. LifeWay (SBC) Research study, released Wednesday. 2008 LifeWay Research study. http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080606/survey-americans-divided-on-homosexuality-as-sin.htm
79 percent of American Jews, 58 percent of Catholics and 56 percent of mainline Protestants favor acceptance of homosexuality, versus 39 percent of members of historically black churches, 27 percent of Muslims and 26 percent of the evangelical Protestants. U.S. U.S. Religious landscape survey; Copyright © 2008 The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. http://religions.pewforum.org/comparisons#
56% of Catholics overall (and 46% of the general public) believe that sexual relations between two adults of the same gender is not a sin, while 39%. of Catholics say homosexual behavior is morally wrong, (versus 76% of white evangelicals and 66% of black Protestants, and 40% of Mainline Protestants). 41% of Catholics do not consider homosexual behavior to be a moral issue. (Pew Research Center, Religion & Politics Survey, 2009; PRRI/RNS Religion News Survey, October 2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf)
Catholics testify [2010] to showing more support (in numbers) for legal recognitions of same-sex relationships than members of any other Christian tradition, and Americans overall. Almost three-quarters of Catholics favor either allowing gay and lesbian people to marry or allowing them to form civil unions (43% and 31% respectively). Only 22% of Catholics said there should be no legal recognition of a gay couple’s relationship. (PRRI, Pre--election American Values Survey, 9/2010; http://publicreligion.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/Catholics-and-LGBT-Issues-Survey-Report.pdf.)
This 2010 survey of more than 3,000 adults found that 41% of White American Catholics, 45% of Latino Catholics (versus 16 percent of White evangelical Christians, and 23% of Black Protestants) supported the rights of same-sex couples to marry, and 36% (22% of Latino Catholics) supported civil unions (versus 24% of White evangelicals, and 25% of Black Protestants). Among the general public the rates were 37 and 27 percent.
69% of Catholics disagree that homosexual orientation can be changed, versus 23% who believe that they can change. ^
19% of White Catholics, 30% of Latino Catholics, 58% of White evangelicals, 52% of Black Protestants and 29% of White Mainline Protestants oppose any legal recognition of homosexual marriage. ^
60% of Catholics overall, and 53% of the general public favor allowing homosexual couples to adopt children. ^
73% of Catholics favor laws that would protect gay and lesbian people against discrimination in the workplace, and 63% favor allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. For the general public the figures are 68% and 58% respectively. ^
49% of Catholics and 45% of the general public agree that homosexuals should be eligible for ordination with no special requirements. ^
Among Catholics who attend services regularly (weekly or more), 31% say there should be no legal recognition for homosexual relationships (marriage or civil unions), with 26% favoring allowing gay and lesbian people to marry, versus 43% of Catholics who attend once or twice a month, and 59% of Catholics who attend a few times a year or less favoring allowance of homosexual marriage. ^
27% of Catholics who attend church services regularly say their clergy speak about the issue of homosexuality, with 63% of this group saying the messages they hear are negative. ^
48% of white evangelical Protestants oppose letting homosexuals serve openly in the military, with 34% supporting this proposal, versus 63% of Catholics (66% of white) supporting and 23% opposing. Pew forum, November 29, 2010, http://pewforum.org/uploadedFiles/Topics/Issues/Gay_Marriage_and_Homosexuality/gays%20in%20military%20full%20report.pdf More
And then there’s wedding done by homosexuals that the Catholic church allows to be priests.
Hey, but what’s the big deal if Catholic priests are homosexuals or molest children?
As long s their intent is *right*, it doesn’t matter what they’re doing with those hands the week before.
They must keep hold of the deep truths of the faith with a clear conscience. They must first be tested; and then if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons. (I Tim. 3:9,10)
Though Timothy was a young man, Paul had confidence in him because of his maturity in the faith, his Spiritual gifts and also because Paul kept up with his progress. He was accountable to Paul. He continued:
If you point these things out to the brothers and sisters, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the truths of the faith and of the good teaching that you have followed. Have nothing to do with godless myths and old wives’ tales; rather, train yourself to be godly. For physical training is of some value, but godliness has value for all things, holding promise for both the present life and the life to come. This is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance. That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe. Command and teach these things. Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity. Until I come, devote yourself to the public reading of Scripture, to preaching and to teaching. Do not neglect your gift, which was given you through prophecy when the body of elders laid their hands on you. Be diligent in these matters; give yourself wholly to them, so that everyone may see your progress. Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers. (I Tim. 4:6-16)
You’re flat out wrong on that. There is absolutely not more solid proof than Rome...unless you categorically dismiss the entire corpus of early ecclesiastical historians as “tradition”, which you have precisely zero right to do.
And like I said earlier, the Assyrian Church of the East (not Catholics by the way), who accept your premise of Peter’s Babylon being in Mesopotamia...nevertheless do not view him as the founder of their Church and call his stay there only a “visit”. I wish I could find a good translation of their liturgical books to confirm this, but I’d bet upon reviewing them that they talk about Peter’s martyrdom in Rome.
The Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian Assyrian Christians have every reason to adopt your line of argument against Roman primacy. If they did not, it’s a good bet the reason is because even they think it is a flimsy case.
If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no.I am astounded he would make this claim. Irenaeus in the second century said it flat out: It was a matter of necessity that all Churches agree with Rome. What does he call that? Ignatius of Antioch throws so many superlatives at the Church of Rome it's almost embarrassing...
the Church which is beloved and enlightened by the will of Him that wills all things which are according to the love of Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the region of the Romans, worthy of God, worthy of honour, worthy of the highest happiness, worthy of praise, worthy of obtaining her every desire, worthy of being deemed holy, and which presides over love, is named from Christ, and from the Father, which I also salute in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father: to those who are united, both according to the flesh and spirit, to every one of His commandments; who are filled inseparably with the grace of God, and are purified from every strange taintAnd need I remind all concerned that Victor, bishop of Rome, attempted to excommunicate the Churches of the East during the Quartodeciman controversy? Where in Sam Hill did he think he had the right to do that? Is there any evidence of anyone telling him he had no right to do that? (hint: no).
So yeah, I'm not impressed from quotes from modern scholars about how what I'm reading in these ancient authors isn't actually there. Now, I will say that we needn't see every aspect of the modern papacy in A.D. 150. That I think is only obvious, and if that's Schatz's point ok.
But the essentials certainly are all there: namely that Rome had a primary position among all the sees and was responsible for being the last word on disputed questions.
OK, I stand corrected - Still, far and away, it is COMMON for a denomination to 'ordain' and have an ordination process which includes seminary education. If one were to walk into your average Protestant/Evangelical/Pentecostal church, the chances are very high that the pastor has been ordained, and as such, has completed a seminary program.
That has certainly been my experience of late - and I am shopping for a church right now, so my evidences (anecdotal though they are) are current. It is important to me, so it is part of my interview process - Oddly enough, it is strange that I am pressed into defending seminary education, because I have found depth-of-Word to be directly inverse to the amount of chunked-and-formed 'higher' education that the pastor has received (as a general principle).
Anyway, NKP's generalizations are too sweeping.
BY FAR.
Again anecdotally, my personal experience suggests the closer one gets to classically Protestant fellowships (Reformed, Lutheran, Presbyterian, etc.), the more likely one will find extremely high standards of education.
I would agree with that, providing inclusion of Baptists and most Pentecostals - I think it would be more reasonable to suggest that denominations which are more hierarchical tend toward high levels of education, while more congregational denominations tend to be less so, simply because they do not have the superstructure necessary for such things. Baptists and Pentecostals (at least the well established branches), while generally congregational, have a depth-of-field deep enough to support colleges, hence are likely to have a seminary program, and generally DO.
It is the independent churches, with no affiliation, that tend to be a crap-shoot. That tends to be praise-oriented Evangelicals, Pentecostals, and Fundamentalists, either too small to have the capacity, or fiercely independent and small by design. But don't think I am knocking them - while one may well find blatant heresy, one may also find the very best - Some of the best Gospel preaching I have ever experienced has been in a tent beside the road.
Conversely, if you're talking about the little country church deep in the Virginia backwoods, the attitude toward seminary education will be probably be quite different. In some cases, actively hostile. I've seen it.
I am not there, but I can understand it.
And that's not a judgment on my part. I'm all for a good theological education for pastors. But when you read the pastoral qualification passages in the New Testament, wisdom and character and a solid faith in Jesus Christ are the premium virtues. If a church had to choose between a pastor/plumber working two jobs and no seminary training, but he was solid gold on character and faith and wisdom, versus a pastor with a doctoral degree in theology and brilliance oozing out of every pore and yet would turn out to be an abuser of children or a liar or a cheat, the choice would be a no-brainer.
AMEN! It is about the Word of YHWH. If that is not being preached, then I find myself restless, as I am now. I really get nothing out of a preacher spouting thinly veiled Platonism, which, due i think, to the psychology courses that invariably attend seminary education, is tending to be the norm. I like to have the Word served white-hot with a side of Spirit, thank you very much...
Ideally, it's great if you can have both. But the God-breathed qualifications of Scripture are no doubt the top priority if the objective is to please God and not men.
YUP. Thanks for your reply.
WHO CARES? What is funny is that you consider Olsteen to be an exemplar of an 'average Protestant pastor'. That you would point to him in order to paint all Protestant pastors is nothing short of hilarious.
I am astounded he would make this claim. Irenaeus in the second century said it flat out: It was a matter of necessity that all Churches agree with Rome.
You are confusing deference to Rome with a supreme bishop in Rome manifestly being over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions.
And need I remind all concerned that Victor, bishop of Rome, attempted to excommunicate the Churches of the East during the Quartodeciman controversy? Where in Sam Hill did he think he had the right to do that? Is there any evidence of anyone telling him he had no right to do that? (hint: no).
To which Jason Engwer states , If you read Eusebius' account of Irenaeus' letter to Victor and the responses of others (Church History, 5:23-25), you see that there's no implication that Irenaeus presupposed papal authority on Victor's part, and you see that the bishops who initially disagreed with Victor on the matter in dispute continued to disagree with him. Polycrates, bishop of Ephesus at the time, sent Victor a letter of rebuke, applying the principle of Acts 5:29 to Victor's threat of disfellowship....And it's worth noting that Eusebius tells us that Victor attempted to cut off the Asian churches. His effort failed. Even bishops who agreed with Victor's position on the issue under dispute "sharply rebuked" him (5:24). - http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/03/apostolic-succession-part-8-irenaeus.html
So yeah, I'm not impressed from quotes from modern scholars about how what I'm reading in these ancient authors isn't actually there.
And i am not impressed with your lack of impression, as it has been abundantly evidenced RCs will dismiss any testimony that conflicts with cherished propaganda.
But the essentials certainly are all there: namely that Rome had a primary position among all the sees and was responsible for being the last word on disputed questions.
Yet insofar as this progressively took place, it simply testifies to the progressive deformation of the church.
Ultimately, the issue is what you basis is for determination and assurance of Truth. For rather than it being the weight of Scriptural substantiation in word and in power, the RC argument essentially is that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth (including writings and men being of God) and to fulfill promises of Divine presence, providence of Truth, and preservation of faith, and authority. (Jn. 14:16,26; 15:26; 16:13; Mt. 16:18; Lk. 10:16)
And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium. Thus those who dissent from the latter are in rebellion to God.
Which i assume is yours as well.
That is it, exactly.
I have EVERY right to do so, and have done so - That Rome is not only adept, but proven to have a tendency toward forgery and inclusion absolutely gives me that right. What basis can be used to qualify that which remains? And as always, the proofs that you will offer will invariably find their source in psuedepigrapha generated between 300-500 CE. Lean all you want upon the Clementine forgeries and the Isidoran Decretals, but I need not do so, and neither can you demand it of me.
I have *NO* idea of the pedigree of your church documents beyond the age of the extent copies. And who knows what inclusions may have been inserted prior to that extant copy?
A dealer in antiquities is only as good as his reputation.
And like I said earlier, the Assyrian Church of the East (not Catholics by the way), who accept your premise of Peter’s Babylon being in Mesopotamia...nevertheless do not view him as the founder of their Church and call his stay there only a “visit”.
So WHAT? All subsidiaries split off long after the time-frame we are talking about, so OF COURSE they will find much to agree with you about.
The Orthodox/non-Chalcedonian Assyrian Christians have every reason to adopt your line of argument against Roman primacy. If they did not, it’s a good bet the reason is because even they think it is a flimsy case.
... According to traditions that they remain, no doubt, firmly welded to. Traditions of men. Always, every time, it is traditions of men. Follow YHWH, not man.
I could care less about your rambling copy and pastings from the left-leaning Gallup and Pew polling, which have been repeated ad nauseam on FR. The Catholic Church believes in no abortion for any reason, and believes marriage is the union of a man and woman. There are many protestant churches that are allowing homosexual “marriages” and take no stance on abortion. Church going Catholics that live their faith by and large agree with and practice the faith as outlined by the Catholic Church. If all the Catholic in name left the faith tomorrow, the ones that live the faith would still dwarf any protestant denomination in the United States.
Mat 7:13-14 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: (14) Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.And what is the promise of Jesus concerning numbers?
Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.Peace,
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.