Posted on 02/14/2015 1:16:14 PM PST by RnMomof7
"Historically, Catholics have argued that the papacy was a divinely-given institution papacy (Matt 16:17-19) etc., and they have relied on the notion that there have been bishops of Rome extending all the way back to the time of Peter.
This notion of bishops extending all the way back was thought to be actual history. In fact, as Shotwell and Loomis pointed out, in the General Introduction to their 1927 work "The See of Peter":
With reference to the Petrine doctrine, however, the Catholic attitude is much more than a "pre-disposition to believe." That doctrine is the fundamental basis of the whole papal structure. It may be summed up in three main claims. They are: first, that Peter was appointed by Christ to be his chief representative and successor and the head of his Church; second, that Peter went to Rome and founded the bishopric there; third, that his successors succeeded to his prerogatives and to all the authority thereby implied. In dealing with these claims we are passing along the border line between history and dogmatic theology. The primacy of Peter and his appointment by Christ to succeed Him as head of the Church are accepted by the Catholic Church as the indubitable word of inspired Gospel, in its only possible meaning. That Peter went to Rome and founded there his See, is just as definitely what is termed in Catholic theology as a dogmatic fact. This has been defined by an eminent Catholic theologian as "historical fact so intimately connected with some great Catholic truths that it would e believed even if time and accident had destroyed all the original evidence therefore. (xxiii-xxiv, emphasis in original).So, if the history of the early papacy is disrupted, it should, by all rights, disrupt the dogmatic definition of the papacy. And this is what we have come upon in our era: the most widely accepted historical accounts of the period -- which are now almost universally accepted among legitimate historians of the era -- is that Peter did not "found a bishopric." There was no "bishopric" in that city for 100 years after his death. The history completely contradicts what the "dogmatic fact" has held for more than 1000 years. Now, according to Eamon Duffy, among others, what was thought to be historical accounts were actually fictitious accounts that became passed along as history:
These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Duffy, pg 2.)Briefly, on Peter and "the tradition," Reymond talks about the further lack of information about Peter in Scripture:
The Peter died in Rome, as ancient tradition has it, is a distinct possibility (see 1 Peter 5:13, where "Babylon" has been rather uniformly understood by commentators as a metaphor for Rome), but that he ever actually pastored the church there is surely a fiction, seven some scholars in the Roman communion will acknowledge. Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius (not Eusebius's Greek copy) records that Peter ministered in Rome for twenty-five years, but if Philip Schaff (as well as many other church historians) is to believed, this is "a colossal chronological mistake." Paul write his letter to the church in Rome in early A.D. 57, but he did not address the letter to Peter or refer to him as its pastor. And in the last chapter he extended greetings to twenty-eight friends in Rome but made no mention of Peter, which would have been a major oversight, indeed, an affront, if in fact Peter was "ruling" the Roman church at that time. Then later when Paul was himself in Rome, from which city he wrote both his four prison letters during his first imprisonment in A.D. 60-62 when he "was welcoming all who came to him" (Acts 28:30), and his last pastoral letter during his second imprisonment around A.D. 64, in which letters he extend greetings to his letters' recipients from ten specific people in Rome, again he made no mention of Peter being there. Here is a period of time spanning around seven years (a.d. 57-64) during which time Paul related himself to the Roman church both as correspondent and as resident, but he said not a word to suggest that Peter was in Rome. (Reymond, "Systematic Theology," pg 814)
It has been suggested that Acts is a "selective" history, a fragmentary history, which simply did not include the facts pertaining to the last days and martyrdom of Peter and Paul. This is not acceptable, for such information would have been of great moment in the early church, which a century and a half before the rise of the cult of martyrs, only thirty-two years after the death of the apostles, remembered their martyrdom vividly (1 Clement 5). [But] the Early Church was so eager for details that within another century it created the full accounts which are found in the apocryphal Acts. (O'Connor, 11).In my next post, I'll provide a catalog of some of these.
Yes .. it is! You made an assertion and I am responding. God is always with us. He wants us to talk to him and to listen to him. In prayer we raise our hearts and minds to God. Your understanding of prayer may be different from mine. There are many forms of prayer - adoration, petition, intercession, thanksgiving. We can pray silently or aloud. We can pray alone or with others.
I posed a simple question and will patiently wait for a response.
Never met a fallen away Catholic in my life that was properly
catechised, and never met one that believed in the Real Presence. Total ignorance of the Catholic faith is almost universal with fallen away Catholics.
You didn’t, though, address the questions before your question. And the forms of prayer you mention aren’t controversial for Christians.
And that’s what Catholics posit as a source to support their position??????
No no, this one is not on verga. This, like my wife likes to say, came out of nowhere, and went right back there. The person who originally presented it was Jack Hydrazine, and I have no idea where he was coming from. This is the sort of thing I’d almost expect from a Hebrew Roots person, but not even. This goes beyond that, by miles. But no, not offered in evidence by verga, or any other RC, as far as I know.
Peace,
SR
Actually: ignorant.
Remarks like this sound so very very Catholic.
Actually: Factual
My little Jack hasn’t the, uh, gonads to be that frisky!
And you are SO sure of your diagnoses!
AMAZING!
You spelled brainwashed wrong.
.....”What I see Catholic prayer being treated as is more of a incantation or religious obligation. If the Catholic prays so many of such prayer, then it satisfies some kind of obligation and God will grant the person’s request”.....
Te overall behavior of worship itself models many of the pagan means of worship ....regardless...what other option do they have then praying as so since true Christianity is about a relationship with the Lord....if they lack this they only have one other option of “canned” prayers.
...”The ones that left were totally ignorant of their faith and never believed in the Real Presence to start with”....
Which that statement itself evidences catholics faith rests in ‘performance of a ritual’ rather than a relationship with Jesus.
it is a legal document. I said this three times, but apparently you don’t know the difference between a legal document and a dogmatic proclamation.
Essentially they are telling clerics of 1530, many of whom were poorly educated or were career clerics with little true belief, that if they spread these ideas, they will be thrown out of the church, which is what anathema means.
The core dogmas don’t change.
As for cherry picking: read the wikipedia article I cited, which quotes the early church fathers and tradition on how the church argued about these dogmas long before Constantine came around.
if Catholics are snarky at these anti-catholic bashers in FR, it is because these people are so ignorant of what Catholics actually believe it is hard to take them seriously.
It’s not that we don’t respect other believers: We just don’t respect ignorance and illogical arguments.
Mary mediatrix is not a church dogma. You can quote all you want, but it has never been proclaimed as a dogma, so it is merely an opinion of some people.
I suspect you don’t understand what it means. She is A mediator, not “THE Mediator”.
We are all “mediators” when we pray for other people...we often ask fellow Christians, including those in heaven (”cloud of witnesses”),to pray for us. This is called the “communion of saints”, which is mentioned in the Apostle’s creed...
Doesn’t your church emphasize spiritual warfare? About the importance of prayer warriors to stand in the gap? About Abraham mediating with God to stop destroying Sodom?
It is on a completely different level than the redemption of the cross. Jesus is God.
So... does the Catechism of the Catholic Church not teach what the Church believes? Dogma Schmogma. If it's in the Catechism, it's taught. If it's taught as truth then... guess what? IT'S DOGMA.
I suspect you don’t understand what it means. She is A mediator, not “THE Mediator”.
I suspect you don't understand what the the word "one" means:
1 Timothy 2:5
"For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man[a] Christ Jesus,"
One. Not some. If there were more than one mediator, Paul would have said, "there are many mediators between God and men, one of which is Chist Jesus,"
But... he didn't. And why should he? Christ HIMSELF said:
John 14:6
"Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No oneexcept through me."
Did you catch those? "No one" and "except through me." Hmmm. Wonder what God the Son meant when he said that.... If there were another way, don't you think he would have said, "No one comes the the Father except through me and/or my mother"??
But... he didn't. No one and except through me means exactly that -- there is ONE mediator. The Roman Catholic Cult teaches that Mary is a "Mediatrix" which means there is more that one. That means Rome says, in effect, "Christ is wrong."
Really? Do you really want to believe that falsehood?
We are all “mediators” when we pray for other people...we often ask fellow Christians, including those in heaven (”cloud of witnesses”),to pray for us. This is called the “communion of saints”, which is mentioned in the Apostle’s creed...
Uh. No. When we pray for other people, we are praying an intercessory prayer. Remember the verses above? There is ONE mediator...."
We cannot ask "fellow Christians," "Saints" or anyone else to pray for us... including Mary.. because ONLY GOD IS OMNISCIENT. That is one of God's peculiar, unshared traits. We are not omniscient; if we were, we would be god-like ourselves, and we're not. Only God is. Besides... why would you want to pray to anyone OTHER than God? We, as Christians, have access directly to Him. Why be stupid and pray to someone who can't hear you (and couldn't do anything even if they could) when you can pray DIRECTLY TO GOD ALMIGHTY??
My suggestion to you would be to actually read The Bible. Please. Read it. Prayerfully (To God, mind you), thoughtfully, and sincerely. Read it. Remember that it is God's inerrant, inspired word. Compare God's word to the lies that the Roman Cult teaches -- it's Catechism and other "dogma" and hopefully -- hopefully -- you'll see the falsehoods presented as truth by Rome. Hopefully, prayerfully, God will open your heart to him and to his Son....
Hoss
Which is actually good -- because then it means that they hopefully have SAVING faith - faith that actually is substantive - and something most catechized Cultists don't have.
Hoss
Then you don't seem to have read what any of these threads have to say. They are FAR from "Catholic-bashing". But, if people are "ignorant", then why isn't there a better effort to set them straight? Why is snark and insult the knee-jerk reaction before ANY attempt is made to educate people? If "illogical" arguments are being made by opponents, then where are the logical counter arguments? Sorry...I've been here too long to believe that "respect" is genuinely the reason for the vociferous and angry tirades that get launched towards others who disagree with what Catholicism teaches.
There are numerous former Roman Catholics here who taught RCIA classes and who were quite involved with their church. I kind of doubt they suddenly forgot all they knew when they left. I suppose it probably helps many RCs to think ignorance is the sole reason behind criticism of Catholicism, but it is simply not the case. Instead of just assuming other's motives and reacting in anger, why not engage in the discussion and try to prove your case with a better argument? That, at least, would garner some respect.
Thus damning them to hell because the RCC taught and continues to teach that outside of the RCC there is no salvation.
The core dogmas don’t change.
And if not the Catechism of the Catholic church, where is the infallible list of the core dogmas that someone infallibly declared to be infallible?
Amen!
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.