Posted on 11/21/2004 2:48:08 PM PST by atari
Im catholic, but I wasnt raised in a religious household.
Im totally clueless about most Protestant denominations especially, and If any would tell me the differences between them, or point me to a site that would help, that would be great. :-)
Now, in a serious pursuit of the truth, I read the article at the link you provided. I was not surprised to find its major elements do in fact reflect the truth. Having been raised in the Lutheran Church, and having spent the last 20 years as a member of churches of other denominations including Methodist, Presbyterian and Lutheran, all of which share a common devotion to the Nicene Creed, I am already aware there is fundamental agreement in Protestant and Catholic doctrine. Having attended many Catholic Masses, and participated in nondenominational Christian Bible studies with Catholic believers, I am not some small-minded "Bible Christian" (as the article you reference cynically calls non-Catholic Christians). So it is in that spirit that I read the article you provided. I went there looking for additional Scriptural support for the claim that Christ chose Peter to be the first Pope. In that pursuit I wasn't successful. But the article you led me to opened my eyes to something I've been wrestling with for a few days now. That question is why Catholics place so much emphasis on the lineage of the Catholic church, and the role that Peter plays in that lineage. I'll offer what I discovered not as an attempt to change anyone's mind, or convince anyone to believe something different from what they already believe. I'll offer it as a personal reflection of my serious pursuit of the truth.
As I read the article I was struck by these phrases..."the Catholic faith", "in Catholicism you will find answers to life's most troubling questions", "the chief reason they convert is the chief reason you should be Catholic: The solid truth of the Catholic faith".
Interspersed between those phrases is a persistent attack on other religions, which are labeled as "Bible-believing" religions, "Bible Christians" and "incomplete brands of Christianity".
The article concludes with the following...
"Your tasks as a Catholic, no matter what your age, are three: Know your Catholic faith, Live your Catholic faith, Spread your Catholic faith."
I am left with the overwhelming impression that the most important element of Catholic (with a capital "C") faith is faith in Catholicism. As a Protestant, the most important element of my faith is Jesus Christ. I assumed that the Christian Catholic church would share that emphasis. But in an article whose stated purpose is to teach me "the basics of Catholic faith," I am left asking...where is Christ? Christ did not deliver sermons on knowing the Catholic faith. Neither did Paul, Peter or any of the other apostles. They delivered a clear message of having faith in God. They didn't direct us to live our Catholic faith. They directed us to love our neighbors as ourselves. They didn't ask us to spread the Catholic faith. They asked us to spread the good news of Christ's salvation. The fact that Christian Faith is not mentioned a single time in this article perhaps reveals the priority the author of this article places on achieving Christian goals. His emphasis on the superiority of the Catholic church, overwhelms any of messages of Christianity. His piece comes across as a defensive attack on non-Catholics. Not as a revelation of the strengths inherent in the Catholic church.
I must add here that I do not believe this article represents the faith emphasis of the Catholic church as a whole. I know too many Catholics who are clearly more faithful to Christ than they are to the Catholic church. But that isn't the message of this article. It did however, answer the question I've been struggling with. I am no longer searching for why the Catholic church seeks justification through Papal lineage. For that I thank you for directing me to the site.
I put my question in quotes for a reason and my quoted question is exactly the question I asked. But you did answer my question, so thank you. It appears there is no additional support. I reject that God chose Peter to be "the Pope". The concept and position of "Pope" did not exist until centuries after his death, and Peter himself rejected all the honors the Pope is entitled to now. But on that point, you and I will obviously have to agree to disagree.
But no evidence exists that Peter was ever in Rome, that I'm aware of. We do know that Peter was married and was the Apostle to the Jews. But there is no Scriptural evidence that ever places him in Rome. Nor, to my knowledge did Peter ever mention Rome. Certainly Paul never addressed him in his letter to the Romans, nor did he mention Peter in any of the letters he wrote while he himself was in Rome. And in all his descriptions of Peter's travels in Acts, Luke never discussed Peter even visiting Rome. What evidence do you have that places Peter as the leader of the Church in Rome?
Thank you, Rokke, for taking the time to read the information at the link posted. The author's approach to "sola scriptura" christians, may well be perceived the wrong way. You noted:
I am left with the overwhelming impression that the most important element of Catholic (with a capital "C") faith is faith in Catholicism.
Actually, the Catholic faith is built on the Nicene Creed, and is fully expressed with solid scriptural references in the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH , which begins with a statement of faith.
SECTION ONE
"I BELIEVE" - "WE BELIEVE"
26 We begin our profession of faith by saying: "I believe" or "We believe". Before expounding the Church's faith, as confessed in the Creed, celebrated in the liturgy and lived in observance of God's commandments and in prayer, we must first ask what "to believe" means. Faith is man's response to God, who reveals himself and gives himself to man, at the same time bringing man a superabundant light as he searches for the ultimate meaning of his life. Thus we shall consider first that search (Chapter One), then the divine Revelation by which God comes to meet man (Chapter Two), and finally the response of faith (Chapter Three).
As Pope John Paul II notes, in the introduction to the Catechism:
GUARDING THE DEPOSIT OF FAITH IS THE MISSION WHICH THE LORD ENTRUSTED TO HIS CHURCH, and which she fulfills in every age.
As to the question you posed to Cronos ...
But no evidence exists that Peter was ever in Rome, that I'm aware of
Admittedly, the Bible nowhere explicitly says Peter was in Rome; but, on the other hand, it doesn’t say he wasn’t. Just as the New Testament never says, “Peter then went to Rome,” it never says, “Peter did not go to Rome.” In fact, very little is said about where he, or any of the apostles other than Paul, went in the years after the Ascension. For the most part, we have to rely on books other than the New Testament for information about what happened to the apostles, Peter included, in later years.
At that point, we turn to the EARLY CHURCH FATHERS , the first christians who bear witness to the works of the apostles. Now the 'big picture' emerges, with more than 30 references to Peter in Rome. Among these, we read:
"You [Pope Soter] have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome and at Corinth; for both of them alike planted in our Corinth and taught us; and both alike, teaching similarly in Italy, suffered martyrdom at the same time" (Letter to Pope Soter [A.D. 170], in Eusebius, History of the Church 2:25:8).
Dionysius of Corinth
"Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church" (Against Heresies, 3, 1:1 [A.D. 189]).
Irenaeus
"It is recorded that Paul was beheaded in Rome itself, and Peter, likewise, was crucified, during the reign [of the Emperor Nero]. The account is confirmed by the names of Peter and Paul over the cemeteries there, which remain to the present time. And it is confirmed also by a stalwart man of the Church, Gaius by name, who lived in the time of Zephyrinus, bishop of Rome. This Gaius, in a written disputation with Proclus, the leader of the sect of Cataphrygians, says this of the places in which the remains of the aforementioned apostles were deposited: ‘I can point out the trophies of the apostles. For if you are willing to go to the Vatican or to the Ostian Way, you will find the trophies of those who founded this Church’" (Disputation with Proclus [A.D. 198] in Eusebius, Church History 2:25:5).
Gaius
As you can see, Rokke, I am much too detail oriented. Cronos will undoubtedly respond in a much simpler way. Alas, the heart that holds strong to faith and wishes to impart it to seekers, is limited by a lack of formalized education in theology. I can only point; the rest is up to you and God. Place your trust in Him and ask our Lord for His guidance. I am but a lowly servant.
A Blessed Thanksgiving to you and your family!
Happy Thanksgiving.
Thank you Rokke for your latest posts -- they are questioning but not insulting (to my mind your earlier ones were not, but again, that is just my own viewpoint). I do think we need people to question and learn more about the faith.
You: "My faith has only one ground. The Word of God."
Mine too.
We disagree on what the Word of God is.
To whom are you refering? Specifically
Never tried to imply the creativity of the Greek civilization was evil. Their progress was the standard for all of western civilization.
It's simply a fact that the Romans had copied the Greeks and adopted their gods and goddesses. That was the culture, so when they accepted Christianity, they modified their pagan Greek religious rituals to fit Christianity. Some of it was good, may be some of it could have been better which is about as close as humanoids ever get to perfection.
St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Apoc., xvii, 5; xviii, 10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
Another testimony concerning the martyrdom of Peter and Paul is supplied by Clement of Rome in his Epistle to the Corinthians (written about A.D. 95-97), wherein he says (v): "Through zeal and cunning the greatest and most righteous supports [of the Church] have suffered persecution and been warred to death. Let us place before our eyes the good Apostles--St. Peter, who in consequence of unjust zeal, suffered not one or two, but numerous miseries, and, having thus given testimony (martyresas), has entered the merited place of glory". He then mentions Paul and a number of elect, who were assembled with the others and suffered martyrdom "among us" (en hemin, i.e., among the Romans, the meaning that the expression also bears in chap. Iv). He is speaking undoubtedly, as the whole passage proves, of the Neronian persecution, and thus refers the martyrdom of Peter and Paul to that epoch.
Bishop Dionysius of Corinth, in his letter to the Roman Church in the time of Pope Soter (165-74), says: "You have therefore by your urgent exhortation bound close together the sowing of Peter and Paul at Rome and Corinth. For both planted the seed of the Gospel also in Corinth, and together instructed us, just as they likewise taught in the same place in Italy and at the same time suffered martyrdom" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii).
Irenaeus of Lyons, a native of Asia Minor and a disciple of Polycarp of Smyrna (a disciple of St. John), passed a considerable time in Rome shortly after the middle of the second century, and then proceeded to Lyons, where he became bishop in 177; he described the Roman Church as the most prominent and chief preserver of the Apostolic tradition, as "the greatest and most ancient church, known by all, founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul" (Adv. haer., III, iii; cf. III, i). He thus makes use of the universally known and recognized fact of the Apostolic activity of Peter and Paul in Rome, to find therein a proof from tradition against the heretics.
In his "Hypotyposes" (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", IV, xiv), Clement of Alexandria, teacher in the catechetical school of that city from about 190, says on the strength of the tradition of the presbyters: "After Peter had announced the Word of God in Rome and preached the Gospel in the spirit of God, the multitude of hearers requested Mark, who had long accompanied Peter on all his journeys, to write down what the Apostles had preached to them"
Like Irenaeus, Tertullian appeals, in his writings against heretics, to the proof afforded by the Apostolic labours of Peter and Paul in Rome of the truth of ecclesiastical tradition. In "De Praescriptione", xxxv, he says: "If thou art near Italy, thou hast Rome where authority is ever within reach. How fortunate is this Church for which the Apostles have poured out their whole teaching with their blood, where Peter has emulated the Passion of the Lord, where Paul was crowned with the death of John" (scil. the Baptist). In "Scorpiace", xv, he also speaks of Peter's crucifixion. "The budding faith Nero first made bloody in Rome. There Peter was girded by another, since he was bound to the cross". As an illustration that it was immaterial with what water baptism is administered, he states in his book ("On Baptism", ch. v) that there is "no difference between that with which John baptized in the Jordan and that with which Peter baptized in the Tiber"; and against Marcion he appeals to the testimony of the Roman Christians, "to whom Peter and Paul have bequeathed the Gospel sealed with their blood" (Adv. Marc., IV, v).
The Roman, Caius, who lived in Rome in the time of Pope Zephyrinus (198-217), wrote in his "Dialogue with Proclus" (in Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xxviii) directed against the Montanists: "But I can show the trophies of the Apostles. If you care to go to the Vatican or to the road to Ostia, thou shalt find the trophies of those who have founded this Church". By the trophies (tropaia) Eusebius understands the graves of the Apostles, but his view is opposed by modern investigators who believe that the place of execution is meant. For our purpose it is immaterial which opinion is correct, as the testimony retains its full value in either case. At any rate the place of execution and burial of both were close together; St. Peter, who was executed on the Vatican, received also his burial there. Eusebius also refers to "the inscription of the names of Peter and Paul, which have been preserved to the present day on the burial-places there" (i.e. at Rome).
Many 'pastors' or 'televesion pastors' will quote from one passage (say, "thou shalt not call any manner Father") and use that to lambast the church.
Sorry, I took your post to somehow mean to insinuate that the Churcdh is wrong as it was corrupted by local influences -- Roman in the west, Greek in the east. WAS that what you meant?
Lutheran. Quite valid. Though, I've never agreed with their 'by faith alone' signifying a kind of predestination which beggars the question -- "why bother" and could lead to a Rasputin like situation where the graced one can sin as much as they like knowing they are already 'saved'.
While I am by no means comparing the Mormon church to the Catholic church, I could show you similar evidence from the Mormon church that indicates Jesus Christ spent considerable time in North America after his resurrection. Mormons would call it "proof". Non-Biblical words and letters from church elders are certainly not inspired scripture, and require a certain faith in man to be believed. For example, if one is to believe that Babylon is a code name for Rome (and I have seen many arguements to support that), than the book of Revelations contains some very bad news for the Catholic church, because John prophetically describes Babylon as the city of the anti-Christ, and the name Babylon is used to represent godlessness.
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.