Posted on 10/27/2006 8:14:39 PM PDT by Salvation
St. Peter and Rome |
11/15/04 |
Please indicate ONE statement from the early Church that clearly and unambiguously denies the Real Presence and holds that the bread and wine were only the symbolic presence of our Lord.
I appreciate your post. I know, I always wish for the Rodney King thing here on the religious forum, and I suppose it isn't realistic in the least. My main concern is that lurkers read these threads and I wonder if they want anything to do with Christianity after doing so. While dialogue is a good thing, I wish it could all be done with Christian love and respect for each other, differences and all. Too much to ask I am sure! It isn't every poster or every thread of course, but some get pretty nasty at times. God bless you.
"It is widely held that Peter paid a first visit to Rome after he had been miraculously liberated from the prison in Jerusalem; that, by "another place", Luke meant Rome, but omitted the name for special reasons. It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to Rome about this time (after 42 A.D.), but such a journey cannot be established with certainty. At any rate, we cannot appeal in support of this theory to the chronological notices in Eusebius and Jerome, since, although these notices extend back to the chronicles of the third century, they are not old traditions, but the result of calculations on the basis of episcopal lists. Into the Roman list of bishops dating from the second century, there was introduced in the third century (as we learn from Eusebius and the "Chronograph of 354") the notice of a twenty-five years' pontificate for St. Peter, but we are unable to trace its origin. This entry consequently affords no ground for the hypothesis of a first visit by St. Peter to Rome after his liberation from prison (about 42). We can therefore admit only the possibility of such an early visit to the capital."
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11744a.htm {Peter, Prince of the Apostles - Catholic Encylopedia}
No --- Not a contradiction between Justin Martyr and the Catholic Encyclopedia on this matter, but an admission by the Catholic Encyclopedia that Eusebius's, Jerome's, and all subsequent pontifications of a 25 year Roman Bishopric for Saint Peter is without foundation.
So let us summarize as to where we are at this point:
1] There is no evidence in Scripture, or the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers, or historians of that period for a Roman Bishopric of Simon Peter of any length of time.
2] But there is evidence in the writings of the Ante-Nicene Fathers [Justin Martyr . . . ] for a 25 year Roman Bishopric of Simon the Magician whose followers were called Christians.
Is that a fair summary thus far? Do you have any evidence to the contrary? If so, present it.
If not, then should we now turn to the writings of other Ante-Nicene Fathers to see what else they can add to Justin Martyr's statements regarding that 25 year Roman Bishopric of Simon Magus whose followers were called Christians?
Step back from this statement for a minute. Do you actually suppose that every Protestant just simply pick and choose their beliefs like some kind of Protestant smorgasbord? It's all based upon the writings of the church fathers and the creeds. The only difference is Protestants do not believe the creeds of some "group" of people to be infallible. Everything must be checked through the scriptures and if the scriptures are silent, then we better be silent. To be sure the creeds and confessions are great guides in understanding what other saintly people have handed down to us but it is quite easy to invent things that are simply not there. Creeds that are solidly rooted in scriptural references are far more believable in my mind than those that are not.
A complaint of mine is that Catholics have subtly redefined their creeds and confessions over time to conform with their evolving doctrine. At least the Orthodox are up front about evolving their doctrine. Catholics would like to say, "All of this is based upon what the Fathers agreed to since the beginning of the Church." This is nonsense and rubbish in my mind and an objective analysis of history doesn't support it.
Each individual, not the Church, will have to answer to God for their own beliefs. I'm sorry but a person can't tell God, "The priest beguiled me and I ate." You and I are individually responsible for the doctrine we hold.
Can you cite examples of "evolving doctrine" and when the "evolution" occurred. Many Protestants confuse the Catholic Church's DEFINING of dogma with its origination.
Just because something was not defined until much later, does not mean that it didn't exist. This holds true throughout all of God's Creation. Take gravity, Newton didn't define it until the 17th Century, but mankind had long "understood" the concept of falling.
In my 30-plus years of being a Christian, I have reviewed the beliefs of Catholics, Orthodox, Pentacostal, and a host of different Protestant denominations. I have attended many different churches (and the Church) but I find little satisfaction in unexplained scripture. Most denominations simply pull out their favorite text while ignoring others. Based upon my individual studies, I found most believers cannot reconciled what is written in the Old Testament with what is written in the New. They reduce it down to mere stories, myths, legends, or moral values issues and they argue as such to their shame. Never do they treat it as the way God deals with man; exacting wrath and judgment, choosing this nation over that, treating this person with grace and mercy and not this other. There is no reconciliation of these scripture with the "God loves all men" mentality.
It was only in the last three years that I stumbled upon the Reformed belief. Intrigued and suspicious at this "new" gospel, I did an analysis of church and secular history and completely reread the scriptures from a Reformed perspective for verification. I did not read any Reformed works but simply stuck with the early church fathers. At the same time I went out to various opposing sites and read all the arguments against Reformed theology. Surprisingly, most of the arguments centered around how well constructed the Reformed theology was (the ol' "They have all their ducks in a row" argument). The person who convinced me wasn't Calvin but was Augustine in his A Treatise on the Predestination of Man with the blessed Cyprian question:
The Kingdom of God is within us...
The Kingdom of Heaven is a physical Kingdom as was David's Kingdom...And the next person to sit on that Throne will be the Anti-Christ...And that will be right after the Jewish people in Israel build the temple again...
There's not a Catholic dead, or alive who's been near that Throne, yet...
-A8
But this itself is not a claim made in Scripture. Therefore, in making this claim, you contradict yourself.
-A8
along with...
CANON 3. If anyone says that the grace of God can be conferred as a result of human prayer, but that it is not grace itself which makes us pray to God, he contradicts the prophet Isaiah, or the Apostle who says the same thing, "I have been found by those who did not seek me; I have shown myself to those who did not ask for me" (Rom 10:20, quoting Isa. 65:1).
CANON 4. If anyone maintains that God awaits our will to be cleansed from sin, but does not confess that even our will to be cleansed comes to us through the infusion and working of the Holy Spirit, he resists the Holy Spirit himself who says through Solomon, "The will is prepared by the Lord" (Prov. 8:35, LXX), and the salutary word of the Apostle, "For God is at work in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure" (Phil. 2:13). - Council of Orange
CANON V.- If anyone shall affirm, that since the fall of Adam, mans freewill is lost and extinguished; or, that it is a thing titular, yea a name, without a thing, and a fiction introduced by Satan into the Church; let such an one be accursed"! - Council of Trent
No, do't be saddened...Be burdened...
What's important is that we don't just have doctrinal or religious differences...
There's a lot of elderly FReepers and as time goes on, some of the FReepers pass on...
It is clear that Catholic and non-Catholics have different routes they pursue to attain Salvation...There's only one route that will get you there and the rest of the religious folks are going to spend eternity in Hell...This is more than a life and death situation...
Either I am going spend eternity in Hell, or someone like, for example, Wagglebee will spend eternity in Hell...And I only pick Wagglebee because that's the post above yours...
The most important question a person will encounter in his/her lifetime is:
Act 16:30 And brought them out, and said, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
And it looks like we have it narrowed down to getting baptized, taking the Eucharist, living a good life, doing good works, etc., OR believe on the name, and call on the Lord Jesus Christ with nothing else because we don't have anything worth trading for salvation...
Some of us are going to Hell and that's why I'm in this dogfight...I'm convinced it is not I that will spend eternity in Hell...
-A8
You do understand that the same argument can be against you when it comes to the Reformation churches...
-A8
The basic problem with most of the Protestant doctrines is the "alone" part. It cannot be supported by scripture, whereas all Catholic dogma can.
He was a Presbyterian of the old school. They just didn't have the Presbyterian church at that time.
The fundamental point of difference on which all the others rest is 'sola scriptura'.
I would disagree. The fundamental point rest upon who saves us-God (monergism) or man (synergism). The rest of the arguments are peripheral.
The Church has always taught, right from the beginning, that Christ gave authority to His Apostles, and that they gave authority to the bishops. This is very clear in all the letters of Ignatius...
Of course the Church taught this, and properly so. But the fathers recognized the corruption that could seep into the Church. That is why they sealed the Bible. The Pelagius issue was a wake up call. I remember reading one of the church fathers (either Ignatius or Iraeneus) who said that if a person heard heresy preached from the pulpit, the Holy Spirit would help them to recognize it and they would plug there ears and run from the church. Now does that sound like good Church doctrine to you?
That is what Luther and Calvin abandoned, i.e. the authority of the bishops,
Luther and Calvin did no such thing. As a former Presbyterian you should know they have a very vertical hierarchical structure. Luther and Calvin both believed in the authority of church organization. This is something wmfight and I were discussing that we believe is a problem in churches. We believe the original churches were really decentralized and would not agree with Luther and Calvin's approach.
by whom is it being widely held? I have asked for citations from Josephus, Tacitus, Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, and they say nothing. Ignatius tells us something but nothing close to what is claimed here as being widely held.
It is widely held that Peter was in Rome. It is widely held that Peter wrote 1 Peter from Rome. It is widely held that "Babylon" refers to Rome. It is widely held that Peter and Paul died there - as the book of Revelation seems to point out. (the two prophets killed). Regarding the twenty-five year reign of Peter as bishop of Rome, I have given you the background. It is not certain. But we are discussing history, not dogma. The study of history is rife with uncertainties. However, in the study of history, we follow the axiom that "one's witness is accurate until proven otherwise". With Aristotle, we take the historian's view is true - until we find other more reliable sources that prove otherwise.
All you have is your own biases against the THEOLOGY of the church. Because you do not trust the Catholic Church's dogmas are from God, you naturally believe that the history regarding the Church must answer to some higher proof of its claims regarding such miscellaniety as a 25 year reign of Peter as bishop. An unbiased historian will accept what is written unless proven otherwise. You appear to demand more evidence BECAUSE it is something about the Catholic Church. In history, one must leave his religious bias at home.
Didn't he know how to spell "Rome"? If he meant "Rome" why didn't he say "Rome" as he does later when telling about Paul's upcoming visit to "Rome".
Have you ever been on the run before, maybe people trying to toss you to the lions, say? Note that Revelation ALSO conceals a lot through symbology that clearly points to the Roman Empire and the Emperor himself... This is accepted by the majority of Protestant exegesis on the subject.
It is not impossible that Peter made a missionary journey to China about this time either? Shall we assert that since we have no evidence to the contrary?
Because we have other evidence that shows Peter was in Rome and it certainly seems reasonable to presume that the head Apostle of our Lord would EVENTUALLY go to the head city of the Empire. We have evidence of a clash between the Jews and Christians in c. 42 AD. It is NOT unreasonable to presume that Peter was there - since Paul does not claim to have been to Rome yet. And it would make sense to "hide" Peter's destination in case the letter had fallen into Roman hands.
Then why have you been pontificating this myth for 1500 years and claiming that it is true when you know that you have NO EVIDENCE.
Again, you appear ignornant of how historians work. An established theory is upheld until evidence is brought forward to bring about another theory. This is true in science, as well. All you do is demand evidence of "CNN" quality. Your standards are beyond what is available, thus, the Catholic version fails. However, one must question whether ANY evidence would pass your positive acceptance and standards you have set. Until you prove otherwise, this is no "myth".
Regards
It has been established previously that the problem was not that Indulgences were a false teaching - but that some abused indulgences. The Papacy spoke out against such abuses long before Luther.
Regards
So, why was he a bishop? Reformed theology has no place for "bishops". Why did he believe in the seven sacraments? Reformed theology does not have seven sacraments. Why did he believe in praying to the saints? Reformed theology does not allow praying to the saints. Why did he believe in purgatory? Why did he believe that Mary remained ever virgin? Why did he believe in Holy Orders through Apostolic succession? Need I go on? Why did he believe that the Eucharist was truly the Body and Blood of Christ? Need I go on? The Reformed churches reject all these things.
I said: "The fundamental point of difference on which all the others rest is 'sola scriptura'."
You replied: "I would disagree. The fundamental point rest upon who saves us-God (monergism) or man (synergism). The rest of the arguments are peripheral."
No. If the bishops truly have the authority to determine what the Church teaches, then whatever the sacred Magesterium determines is the correct doctrine viz-a-viz monergism is orthodoxy. Therefore, the fundamental point is not whether monergism is true or not, but whether 'sola scriptura' is true. For if the Magesterium has that authority, then you should submit to their authority, even regarding their teaching on monergism.
-A8
Where are these widely held sources?. Present their quotes so we can see them.
It is widely held that Peter wrote 1 Peter from Rome. It is widely held that "Babylon" refers to Rome.
Are you saying now that Peter didn't know how to spell "Rome" either?
It is widely held that Peter and Paul died there - as the book of Revelation seems to point out. (the two prophets killed).
Now that is a real stretch of the imagination as that event has yet to occur.
Regarding the twenty-five year reign of Peter as bishop of Rome, I have given you the background. It is not certain. But we are discussing history, not dogma. The study of history is rife with uncertainties.
But we do know something for certain from the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Eusebius, and Jerome: That Simon the Magician went to Rome during the reign of Claudius [possibly 42 AD] and founded a religious system whose followers were called Christians.
However, in the study of history, we follow the axiom that "one's witness is accurate until proven otherwise". With Aristotle, we take the historian's view is true - until we find other more reliable sources that prove otherwise.
Good. Then "the witness of Justin Martyr is accurate until proven otherwise". Do you have any evidence to present that Justin Martyr was inaccurate in this matter. Perhaps we should look in Father Irenaeus' writings for that evidence to the contrary, but then again we are likely to find only corroborating evidence, aren't we?
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.