Posted on 12/17/2012 1:19:04 PM PST by RnMomof7
Do Catholics think she was the only one ever recorded to do that in Scripture?
Do they think that no one else in the world outside of what was recorded in Scripture ever did that, too?
If you have read Acts, you must have noticed how abruptly Peter “leaves” the story, as if the writer intends later to tell you more, and shifts to the story of Paul. The greater part of Acts is about Paul’s missions ending with return to Jerusalem, where he meets James but not Peter. The story abruptly ends, as if the author had simply laid down his pen. He may have intended to resume the story later, or he may simply have told us all he knows. And what he knows is NOT a complete story of the activities of the Apostles. I am not making an argument from silence. I am only pointing to what anyone who reads the New Testament notices, which is how it it is an anthology of occasional writings, whose only common thread is the proclamation of the Gospel. And we must consider the audience: to those Christians who knew far more than we can ever know about the persons and their comings and going and other deeds than we can ever know, until we encounter them ourselves.
There are recorded instances of people, like Elizabeth, Zechariah, John the Baptist, and Simeon, all associated with the birth of Jesus, who were said to have been filled with the Holy Spirit, and not ONCE is that ever recorded of Mary in the Bible.
Which is to set aside all of what Luke says in his first two chapters.
It has far more to do with rnmom's and her friends credibility than that of the rumored Monsignor. I've never been lied to by a Monsignor, the same cannot be said for some of the posters here.
You mean other then the weakest evidence was that he was in Rome? I think a Catholic accusing anyone of having an agenda when studying scripture is absolutely hilarious.
sorry. your talking to yourself. too late. I can’t back- track at this point and try to make sense of it. all I see are more claims based on wishful thinking anyway. have no more time for two-bit lectures. goodbye.
The words spoken to Mary were no different then were spoken to Jael in Judges. In fact, Jael was called blessed above women. Mary was called blessed among women.
Luke 1:28 And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
Judges 5:24 Blessed above women shall Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite be,
Those words were also spoken of Noah, Moses, and David.
The Book of Acts is a transition book. From Kingdom a believers to a Body of Believers. From Law to Grace. From the 12 Apostles dealing with Israel to one Apostle dealing with the one new man, where there is no difference between Jew and Gentile. No one “Laid down his pen”, and the story does not just “abruptly end”. The dispensation of the law was set aside and the dispensation of the grace of God was taken up. Acts is about the fall and temporary blindness of Israel. And the times of the Gentiles. Just like Hebrews is a transition Book, where God is once again dealing with Israel as a nation and the middle wall of partition that separated Jews and Gentiles is back up.
No, it doesn’t.
BlueDragon:
goodbye. sorry if I did not give you what you wanted to here, I guess your commission rate went down.
Simply to refute the subject we were discussing concerning the "primacy of the Pope of Rome". As stated at the start of my response, this is what Vatican I pronounced (infallibly, according to her) about the papacy:
1. That which our lord Jesus Christ, the prince of shepherds and great shepherd of the sheep, established in the blessed apostle Peter, for the continual salvation and permanent benefit of the Church, must of necessity remain for ever, by Christ's authority, in the Church which, founded as it is upon a rock, will stand firm until the end of time.
2. For no one can be in doubt, indeed it was known in every age that the holy and most blessed Peter, prince and head of the apostles, the pillar of faith and the foundation of the Catholic Church, received the keys of the kingdom from our lord Jesus Christ, the savior and redeemer of the human race, and that to this day and for ever he lives and presides and exercises judgment in his successors the bishops of the Holy Roman See, which he founded and consecrated with his blood.
3. Therefore whoever succeeds to the chair of Peter obtains by the institution of Christ himself, the primacy of Peter over the whole Church. So what the truth has ordained stands firm, and blessed Peter perseveres in the rock-like strength he was granted, and does not abandon that guidance of the Church which he once received.
4. For this reason it has always been necessary for every Church--that is to say the faithful throughout the world--to be in agreement with the Roman Church because of its more effective leadership. In consequence of being joined, as members to head, with that see, from which the rights of sacred communion flow to all, they will grow together into the structure of a single body.
5. Therefore, if anyone says that it is not by the institution of Christ the lord himself (that is to say, by divine law) that blessed Peter should have perpetual successors in the primacy over the whole Church; or that the Roman Pontiff is not the successor of blessed Peter in this primacy: let him be anathema.
Note that there is not any sense of doubt in the language used here. This is the reason for Fortescue's sense of assurance. Christ himself instituted this office, and it was, in every age, clearly evident, that there was a primacy over the whole church.
What Lampe goes on to prove, quite well documented, and which you seem to agree with at least until the late 300's, is that there was no such recognized "primacy" of a single bishop in Rome who was officially handed the mantle of Apostleship from St. Peter. In reality, such a concept did not gain any traction until at least a hundred years AFTER Peter was martyred - in Rome or where ever - and only by a few theologians. The point is that the statement by Vatican I was not historically accurate and, in fact, was not a tradition that can be traced back to the Apostles NOR the very early church fathers.
In terms of its human actors, as a story, “Acts” reads not as a “history,” but a commentary on events. On the issue of Peter, of course, the reformers felt the need to “debunk” the story of his death in Rome. The Reformation began as a repudiation of Roman authority, and so claimed that there being nothing written in the New Testament about his presence in Rome, and the Bible being a complete substitute for Church authority, the claim that Peter was buried in Rome was false. With Jerusalem in the hands of the Muslims, Rome had become the greatest of pilgrimage sites, St, Peter’s basilica being the grandest. That was one source of the pope’s power.
Nor is there any disproof of the claim. However, by 140s, there were already pilgrimages to the shrines of Peter and Paul in Rome, and Rome was a major center of the Church, naturally enough, since it was the capital of the empire.
Re Peter his preeminence in Rome:
And then you have all those letters to the churches reminding them to remember the holy Father reigning in Rome, and thus Paul was sure to mention him among all the acquaintances he named in the epistles to the Romans...
But Peter did have a general pastoral role as the leader among brethren, but perpetuating that and placing it on steroids is where Scripture ends and Rome begins.
Your mind set seems Nestorian: Mary as the mother of Jesus, but not of the Christ, as the human and divine natures in the Christ could be separated.
Peter was the chief of the Apostles, and the popes of Rome are his successors.There is an historic link between the bishop of Rome, but It is ahistoricism with a capital A to suppose that Peter would have behaved or even exercise exactly the same authority as Pope Benedict, or for that matter, the baptist leaders of the 16th century to have behave and acted like the Pastor of the First Baptist Church in Dallas.
"Catholic rite churches are under Roman papal authority... and so this is applicable to all
Why did the 12 not flee Jerusalem when the persecution began at Jerusalem? (Acts 8:1). Why were they still in Jerusalem when Paul went by revelation of Jesus Christ 17 years AFTER the Ascension? And one more question: Why were the 12 COMMANDED by Christ to begin their ministry in Jerusalem and Paul COMMANDED by Christ to FLEE Jerusalem (Acts 22:18)? At what point would the 12 have left Jerusalem and gotten on with their “great commission”?
Amen...good post
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.