When potassium is low, eat some fruits and veggies (not together, of course!). They are an excellent source from God's pharmacy!
I eat bananas every day!
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.
"If in coming face to face with God we accept Him in our lives, then we are converting. We become a better Hindu, a better Muslim, a better Catholic, a better whatever we are. ... What God is in your mind you must accept" (from Mother Teresa: Her People and Her Work , by Desmond Doig, p. 156, as quoted by Dave Hunt, Global Peace and the Rise of Antichrist , p. 149).
The one who thought whatever religion was just fine?
Why I Left Protestantism for Catholicism http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255008/posts
Born Again - The Bible Way http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253021/posts
Why Catholicism is Preferable to Protestantism http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3252810/posts
Ten Things Every Catholic Should Know About Sola Scriptura http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3256926/posts
Not by Scripture Alone http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255590/posts
There Is No Salvation Outside The Catholic Church (Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus) http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255317/posts
A Protestant Historian Discovers the Catholic Church – Conversion Story of A. David Anders, Ph.D. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255282/posts
A Few Well Known Catholic Converts http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3254623/posts
The Protestant Achilles' Heel http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253337/posts
Error Begets Error http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253192/posts
When potassium is low, eat some fruits and veggies (not together, of course!). They are an excellent source from God's pharmacy!
I eat bananas every day!
An outsider might be forgiven for having the impression that Jesus Christ is the author of confusion.
Poor Teresa..no doubt spending eternity with the Hindus she never thought to tell about Christ..
When you are a works based religion ...she is a saint ..its all works workks works
Thanks for proving my point, which was that articles of this nature are far more numerous. Your list isn’t even half as long as the one I compiled (and I left off multiple articles which were in the vein of some of the ones you included in your list).
You know it is Rome that curses protestants to hell ..all we want to do is bring you the truth
Pull them out an put them on the table and we'll all see!
I don't know of a saint who considered himself saintly, except for certain types of Protestants who can't be quick enough to tell the world how holy they are. For all it's said to be all about Jesus it sure sounds like it's all about them.
Good for you. How did that happen?
So, please reference your refutation of the premise of this posting! Oh, you made NONE!
BTW, according to Scripture, anybody that has been grafted into Jesus' family is a "saint"!
One example from Scripture is Paul's greeting :
Ephesians 1: 1 Paul, an apostle of Christ Jesus by the will of God, To the saints who are at Ephesus and who are faithful in Christ Jesus: 2 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.
Perhaps it's RM's love for something other than Catholicism.
But that does also raise the question whether it is your obsessive hatred of Protestants that would cause such a response? Better yet, why would there be such a response to simple history? A question left unanswered.
One of those who heard the words "I never knew you".
I am sure you have many fine qualities.
That leaves your obsessive hatred of the Catholic Church unexplained, but no less manifest.
Art, your obsessive hatred of Christians is not in question. It is manifest.
I have yet to read anything positive in any of your posts.
You've got some thin skin dude.
No surprise there.....
BTW, "saint (n.) early 12c., from Old French saint, seinte "a saint; a holy relic," displacing or altering Old English sanct, both from Latin sanctus "holy, consecrated" (used as a noun in Late Latin; also source of Spanish santo, santa, Italian san, etc.), properly past participle of sancire "consecrate" (see sacred). Adopted into most Germanic languages (Old Frisian sankt, Dutch sint, German Sanct).
"Originally an adjective prefixed to the name of a canonized person; by c.1300 it came to be regarded as a noun. Meaning "person of extraordinary holiness" is recorded from 1560s."
In a word, it means "holy". That's why, during the course of (cough) Holy Mass, you see "Spirítui Sancto" (Holy Ghost), "Dómine sancte" (Holy Lord), "sanctum Angelum" (Holy Angel), "sanctis Apóstolis" (Holy Apostles), "Sancta sanctórum" (Holy of Holies),"sanctum Evangélium" (Holy Gospel), "Ecclésiæ suæ sanctæ" (His Holy Church), "plebs tua sancta" (Thy Holy People) etc, etc... are you getting the point? Gracious sakes that last one I listed is actually referring to US as saints!
Isn't it awkward when personally held shibboleths come crashing down in front of everyone?
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.