How the fictional early papacy became real

Beggars All Martin Luther's Mariology ^ | June 7,2010 | John Bugay

[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)

Schaff, who is cited by Reymond, explicates a little bit further. "The time of Peter's arrival in Rome, and the length of his residence there, cannot possibly ascertained. The above mentioned silence of the Acts and of Paul's Epistles allows him only a short period of labor there, after 63. The Roman tradition of a twenty or twenty-five years' episcopate of Peter in Rome is unquestionably a colossal chronological mistake."

In a footnote, Schaff says, Some Catholics, following the historian Alzog and others, "try to reconcile the tradition with the silence of the Scripture by assuming two visits of Peter to Rome with a great interval." (fn1, pg 252). The operative verse here, Acts 12:17, says only, 'He departed, and went into another place." This gives no details at all, and to posit that Peter took a trip to Rome at this time is irrational, given that just two chapters later (Acts 15) Peter is present back in Jerusalem again for a council.

Schaff continues his work in Vol 1 with two sections: The Peter of History, and the Peter of Fiction.

I won't get into the "history" at this point, other than to say, all that we know about Peter, we know about him from the pages in Scripture, as outlined by Reymond. The summary statement from Duffy, of any further details about Peter's life being "pious romance" is true.

D.W. O'Connor, in his 1968 work "Peter in Rome," looks at the absence of a Petrine presence in the second half of Acts and largely Paul's letters, and gives a reason for why all of this "pious romance" developed:

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.

[MamaB]

I am a monkey because I love bananas. When I was a kid, my dad knew the man who owned a produce company in Tupelo and he would buy them by the stalk. I really love any kind of fruit especially watermelon if that is a fruit. We had apple, pear, plum and peach trees plus we had wild blackberries and grew watermelons, cantaloupes and muskmelons. I am taking 2 horse pills a day for the K. I was talking to a friend last night and he said he had never heard of so many people wih K problems. May go to the store tomorrow if the weather is ok and get me a bag or 2.

[metmom]

It’s actually kind of weird for a single man to be prying into a married woman’s personal life.

[Resettozero]

It’s actually kind of weird for a single man to be prying into a married woman’s personal life.

Just part of his "job".

[HossB86]

Sadly, probably not. Only God knows your heart.

Who is the mediator between God and man?

Scripture, God-breathed and inspired, says there is one mediator...Christ in 1 Timothy 2:5. Yet, your church's catechism teaches that Mary is named 'Mediatrix' who intercedes for salvation in CCC 969.

So, riddle me this: which is correct? God's inspired word, or the catechism? Both cannot be, because they stand diametrically opposed.

More importantly, does the catechism trump Christ himself when HE said, in John 14:6: "Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.""

Catch that? Jesus said no one comes to the father except through Him.

So, since you profess that God has saved you, which is right...the Roman Catholic Cult's Catechism, or Christ himself?

Hoss

[ealgeone]

If you can find anyone who has ever lived who gave more glory to Jesus Christ than Ignatius of Loyola, or Teresa of Avila, or Therese of Lisieux, or John of the Cross, or Padre Pio, or Teresa of Calcutta, I’d like to know who it was.

I'd nominate this fellow:

But the tax collector, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me, the sinner!' 14"I tell you, this man went to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted." Luke 18:13

Or maybe this woman...

Many of the Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony, “He told me everything I ever did.” 40 So when the Samaritans came to him, they urged him to stay with them, and he stayed two days. 41 And because of his words many more became believers.

42 They said to the woman, “We no longer believe just because of what you said; now we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this man really is the Savior of the world.” John 4:39-42

Or maybe this guy...

7Jesus said to him, "I will come and heal him." 8But the centurion said, "Lord, I am not worthy for You to come under my roof, but just say the word, and my servant will be healed. 9"For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to this one, 'Go!' and he goes, and to another, 'Come!' and he comes, and to my slave, 'Do this!' and he does it."… Matthew 8:8

Or maybe even this guy...

So when they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me more than these?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Tend My lambs.” 16He said to him again a second time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” He said to Him, “Yes, Lord; You know that I love You.” He said to him, “Shepherd My sheep.” 17He said to him the third time, “Simon, son of John, do you love Me?” Peter was grieved because He said to him the third time, “Do you love Me?” And he said to Him, “Lord, You know all things; You know that I love You.” Jesus said to him, “Tend My sheep. John 21:16-17

Or maybe any Christian who owes their eternal destiny to Christ, who have been saved and delivered out of the depths of Hell.

Or maybe any of the thousands and possibly millions who have died for their faith in Christ throughout the ages.

[Col Freeper]

If you don’t care about that list of issues, please review this site’s purpose as stated by Jim Robinson and remove yourself as a member. Create your own site at your own expense and type whatever you want.

Those are certainly issues that any Conservative FR member would/could care about.

However ..... surely you understand that this thread is posted in the RELIGION Forum of FreeRepublic.

A place that is specifically dedicated to ...... Religious discussions.

And surely you understand that you, and every other FReeper, have the capability to not view any postings to the Religious Forum on FR.

Your suggestions about what actions CynicalBear should take are diametrically opposed to the intent and design of FR as a free speech, open discussion, Conservative forum.

If FR allowed some members to direct other members to "hit the road" on the Religion Forum, where would it end? Which other Forum would be next?

Free Speech on FreeRepublic has its limits since it is a Privately Owned Forum Website, but members who don't like what they read here aren't allowed to "drive away" other members.

Only the Forum owner and his moderators are allowed to do that, and they are required to stay within Jim's rules, as he has stated them on the opening page of the Site, when doing so.

Please step back and think about what you are suggesting to CynicalBear.

I wouldn't presume to speak for Jim Robinson, but I can easily deduce that if he didn't want Religion openly and actively discussed on FR, he and John would not have set up such a Forum.

Have a good day, and may GOD bless you and your family.

[ealgeone]

Scripture, God-breathed and inspired, says there is one mediator...Christ in 1 Timothy 2:5. Yet, your church's catechism teaches that Mary is named 'Mediatrix' who intercedes for salvation in CCC 969.

They're even trying to get a fifth marian dogma declaring just this.

Up to the present time in the history of the church, four Marian doctrines have been defined as central Catholic truths by the Church: the Motherhood of God, the Immaculate Conception, the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and her Glorious Assumption into heaven. It is now time for the church, at the summit of this Marian era, to proclaim and define the fifth and final Marian doctrine, that is, Mary's universal mediation as Coredemptrix, Mediatrix of all grace, and advocate for the people of God. http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/MEDIATRI.HTM

Last time I checked we already had someone doing that....the Holy Spirit. If He's not good enough then not sure who would be.

Give it a little more time and the roman catholic cult won't need Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

[metmom]

Believers are called saints in both the OT and the NT.

God sees anyone who has trusted Christ for their salvation as holy. And it’s because God Himself has canceled the record of debt that stood against the believer when he put his trust in Christ and performed the transaction of putting our (my) sin on Christ and putting the perfect righteousness of Christ on us (me).

God chooses not to see our sin or deal with us according to it when we trust HIM.

[metmom]

Nice.......

[WVKayaker]

Isn't it awkward when personally held shibboleths come crashing down in front of everyone?

Your post is a total non sequitur from what I posted. You again try to justify the unjustifiable supposition and pomposity of a cult with the truths as juxtaposed to those found in Scripture.

You fail on your own "shibboleths" of Roman Catholic source definitions. Script was never 'old English'. It was written in Greek and Hebrew, and then translated into common languages (though your cult tried to keep it away from the common people!).

I still see no refutation on the article posted...!

[Resettozero]

Give it a little more time and the roman catholic cult won't need Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

It's always been about usurping authority and the mammon. Follow the money.

[CynicalBear]

I'll bet you thought everybody in the 1890s was a homosexual also right?

Acts 9:13 Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints (ἁγίοις - hagiois) at Jerusalem:

Greek - hagiois - set apart by (or for) God, holy, sacred

And here is why.

Galatians 2:20 I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.

Unless a person leaves the apostasy of Catholicism and accepts Christ alone through faith alone they will never understand that.

[HossB86]

[...]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..

Like who, for example?

Hoss

[Legatus]

Just so we’re all on the same page:
969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation. . . . Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”

The next paragraph is important...
970 “Mary’s function as mother of men in no way obscures or diminishes this unique mediation of Christ, but rather shows its power. But the Blessed Virgin’s salutary influence on men . . . flows forth from the superabundance of the merits of Christ, rests on his mediation, depends entirely on it, and draws all its power from it.” “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer; but just as the priesthood of Christ is shared in various ways both by his ministers and the faithful, and as the one goodness of God is radiated in different ways among his creatures, so also the unique mediation of the Redeemer does not exclude but rather gives rise to a manifold cooperation which is but a sharing in this one source.”

Ellipses in original text.

Therefore there is no opposition between the CCC and the Holy Scriptures, diametric or otherwise.

In this way it is said that we mediate salvation to one another as we share the Gospel. Catch that? The RCC teaches that “No creature could ever be counted along with the Incarnate Word and Redeemer”. Our salvation comes from Christ fullstop. Nevertheless, SOMEONE has to print those Bibles that take such an unholy thumping from some people, God doesn’t print them Himself, so those printers are mediating salvation because it is coming through them.

[ealgeone]

Here's the telling stat:

I do not believe any catholic on this thread refers to themselves as a Christian.

They are more wedded to a denomination than Christ.

[Resettozero]

Nevertheless, SOMEONE has to print those Bibles that take such an unholy thumping from some people, God doesn’t print them Himself, so those printers are mediating salvation because it is coming through them.

Is this an effort at sarcasm? Or irony? Or humor?

Or do you believe what you posted is really true?

[Karl Spooner]

They believe it.

[CynicalBear]

It’s rather sad to see those who on this site would purport to promote free speech while restricting that same right for those they disagree with. There’s a disconnect there.

[HossB86]

Still waiting for your answer. Paragraphs before or after mean nothing.

969 calls her ‘Mediatrix’. Christ, by his own word, and scripture inspired in Paul, state Christ alone is the mediator between God and man.

It’s a simple question... Who is right? God or the Roman Catholic Cult?

Here... Let me simplify it for you:

Pick one..

A) God
B) Roman Catholic Cult

And yes... It really is that simple.

Hoss