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.
Sorry, Mary does not bring us anything at this point in history.
There is zero proof she was taken up to Heaven.
The Bible notes Jesus is our intercessor...no mention of Mary.
The Bible notes The Holy Spirit is our Helper and Advocate....no mention of Mary.
Therefore there is no opposition between the CCC and the Holy Scriptures, diametric or otherwise.
I think we just proved otherwise.
As I posted, you’re free to create your own site at your own expense. Purposefully dividing this community is not the intent of the site.
I'm 53 years old and I've heard such "favors" many hundreds of times. And I am good friends with many Protestant ministers and pastors who have never felt the need to attack my Faith. If you would like to go over a list of sinful human beings, I can do the same with Protestant Preachers who founded their own churches and couldn't keep their pants zipped, but that's not necessary. We both agree that humans are weak and often sin, but we also both believe that Jesus is our Savior so let's just drop the taunts and insults and focus on Him.
Who are you?
It's that kind of know-nothingism that gives Americans a bad name. I weep for our future. Look, I didn't pull the duty for handling the crazies tonight. I gave you an answer, our salvation comes from Christ fullstop. Apparently you either didn't read it or didn't like it but that doesn't change it.
I think you need to listen to the comments of the RM about debate on the Religion Forum. If it’s not to your liking then you should refrain from clicking on the thread. We believe in free speech still.
Who are you?
Which Jesus? The Jesus that paid the full price for ALL our sins and will remember them no more or the Jesus of Catholicism who requires man to pay for some of his own? The Jesus that gives His glory to no one else or the Jesus of Catholicism who Mary has taken some of the glory from? The Jesus who is loving and live within those He calls His or the Jesus who Mary has to cajole to accept some? It's not the same Jesus for Catholicism as the Jesus of Scripture.
You shirley know what he meant.
Well, that little dig deserves the response of pointing out the pedophile priests that the Catholic church has mishandled for decades at the very least.
I’m not Shirley, I can tell you that.
You did just prove otherwise but only for those with eyes to see and ears to hear and hearts to understand.
And the answer to Hoss’s question is what?
A or B?
(We did notice that you failed to answer it)
They refer to themselves as Catholic not Christians. Why?
Because they are and they are not otherwise they’d ID with Jesus and not a church.
Hmmmm. Still having some trouble answering that simple question? For some obvious "know-nothing" that I am, I'm having issues understanding this whole "fullstop" mess. Let me try again: I asked you who was the mediator between God and Man. Once again, I ask:
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
Hmm. I’m not sure of the legal precedent here. Do I have to prove I’m not Shirley, or do you have to prove that I am considering you accused me of being Shirley? Full disclosure: I’m not comfortable with sending my DNA in the mail.
And, the question will, no doubt, go unanswered. For to answer it honestly would mean to have to refute Rome.
Until God calls, it just won't happen.
I sincerely hope and trust and pray that The Lord does call them to salvation and repentance -- it's sad when bringing the Gospel is translated into "anti-Catholic bigotry."
Hoss
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.