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.
Tomorrow is a new day. Take advantage of that.
You’re presenting a false dichotomy and demanding an answer that makes as much sense as “Can God make a rock so big He can’t move it?”. The Church is not wrong, God is not wrong. The answer is longer than yes or no because the question is faulty.
I’m not going to take you seriously because you persist in calling the Bride of Christ a cult in a disparaging manner.
Nevertheless, no one shall enter Heaven except those saved by the Blood of Christ. Nobody else would even want to anyhow.
Back at you.
So inferring isn’t our strong suit here: My original post wayyyyyy up thread was to show that Islamists are silencing us all over the globe while keyboard warriors blame Catholics for this and Protestants for that. Pray for our world, it’s on fire.
I think it’s worth pointing out that the muslims would just as happily torch a Catholic as a Protestant and consider their god well served.
We all agree that humans are sinful and all of us fall to temptation so I will repeat:
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.
Which church" The Roman one or the EO one who holds to different doctrines and considers the themselves the OTC and the Roman rite off the rails.
They disagree in the following areas.
How can they both be true?
These differences are so important that there has been no reconciliation in nearly a thousand years after the split. The Eastern Orthodox differ with Roman Catholicism on these issues:
The Holy Spirit (the filioque)
In EO - The third person of the Trinity, proceeding from the Father alone as in the original Nicene Creed. The Father sends the Spirit at the intercession of the Son. The Son is therefore an agent only in the procession of the Spirit.
In RC - 'When the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son, He is not separated from the Father, He is not separated from the Son'.
Mary - Assumption and Immaculate conception of
EO - The Assumption is accepted and it is agreed that Mary experienced physical death, but the Immaculate conception is rejected. Orthodox belief is that the guilt of original sin is not transmitted from one generation to the next, thus obviating the need for Mary to be sinless.
RC - Both are dogmas of the church. The church has not as yet decided whether Mary actually experienced Physical death. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception states that Mary, was at conception 'preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin' and should not be confused with the virgin birth.
Pope - Authority of
EO - As the Bishop of Rome, he has a primacy of honour when Orthodox, not of jurisdiction. At present, his primacy is not effective as the papacy needs to be reformed in accordance with Orthodoxy. His authority is thus no greater or lesser than any of his fellow Bishops in the church.
RC - The Pope is the 'Vicar of Christ' i.e. the visible head of the church on earth and spiritual successor of St. Peter. He has supreme authority (including that over church councils) within Christendom (The Power of the keys).
Pope - Infallibility of
EO - Papal Infallibility is rejected. The Holy Spirit acts to guide the church into truth through (for example) ecumenical councils. This Orthodoxy recognises the first seven ecumenical councils (325-787) as being infallible.
RC - The Pope is infallible when, through the Holy Spirit, he defines a doctrine on faith and morals that is to be held by the whole church. This is a dogma and is therefore a required belief within Catholicism.
Purgatory
EO - An intermediate state between earth and heaven is recognised, but cleansing and purification occur in this life, not the next.
RC - A place of cleansing and preparation for heaven. Also a place where the punishment due to unremitted venial sins may be expiated.
I'd say these were the "biggies", but other differences also exist. These are explained
And this article is another comparison.
Comparison between Orthodoxy, Protestantism & Roman Catholicism:
There is only one Jesus. I'm done here.
No, actually, a false dichotomy implies that there is some sort of rhetorical trick being used where there exists MORE than one answer. Here, there is one answer, and one answer only --
Either Christ, who from his own mouth said that no one comes to the Father except through himself -- meaning he is THE mediator between God and Man (and subsequently substantiated by Paul's inspired scripture in 1Tim2:5)
OR
Mary is the Mediatrix she is proclaimed to be by the Roman Catholic CULT in its Catechism listing 969.
Which is true? No false dichotomy here, but I do give you credit for trying to use a Straw-man argument. Talk about hypocrisy. Sheesh.
A) God
B) Roman Catholic Cult
We're waiting...
I’m not going to take you seriously because you persist in calling the Bride of Christ a cult in a disparaging manner.
I've never called the Bride of Christ anything disparaging; I along with all those called by God and saved through faith in Christ Jesus are the Bride of Christ.
The Roman Catholic Cult is exactly that...a cult.
Nevertheless, no one shall enter Heaven except those saved by the Blood of Christ. Nobody else would even want to anyhow.
Well now, we can agree on that -- it is the Blood of Christ that saves... not Baptismal Regeneration as taught by the Roman Catholic Cult... and not faith AND works... but Faith Alone. But I'm sure we'll differ on that.
Still... just for fun: A or B?
Hoss
And yet the Catholic here claim no split! That’s a split for sure!
True -- but it is the Roman Catholic Cult's Catechism that teaches that Catholics and Mohammedans worship the same God:
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day."
So, which "Creator" do Catholics and Mohammedans worship?
Hoss
Before Christ ascended into heaven what did he do? What did he say?
Please read YOUR Bible.
What do you think Catholics use? The Bible of course. And it states that Tradition is part of the our belief.
Read John and John’s letters — last chapters.
Now, don’t go trying to confuse things... Which is it?
You said Rome had Truth...not scripture. Now it’s both?
Let’s try this with you too:
Truth originates from:
A) God and His inerrant word
B) Rome’s “Traditions”
C) Both
Hoss
You belive in Scripture, correct?
Then why don't you believe this?
John 21: (We'll be using the KJV today to keep things on even footing): "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen."
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn't contain everything.
John 20
30 Now Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book;
31 but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name.
Leviticus 26 King James Version (KJV)
26 Ye shall make you no idols nor graven image, neither rear you up a standing image, neither shall ye set up any image of stone in your land, to bow down unto it: for I am the Lord your God.
Satan hates Scriptures.
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.