Aw... shucks...
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.
Oh my!
Priceless!!!!
Hoss
One of the first times I noticed it, I was on the beautiful Natchez Trace Parkway. I noticed I was seeing double the number of cars so I did what anyone would do. I closed one eye. That is one reason my 2007 Honda Accord has less than 20,500 miles on it. I do not drive unless it is necessary. I sure will be glad when this is over. My regular eye dr told me to wear a patch. I told my grandson that I would wear a pirate’s cap with it. Can’t you just see this 71 year old great grandmother doing that? : ). God bless.
Just often that is what we see here.
I love you and Jesus loves you Elsie. Maybe you could put away your hate for just today and give Him His day through prayer and love of your fellow man. Don’t worry about me, I’ll be fine. Go find someone you don’t know to share Christ’s love with, through kindness and charity.
So are prots willing to accept his historical evidence denying the Messiah Jesus?
“When someone challenges them”.
Them? LOL.
What are ‘prots’?
“prots” is short for “protties” which is like rotties, which is short for rottweilers...
in other words they think non-Catholic Christians are like snarling dogs
Thanks for the explanation on ‘prots.’
“So are prots willing to accept his historical evidence denying the Messiah Jesus?”
I don’t think it is so much in denying their rabbi, but the validity of the Catholic religion/Christianity.
Oversimplifying for the sake of illustration, you treat the Bible as the Mormons do their book, in that it was dug up somewhere, and everything came into play all at once. The books of the Bible took a couple of centuries to be decided upon, and there of course was a church, established by Christ Himself, to determine what was inspired. “If I were to record all that took place, not all the books covering the world could contain all that I witnessed” said the apostle John. The Bible cannot be operated on “automatic pilot”; no, it came into a community of believers who had already established a liturgy, practice, and theology.
Yeah. Like using it to prove that The Magisterium's dogma Is superior to the authority of God's Words.
Mythological religionism...
The Old Testament Canon was known long before Jesus showed up...And none of the Catholic books were in it...And of course that disqualifies any thing the Catholic religion came up with centuries later...
The New Testament was being preached and dispersed around the world with souls being saved hundreds of years before the Catholic religion was even created...
To claim that God is going to sit around for 400 years while some anti-scriptural religion decides what God's scripture consists of is beyond ridiculous...How could you guys even spout such nonsense???
http://www.catholictradition.org/Saints/saintly-quotes23.htm
Pay attention to the comments about how "impossible" it is to be lost for one who follows Mary; that confidence in Mary is a sure sign of salvation; that those who are devout to Mary will never be lost.
Also note in the first quote that it is Mary who initiates salvation for people...when she wishes. There are several in this category.
This would be in line with the fifth marian dogma of the catholic view of the role mary plays in our "salvation".
The honest student of the Word will recognize that you cannot find any support for any of these false doctrines in the Bible. And please, let's not try the appeal of "if you're following Mary you're really following her Son". That is such a bogus statement.
This is why Christians eschew the catholic cult claim to tradition. It gets you these kinds of lies.
No wonder they're pushing for the fifth marian dogma. The apostacy continues in catholicism.
Will any catholic disavow any of these claims??
OUR LADY AND SALVATION
... There is no one, however wicked, whom Mary does not save by her intercession when she wishes ... He who has recourse to Mary shall be saved. -St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
No one, not even a sinner, who devoutly recommends himself to her shall ever become the prey of Hell. -St. Catherine of Siena
However great a sinner may have been, if he shows himself devout to Mary he will never perish. -St. Hilary of Poitiers
Mary was made Mother of God to obtain salvation for many who, on account of their wicked lives, could not be saved according to the rigor of Divine justice, but might be saved with the help of her sweet mercy and powerful intercession. -St. John Chrysostom
The Saints assert that anyone who prays to the Mother of God in time of temptation will be preserved from sin, and that whoever approaches her with perfect trust throughout his life will surely be saved. -St. Maximilian Mary Kolbe
My children, if you desire perseverance, be devout to our Blessed Lady. -St. Philip Neri
Mary obtains salvation for all who have recourse to her. Oh! If all sinners had recourse to Mary, who would ever be lost? ... He who is protected by her will be saved; he who is not will be lost. -St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
It is impossible to be saved without the help of the Most Blessed Virgin, because those who are not saved by the justice of God are saved by the intercession of Mary. -St. John Chrysostom
We believe that Mary opens the abyss of God's mercy to whomsoever she wills, when she wills, and as she wills; so that there is no sinner however great who is lost if Mary protects him. -St. Bonaventure
Hell is not the lot of any true client of Mary for whom she prays even once, and for whom she says to her Son that she wishes him to be saved ... It is sufficient that you desire our salvation, O Mary, and we cannot help but be saved. -St. Anselm
He who is devout to the Virgin Mother will certainly never be lost. -St. Ignatius of Antioch
Not one of those who love her can perish; not one of those who try to imitate her can fail to attain eternal salvation. -St. John Eudes
Not a single soul who has really persevered in her service has ever been damned. -St. Louis Marie de Montfort
No one who shall invoke this Mother of Grace with devotion and perseverance can possibly perish forever. -St. John Eudes
By Mary, God descended from Heaven into the world, so that by her men might ascend from earth into Heaven. -St. Fulgentius
The sign of those who will be saved consists in this: that they have a great devotion to Mary in their hearts. -Bl. John of Avila
I believe that devotion to thee, O Lady, is a certain sign of eternal salvation. -St. Gabriel of the Most Sorrowful Virgin
Devotion to Mary is a sure sign of predestination to him who possesses it. -Bl. Alan de la Roche
Mary is the Mysterious Book of Predestination to glory. -St. Frances Xavier Cabrini Love of Mary and devotion to her are a sure sign of obtaining eternal salvation. -St. Bernard
O Mother of Perpetual Help, confidence in thee is a certain pledge of everlasting salvation. -Bl. Pope Pius IX
O Mother of God! If I place my confidence in thee, I shall be saved; if I am under thy protection, I have nothing to fear; for the fact of being thy client is a possession of a certainty of salvation which God grants only to those whom He intends to save. -St. John Damascene
O Most Blessed Virgin, just as everyone who hates thee and is forgotten by thee must necessarily perish, so also must everyone who loves thee and is loved by thee necessarily be saved! -St. Bonaventure
O how long ago the earth would have been destroyed, if Mary had not interposed! -St. Fulgentius
Hail, Mary, gracious Mother of Mercy; who would not love thee? Thou are our certain salvation! -Ven. Pope Pius XII
She is the eldest daughter of the Great King. If you enjoy her favor, she will introduce you to the Monarch of the Universe. No one has so great an interest with Him than Mary, who was the occasion of His coming down from Heaven to become man for the redemtion of mankind. -St. John the Almoner
If you wish to walk securely and be certain of your salvation, if you aspire to a great crown in Heaven that will never fade, love and honor Mary, and strive to make her known, loved, and honored by others. -St. Joseph Cafasso
Just as it is impossible for one who is not devout to Mary, and consequently not protected by her, to be saved, so is it impossible for one who recommends himself to her, and consequently is beloved by her, to be lost. -St. Anselm
No, he can never be lost who recommends himself to thee, O Mary. -St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
If she protects you, you have nothing to fear, for you cannot be lost. -St. Bernard
A true servant of Mary cannot be lost. -St. Alphonsus Maria Liguori
Being thy servant, O Mary, is a surety of salvation God grants solely to those He will save. -St. Andrew of Crete
Whoever bears the mark of a servant of Mary is already enrolled in the Book of Life. -St. Bonaventure
There are a lot of objections in this thread to the posting of this article, as there have been to others that also call Catholicism into question in any way.
This isn’t a Catholic web site, though. As far as I know, it is perfectly within Free Republic’s terms of service to post articles that are critical of any church, or religion. That includes the Roman Catholic Church.
What *is* against Free Republic’s terms of service, though, are personal attacks. As the moderators frequently say, “discuss the issues and don’t make it personal.”
If the article itself is acceptable for posting according to Free Republic’s terms of service, then attacking a poster just for posting it, because it’s critical of a particular church or religion, violates the rule against personal attacks, in my opinion.
Those attacks consist of accusing the poster of posting the article out of hate for some other group, or some other evil motive, even though the person who attacks someone else just for posting an article critical of his group never is offended when the shoe is on the other foot and articles by his group that are critical of other groups are posted. *Those* articles are never seen as being posted out of hate or any evil motive.
This is a site for discussion that doesn’t identify with any particular Christian denomination or viewpoint, and if anyone here won’t accept that, and the legitimate posting of articles that happen to be critical of their beliefs, then they shouldn’t post here, in my opinion. There are usually sites run by their own group that they could use where their group is given preference. I used to post on Christianity.com’s forums and there were some limits on what could be posted, and that was perfectly right given that it’s a Christian site.
Here, being able to post should come down to accepting or not accepting the site’s rules, which allow such critical articles.
And I will single out Catholics here, too, because that’s primarily the group I see doing it. A
And, too, if you look at the articles tagged with the keywords “catholicbashing” and “protestantbashing,” the former is a far longer list, and includes articles such as:
“Faith: The Misunderstood Doctrine Chapter 7,” an excerpt from Man: The Dwelling Place of God, by A.W.Tozer (didn’t see anything in it directly about Catholicism, and there are other similar articles on Christianity also labeled “catholicbashing” )
“Pope: Catholics Don’t Have to Breed ‘Like Rabbits’,” from Newsmax
“Priest jailed for ‘systematic’ sexual abuse of boy” (RTE.com)
“Milwaukee Archdiocese Said To Be In Talks With Insurers” (Wisconsin Public Radio News)
“Large differences in “hookup culture” between Catholic/Secular college students and Evangelical ones” (The Aquila Report)
“Papal conclave: Anti-mafia police raid offices in diocese of frontrunner” (The Nigerian Tribune)
“Pope Benedict XVI says goodbye — to his red shoes” (The Washington Times)
“LA Cardinal Mahony ‘stripped of duties’ over sex abuse” (BBC)
“Priest sentenced for molesting girl, 11” (The Washington Post)
“Number of Austrian Catholics leaving church increase to a record high since 1945” (AP/Winnipeg Free Press)
These articles seem to be “Catholic bashing” only in that they are less than unskeptically adoring of Roman Catholicism. And while looking through the “catholicbashing” results, I even encountered this thread started by a Religion Moderator five years ago:
“Do NOT use keywords as slams on the Religion Forum.” It says, “Stop adding keywords to articles to slam others, e.g. catholicbashing, agendadrivenfreepers, moapc, catholicwhiners.”
I appreciate the different articles here, including the “anti-Catholic” ones, and have no problem with the fact that “anti-Protestant” articles can also be posted. The recent articles from a Protestant view on the history of the Roman Catholic papacy interest me. I know, though, that to post anything less than flattering of Roman Catholicism here is to be attacked. I posted two threads of my own in the last year that were such, with one pointing out that Catholic Charities provides secular mental health counseling (which promotes many antichristian beliefs as good and normal) and my concerns over Christianity on the Supreme Court being represented by five Catholics, and I was attacked merely for starting threads on these subjects.
But, again, according to the site’s description and rules, that’s precisely what it’s for. So accepting that, or not, is the issue here. To not accept it is to go back and reject the terms of service.
Nope. Today; Rome's false Mary will cajole many.
I just HATE that!
Any stickin' to the wall yet?
I guess you could characterize it as such.
The Bible WAS fully formed by the time I got around to reading it.
It seems like there is a big religious organization; based in Rome; that wishes it had put all of it's traditions into it at the time they compiled it.
But since SO many of them came along LATER; it's kinda hard to get Everyone convinced now.
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.