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.
As opposed to the prot version of not answering specific question when asked repeatedly. I wonder who I could be thinking of when I make that statement. Don't worry I am not expecting an answer.
Yup!
The Mormon leadership realized that the BoM did NOT contain the stuff they WANTED to do; so 'revelations from GOD' became the BIG doctrine creation machine.
Thus we have the Doctrines and Covenants; as well as the Pearl of Great Price.
Almost as thrilling to read as the books that damned LUTHER! removed from the bible!
...is it impossible for one who recommends himself to her, and consequently is beloved by her, to be lost. -St. Anselm
Thus what is impossible for a believer in Christ according to RCs, that of confidence of final salvation, is possible for for a believer in Mary.
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
So in addition to the parallels to Christ given to Mary , as God is sovereign, so is Mary.
All such attributions of Divine attributes to Mary are one of the examples of the fruit which the alternative to Scripture being the supreme standard for Truth, that being sola ecclesia, produces, out of which are seen the worst heresies, with cults such as the LDS also basically operating out of as well.
What does ROME provide that is Necessary for Salvation that the Bible failed to deliver?
They also tend to be the ones that rarely if ever add to a discussion. Instead they will post endless lists or just make smart comments that have no bearing on the topic.
They demonstrate an inability to think beyond the lies that hey have been told and absolutely refuse to use legitimate sources for research. The absolute surefire way to recognize them is that when they just continue to blather nonsense I will sign off to them with: "Feel free to have the last word."
I hope this fully answers your question, let me know if any part of it needs clarification.
That wasn't my explanation, mine is post 266
Valid priesthood and seven sacraments. All you folks have is an empty cross for an empty religion.
What a pack of lies......
ABJ - Anything but Jesus.
They do not provide anything. I really feel sad for them. Jesus is the only true answer and the Bible is His guidelines.
Jesus is risen and He is all we need.
Only when one reads into the earliest writers, that which was not there, mistaking what proper authority the Church was given, to belong only to Rome --- for "papacy" as that came to be later known was most assuredly NOT "mentioned by the early church fathers".
Each and every mention of a bishop at Rome that can be found among ECF's, simply does not equate with the way Rome later developed a plethora of theology, doctrine & dogma concerning it. If this was not so, then the claims of Rome would have been overtly established, rather than all the needing to read into things that which is simply not plainly there.
Horsefeathers. Jesus did not make Peter out to be King of Israel (or would become as one upon Christ's own departure from earthly realms) yet that would need to have occurred in order to make Catejan's argument hold water rather than leak out and dissipate.
Jesus Himself was mockingly called King of the Jews. That those whom mocked Him so, were not mocking (as they thought themselves to be) but instead had written Truth (albeit unknowingly) does not equate with God Almighty having intended for there to be a singular, earthly king of the Jews, for God was against that very idea in the first place previous to Saul being chosen by the people to be king.
Peter would need be that king (David was Saul's own successor do not forget if your representative model was validly representing the heart of the Lord, instead of being made of clay, and the limited, darkened imagination of men who think God all but died when He returned to where He was before, leaving themselves in charge? oh but in the Romish way, only one guy, Peter alone, in charge (all others required to be subservient to him).
Phfft. Pull my finger, then beam me up Scotty, there are scarcely any true and faithful friends of God on this earth...
Did you hear the one about the Pope's first miracle? He touched a cripple and made him blind!
Don't like that one? Well then, show us any pope who walked in the same power and true authority as did Peter, Paul, and many others, as for the working of miracles, and then maybe I'd apologize for the rudeness of the joke. I used to make a point.
So what now? Will I be lectured (and hectored) by some FRoman concerning a long list of less-than-well-verified claims for miracles? There is just as much of that far from the confines of the Roman Catholic ecclesiastical community (both actual miracles, and the phoney, pretend kind) as there can be found within it.
The Spirit of the Lord, does not belong to Rome, or is upon a leash held in papist paw. The Lord never intended for things to be that way. Why would He limit Himself to a less-than-fully trustworthy ecclesiastical chokepoint, as it were? Well, He didn't and never intended to do so, regardless of the varied claims of Rome, when if put all together in one lump, more or less equate to that. So sorry to disappoint anyone in this, but there is truth, and then there is Romish fable which takes aspects of truth, then bends those to their own Supremacy aims. The Lord rebukes you them, for that (which doesn't leave anyone else to be able to get away with the same or similar error).
The same God who was against the children of Israel having a king for themselves as did all other nations around them, was not intent upon furthering that error, regardless of all the faithless clamoring among the people that they have an earthly king to rule over them.
That same God, in the person of His Son, did not give only to Peter alone this office which you speak of (for it was Christ's own office, and remains so for all eternity) and that that be "inheritable" by way of earthly succession to that same alleged-to-be office, even if but in representative form...
Peter was considered among early centuries theologians as "primary" in that he was in a sense "first". But there can only be one "first". Not a whole line of successions of later "firsts".
The singular inheritance portion (which is were things really break down, for the Romanist) was not the early Tradition, regardless of all the select, here and there cherry picking of quotes, and practice of SOLO Scriptura.
Writings attributed to Ireneaus indicate plurality of authority rather than anything like singular authority for Peter being in some manner "king" over all the rest of the Apostles.
Those writings indicate Ireneaus was referring to succession of bishops in Rome, as example amid a plurality of successions to offices of episcopacy in other locales also, not ranking those as lesser than Rome, but as yet more examples, himself writing not against those whom opposed 'Rome' and it's alleged authority, but against those whom preached heresies contrary to the Gospel, himself opening his dissertations with mention of Apostolic plurality, explaining then first off --- how the Church from very early on (some time after the demise of the Apostles) relied most centrally upon the Scriptures.
bolding and underlining added]Chapter I.-The Apostles Did Not Commence to Preach the Gospel, or to Place Anything on Record, Until They Were Endowed with the Gifts and Power of the Holy Spirit.They Preached One God Alone, Maker of Heaven and Earth.
1. WE have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures,* to be the ground and pillar of our faith. For it is unlawful to assert that they preached before they possessed "perfect knowledge," as some do even venture to say, boasting themselves as improvers of the apostles.*2 For, after our Lord rose from the dead, [the apostles] were invested with power from on high when the Holy Spirit came down [upon them], were filled from all [His gifts], and had perfect knowledge: they departed to the ends of the earth, preaching the glad tidings of the good things [sent] from God to us, and proclaiming the peace of heaven to men, who indeed do all equally and individually possess the Gospel of God. Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, did also hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon His breast, did himself publish a Gospel during his residence at Ephesus in Asia.
One would search in vain to find Ireneaus, or any other, for the first hundreds of years assign singular Apostolic succession to being under the line of Peter, alone, including (and this is important) that other 'lines of apostolic succession' owed singular deference to some sense of authority residing in Rome (alone, and/or foremost).
On the contrary, the polity of the Church was from inception, conciliatory, in that way echoing or shadowing the way in which Jews to this day can establish among themselves a Temple, needing a quorum of 12 men (in some Jewish circles, only 10, minimum) to do so.
And what does the Scripture (in Pauline epistle) tell us of the polity of the Church, but to chose among ourselves (wherever we may be) elders to preside over the proceedings? That differs greatly from having some organization, though beginning innocently enough, then later glom on and grow into becoming far less than answerable to the people. In this at least, the Southern Baptists get it right for they accept no one who was "sent" by some ecclesiastical body from elsewhere, to then rule over them. Instead, as minister are trained (and hopefully raised up) within centers of learning, they then may be called to preach. These same ministers can go out and plant (begine, and nurture) fresh, new church assemblies also, if they have the calling, and the ambition.
As for "Holy Orders" the Pentecostals (some of them, anyway) get that in the laying on ofhands and praying for others, including for the equipping and ordination for the ministry. And what ministry is it -- but to preach the Gospel, which is the great commission, nothing more, and nothing less...though this not restricted to merely talking about it, of course. One can visit orphans and widows in their afflictions, and those locked away in prison, hopefully bringing, providing relief. One can feed the hungry, and possibly help shelter the homeless can feed the poor (help keep them warm, instead of just saying "be warm, and filled). All of those things are after biblical model. If what I quoted above was actually from Ireneaus, instead of being later fabrication attributed to him, then he would most likely be approving and proud of all those whom do these things, not limited to merely those of the Roman Church.
In centuries a couple of hundred and more years removed from Apostolic ages, there was talk of Rome bearing a double apostolicity, along with there having been a consciously expressed desire and need for unity with the Church at Rome, but not under view there having been indisputable authority residing there to whom all must bow obeisance to, as if the bishop of Rome was God's own, singular earthly representative.
Your small thesis built upon inheritance of "keys"to Peter alone, and that being extension of Davidic kingdom, fails, and fails miserably, for if instead it were to be true, then there would have been far more reliance upon Rome, alone. But guess what? There was not, with Rome (and it's bishop there) having been corrected upon occasion, by other bishops. I know the history well enough. It's far too late to redefine it, even if relying upon Catejan of the 16th century to make the case. What good is his word as for the official record?It's surely not like he had some sort of unbiased view. History and Scripture both, refute Catejan in this, anyway (and I've but outlined the tip of the iceberg, as for how his thesis can be refuted).
For all the reading-in-between-the-lines which Romanists indulge themselves in (thinking they alone are *smart* as we so ofter hear it told) then why cannot they comprehend the general implications of the same writer (Ireneaus) whom they often selectively quote when themselves asserting 'Rome', over and above all others? Ireneaus was closest to Rome as it were, as so naturally began his examples, focusing upon an apostolic succession at Rome first, for he himself was closest to that particularly noteworthy bishopric. Even then, that did not stop himself from corrected a bishop of Rome, a 'pope' as it were, upon two different occasions. So much for indisputable authority residing there, even then, for by then, as Ireneaus was speaking towards, one would need rely upon Scripture instead of claim of authority due to office alone, or some Gnosis, or other departure from the Gospel--- as that is described within Scripture.
Ireneaus mentions BOTH Peter and Paul in the oft 'cherry picked' at times Against Heresies, book III. If Roman Catholics would read it in context while also refraining from anachronistically transposing what 'Rome' alone, in later centuries eventually (bit-by-bit, in inflationary manner) grew to claim as it's own sole & singular prerogative --- THEN "they" might be able to see what the rest of us see.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ * Early evidence of application of the principle of sola scriptura (scripture foremost and above all whom would contest it).
*2 Ruh-roh, "development" was getting itself in trouble, from way far back in the history of the church. Why trust it now --- when it goes against Scripture, invents history, cherry-picks quotes, while taking Scripture passages themselves too far out-of-context of how those were applied (and not applied) in earliest tradition? _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
You lose. Again.
Better luck next week.
Change the apologetic, to better reflect truth, if you would desire any credibility around here.
The church of Mariolitry!
I did a keyword search for the keyword *catholicbashing* and found some threads posted that didn’t even reference Catholicism in them.
The Tozer threads are some.
Some of the other threads labels with that key word were posted by CATHOLICS themselves. (Who have been courtesy pinged.)
I know the RM can see who posts the keywords in the keyword field. Perhaps the RM could address this and the posters who are doing it.
Adding the keyword of *catholicbashing* to a thread that doesn’t even mention ANY denomination, much less Catholicism, but rather focuses on Christ, is just plain satanically motivated.
If focusing on Christ is considered Catholic bashing, then there’s a real serious problem within Catholicism.
Thank you, Faith Presses On, for bringing this to our attention.
It’s not a good reflection of Catholicism, to say the least.
AKA Catholic propaganda sites, books, literature and don't forget the Protestants who converted to Catholicism right?
Based on what I've just been reading on this thread in the last few posts, placing one's trust in Mary.
If only Catholics would do with Jesus what they do with Mary, they'd be saved in a heartbeat.
Feel free to have the last word.
The empty cross means that He died and our sins have been paid for.
Him still hanging there means there’s no salvation as it has not been finished yet.
That’s just what Satan wants people to believe so that they can continue in trusting in working their way there instead of trusting in the risen, gloried Christ.
Feel free to have the last word
1 Corinthians 15:12-19 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised.
For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied.
So go ahead and worship your dying or dead and impotent hanging on the cross Christ.
True believers will continue to worship the risen and glorified Christ who can save to the uttermost any who come to Him.
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.