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.
Agree to disagree.
“Agree to disagree.”
I agree.
:-)
What goes around comes around.
The same measure is used by Catholics against Prots.
Substantiate the assertion.
Rev. 5:8, Rev. 8:3–4. Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).
Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5), but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4). In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).
You clearly don't understand why God was born in the flesh...
If one is lost and needs to get somewhere, the best thing to do is to find someone who knows the way better than anyone else. Most of mankind is lost, and needs to find Jesus. Mary is the one person who knows the way better than anyone else, because she and Jesus shared the same body for 9 months, Jesus was subject to her for 30 years, they probably even look alike, and they are of one accord.
What nonsense...That's why Mary at the wedding said to Jesus, 'Do what I say'???
Getting close to Mary is the fastest and best way to get close to Jesus. It's pure folly to even think that by getting close to Mary you are somehow getting farther away from Jesus. Jesus got his sacred Body and his precious Blood from MARY!
Act_20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.
What a goofy statement and deceiving statement...Babies and their mother's do not exchange blood...The blood comes from genes...It could be the mother's gene or the father's gene...You are providing false information which can deceive people into believing that Mary has a connection to God other than she was just a vessel for Jesus to be carried in...
And Jesus hears our prayers when we proffer them to him, alone...
” In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for “[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects” (Jas. 5:16). “
And yet not a single passage of Scripture:
Commands us to do so... ever.
Teaches that departed saints intercede for us.
Demonstrates the Apostles or other believers doing this.
Encourages believers to do this.
Teaches that departed saints can hear anything addressed to them from earth.
Teaches that departed saints pray in heaven for things on earth.
Nor do we see it as part of the Apostles teaching before 100 ad.
Nor do we see it in art outside the church before 100ad.
Nor do we see secular writings that demonstrate this as a Christian belief before 100 ad.
It is a vacuum.
It is a teaching made up out of pagan belief, apart from the Scriptures.
Another angel came and stood at the altar, holding a golden censer; and much incense was given to him, so that he might add it to the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar which was before the throne.
How many times has this been presented? Heck how many times have I presented it?
Here is another one (Matt. 18:10). "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven." Everyone has an Angel watching out for them.
I am not asking you to agree with the evidence, but at least say that Catholics have presented Scriptural evidence.
I trust that you will NEVER ever offer evidence to support a non-Catholic and that if you should EVER see one of them commit this most grievous of sins that you will immediately rush to the Catholics defense and severely admonish the non Catholic.
You're so right, since we all know the U.S. Conference of Bishops meets regularly to decide which key words to add to threads on FreeRepublic.
Ok...let's break this down and keep it in context.
Rev. 5:8, Rev. 8:3–4.
Jesus himself warned us not to offend small children, because their guardian angels have guaranteed intercessory access to the Father: "See that you do not despise one of these little ones; for I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven" (Matt. 18:10).
Mary is not an angel. Angels are separate created beings and are not people so trying to apply this verse to justify praying to Mary fails. Secondly, we're not talking about children....we're talking about grown adults. In either case we are not to pray to angels anymore than we are to pray to Mary. Our prayers should be directed to Christ.
Because he is the only God-man and the Mediator of the New Covenant, Jesus is the only mediator between man and God (1 Tim. 2:5),
and as such we should only pray to Him. There is no need for mary to "intervene" in our salvation or any of the other things catholicism claims she does.
Why would the catholic want to replace, or probably in their worldview, supplement, what Jesus is doing for us? Is the Second Person of the Trinity, Who was, is and is to come again, Who has always existed, Who created all we know, Who died on the cross for us, in some way deficient??
In the catholic worldview Mary is replacing Jesus in this capacity with all of the prayers to her for her intercession in the affairs of man. This is where the fifth marian dogma, if passed, will elevate mary officially to the position of mediatrix; that is currently what Jesus does for us. To imply that Mary's help is needed undermines the full confidence we are to have in Jesus. Only one person I can think of would want that to happen. His name is Satan.
but this in no way means we cannot or should not ask our fellow Christians to pray with us and for us (1 Tim. 2:1–4).
On this there is no agreement....however from the conversation we've been enjoying, the fundamental difference is that Christians do not pray to our fellow Christians....we pray with them. Catholicism prays to mary and the saints who've gone on before us.
Nor do we rely upon them for our salvation or "place our hopes" in them nor devote ourselves fully to them as the catholic does when they pray to mary and adhere to the belief she is taking an active role in our salvation and even, according to some catholic writers, "tells" Jesus to save some and He then acts.
In particular, we should ask the intercession of those Christians in heaven, who have already had their sanctification completed, for "[t]he prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects" (Jas. 5:16).
There is no indication that James was suggesting we pray to believers who have gone on to Heaven.
For the verses in Revelation regarding the saints assumes 1)that they are able to hear our prayers, which there isn't any Biblical indication to suggest they can, or 2) but assume they can, again we are not shown to pray to fellow believers in any capacity.
The prayers of the saints noted in Revelation appear to be those believers who are already in Heaven and who will be in Heaven. Revelation 6:9 strongly suggests they are saints who were killed for their faith and have gone to Heaven. So the two passages you referenced, 5:8, Rev. 8:3–4 more than likely refer to them.
Regardless of their status, we are not to pray to them, nor is there a Biblical injunction to pray to those who've gone on before us.
Let's not forget the role of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer still on earth. He is constantly interceding for us with words and groanings we cannot understand. He is our Advocate and Helper. And if the fifth marian dogma is passed, He will be "replaced" by mary in this capacity.
And this takes us back to the whole problem with the catholic position on mary. Slowly but surely the rcc is elevating mary to positions of authority which are not granted to her by the Word.
This is why Christians reject catholic tradition. It leads to such false teaching as what we see on mary and what is being proposed for mary.
Absolutely false. The SSPX is not and has never been in schism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vJ0HP5ZMXE
The thread is about the Papacy and how it came about...not Protestant or otherwise churches....It would seem a attempt to draw the topics to Protestant churches is a diversion. Might be good to stay with topic at hand.
So...kinda like what you have been doing on this thread?
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.