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.
I’m sorry: I just don’t think Elsie is Christ.
I hadn’t envisioned the act of spitting as regurgitation. Perhaps the translation should be “vomit” but I hadn’t read it that way. I saw Him spewing before swallowing.
One can see on the pages of FR that many Catholics 'bash' their new pope.
I've yet to see ANY of them called out for 'bashing'.
it's in the eye of beholder I guess.
Or; like the dreaded "N" word; only certain folks can use it without fearing backlash.
Today class; we will be studying Roman popes as recorded by history.
According to whom?
Matthew 15:16
"Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
Matthew 231. Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
2. "The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat.
3. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.
4. They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.
5. "Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long;
6. they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues;
7. they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them `Rabbi.'
8. "But you are not to be called `Rabbi,' for you have only one Master and you are all brothers.
9. And do not call anyone on earth `father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven.
10. Nor are you to be called `teacher,' for you have one Teacher, the Christ.
11. The greatest among you will be your servant.
12. For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
13. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.
14. Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation.
15. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You travel over land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as you are.
16. "Woe to you, blind guides! You say, `If anyone swears by the temple, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gold of the temple, he is bound by his oath.'
17. You blind fools! Which is greater: the gold, or the temple that makes the gold sacred?
18. You also say, `If anyone swears by the altar, it means nothing; but if anyone swears by the gift on it, he is bound by his oath.'
19. You blind men! Which is greater: the gift, or the altar that makes the gift sacred?
20. Therefore, he who swears by the altar swears by it and by everything on it.
21. And he who swears by the temple swears by it and by the one who dwells in it.
22. And he who swears by heaven swears by God's throne and by the one who sits on it.
23. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices--mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
24. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel.
25. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.
26. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean.
27. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men's bones and everything unclean.
28. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.
29. "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You build tombs for the prophets and decorate the graves of the righteous.
30. And you say, `If we had lived in the days of our forefathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.'
31. So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets.
32. Fill up, then, the measure of the sin of your forefathers!
33. "You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?
34. Therefore I am sending you prophets and wise men and teachers. Some of them you will kill and crucify; others you will flog in your synagogues and pursue from town to town.
35. And so upon you will come all the righteous blood that has been shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah son of Berekiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar.
36. I tell you the truth, all this will come upon this generation.
37. "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing.
38. Look, your house is left to you desolate.
39. For I tell you, you will not see me again until you say, `Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord.' "
Mark 7:26-27
26. The woman was a Greek, born in Syrian Phoenicia. She begged Jesus to drive the demon out of her daughter.
27. "First let the children eat all they want," he told her, "for it is not right to take the children's bread and toss it to their dogs."
And St. Paul chimes in...
Galatians 5:12
As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!
Agree to disagree.
Again; with NO facts.
Rome has come up with the damnedest things!!
I agree you have presented Scripture.
Where it is EVIDENCE or not will be left to the jury.
What last word?
Ok, you think he’s Christ. I’m outta this thread!!!!!!
It's either that or else Catholics have Free Rein to post what ever words they want; no matter HOW bad it makes the church look.
Now we have to kill you!
And you take the testimony of one who broke her vows??
Do the bibles used in nunneries have Ezekiel 23:20 in them?
Catholicism gets strong Protestants.
ex-Catholics make the best MORMONs.
Got it
HMMMmmm...
No doubt there are plenty of heretical contentions to be found in the Orthodox Church as well. I was dealing with the Cult of Rome in a thread that dealt with Roman Cultism.
Got it
HMMMmmm2
The Roman Catholic Church responded to the Protestant Reformation by calling a great council, the Council of Trent. In a series of sessions between 1545 and 1563 the Catholic delegates dealt with various doctrines (some of which are not Protestant, and are truly heretical). The sixth session was dedicated to the doctrine of justification. First they explained the Roman Catholic teaching on this subject in a series of chapters. Then, they included a series of canons to reject and condemn various doctrines. Their aim was principally the doctrine of justification as taught by Protestants.
Canon 12 reads as follows: "If anyone says that justifying faith is nothing else than confidence in divine mercy, which remits sins for Christ's sake, or that it is this confidence alone that justifies us, let him be anathema."
Anathema means accursed; let him be anathema means let him be accursed. To be cursed is the very opposite of being blessed. A man is blessed by salvation; cursed by damnation in hell. This is very, very serious. The Roman Catholic Church threatens with a curse the person who has nothing else to rely on except the mercy of God, and no other ground for the forgiveness except for Christ's sake!
And yet, I know many ex-RCC members who did not become Mormon or JW or even Adventist. They can make wonderful and generous Christians when not enslaved by a cult.
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.