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.
Yeah, once again I gotta post this!
NIV Matthew 4:18-19
18. As Jesus was walking beside the Sea of Galilee, he saw two brothers, Simon called Peter and his brother Andrew. They were casting a net into the lake, for they were fishermen.
19. "Come, follow me," Jesus said, "and I will make you fishers of men."NIV Matthew 8:14
When Jesus came into Peter's house, he saw Peter's mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever.NIV Matthew 10:1-2
1. He called his twelve disciples to him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.
2. These are the names of the twelve apostles: first, Simon (who is called Peter) and his brother Andrew; James son of Zebedee, and his brother John;NIV Matthew 14:28-31
28. "Lord, if it's you," Peter replied, "tell me to come to you on the water."
29. "Come," he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus.
30. But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, "Lord, save me!"
31. Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. "You of little faith," he said, "why did you doubt?"NIV Matthew 15:13-16
13. He replied, "Every plant that my heavenly Father has not planted will be pulled up by the roots.
14. Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."
15. Peter said, "Explain the parable to us."
16. "Are you still so dull?" Jesus asked them.
NIV Matthew 16:13-18
13. When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"
14. They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."
15. "But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16. Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17. Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.
18. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.19. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."
True!
It is quite clear that ONLY using the 'above verses' will lead a person to draw the WRONG conclusion about the matter.
Why are Catholics so DEVIOUS??
Philippians 2:5
Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
So, when your friends, or even strangers, ask you to pray for them, do you say "SURE!; but can I filter your request thru a dead 'saint'? It works REALLY well!"
Then it is alright if you use my name in vain.
That was Baa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aaa-aad.
:D
Hoss
That was as close as I could get on such short notice.
Stuff flyin’ outta da mouth, viewed from a safe distance away, could be taken either way.
Many will wish to flee when faced with the Almighty!
Sadly, the most common thing they damn are souls.
Hoss
Wait to see if the following turns out to be true...
Ok, you think he’s Christ. I’m outta this thread!!!!!!
Many of the so-called "pastors" of today are so "Joel-Osteen-like" that they wouldn't know the Gospel if it bit them in the robes. They are smarmy, PC characters who are likely lost themselves. RnMomof7 is reporting this information about the false claims of a papacy expressly to alert you to the error of Rome. It's theology is unbiblical, its traditions deadly, and its men are lost.
"I can do the same with Protestant Preachers who founded their own churches and couldn't keep their pants zipped,"
Certainly you can, but your org claims your "pope" is the "Vicar of Christ", the substitute for Jesus on Earth. You claim he speaks infallibly when he speaks ex cathedra, you believe he is "Father" and appointed by the Holy Spirit. Those are blasphemous claims, proven wrong by their debauched, sick, twisted behavior in the past and their wrongheaded statements about Mary and salvation currently. We are not "taunting" you, but crying out to you to leave her and come into the light of Jesus, alone.
How about one being teased?
Jack (the black and white one you see the most on these pages) thinks he's the Alpha goat of the herd.
Every day I have to remind him that I am.
He likes to rare up on his hind legs, lower that head, and come at me; trying to keep me from directing him back into the barn.
It never works!
Silly goat!
Every day I have to remind him...
Dang!
A vision of these C vs P threads just went thru my mind!
If it bothers anyone that much there are several solutions:
1) Stop posting threads that bash Catholics.
2) As the RM has stated many times. Simply stick to Caucus threads.
3) Stop doing "keyword" searches.
Well, expecting Catholics to grow up is certainly not an option, I see.
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.