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.
501
I had not meant to engage in any personal attacks. If such was implied my apologies. I know that heated discussion is to be expected unless the thread is a Caucus one. It is however tiring to have to correct the premise of an argument before one can address the errors arising from it.
I don’t expect Protestants to agree with each other on all points of doctrine let alone with Catholics. I totally respect where there is honest disagreement arising from a valid logical, theological, and historical difference in perspective over Scriptural passages or church practice. For example, The different views on Holy Communion. I respect too where common beliefs are held such as the Divinity of Christ.
I do expect Catholics and Protestants alike not to take quotes out of context or fail to reveal the conclusions an author may have met that supports or contradicts those quotes. I expect a person to be able to understand whether an argument for a certain point is the sole support given by the body being debated or if it is a minor consideration in light of all other evidence. I expect if one claims to be on the side of history they be able to produce arguments from history which are at least in veracity equal to the arguments of the other side.
I also think it important to examine the logic of a presumption. In this case it would be “If St. Peter did not establish the Church in Rome and if there was not a known early Bishopric as we know today does that invalidate the claim by the Catholic Church that St. Peter was First Pope being given primacy by Jesus Himself?” Are there writings from early Christian sources which support this teaching?
If a person is going to argue that St. Peter could not possibly be Pope because of “A” they better be sure that the argument proves what they want it to prove. Using passages from well respected historians out of context and without a full consideration of all the arguments put forth is not the way to do it.
Personally I think the best arguments non Catholics should give about the Papacy is a simple one, “They do not believe in it”. Why should they? Whether it is valid or not has no bearing on their current beliefs. The Papacy and its reach is an argument for the Reformation. It was a way to establish the legitimacy of Protestant churches independent of both Rome and the State. It no longer matters. The Pope holds no sway temporal or spiritual over non-Catholics. You get to follow your faith according to your conscience, which I think is a good thing.
I wonder why so may American Protestants believe Christianity is the property of Americans. It is as though they think the faith began with the Great Awakening and owes its formation solely to the preaching on these shores.
Amen.
Likewise...
If a person is going to argue that St. Peter could possibly be Pope because of “A” they better be sure that the argument proves what they want it to prove.
How else to explain PATRIOTISM?
Love of Country?
No they don’t. Many do not see Christ as being the sole property of any Nation. Both the Left and The Right in this country seem to believe Christ is a pocket Christ obedient to their political agendas. At least the Right remembers that Jesus did preach against this small thing called sin.
They forget that the living Lord was a Jew of Middle Eastern origins and that Christianity rose to prominence in the Mideast. The practices and doctrines of the early Church are often just curiosities of history to them and not the predominant Christian expression in the world.
My love of God transcends any patriotism I have. For I heed the warning not to put my trust in Earthly princes. Christ can be a great inconvenience to those who demand patriotism of a certain kind.
They look like a cheerios. We had one that was full grown and had our shearer band him, my son went out of the shed, he couldn’t stand looking. He (the goat not my son) was a recent acquirement. We usually banded them at about a month....much smaller.
Good!
This is how the Founders intended this country to be!!
Have any one of you ever attended a catholic mass? It would be more expedient to resolve the "confusion" boatbums claims I have caused by comparing an example of prayer from our respective places of worship. I am not familiar with how protestants pray. If you would be so kind as to each post an example of a prayer used by your faith community, I will respond with examples of catholic prayer.
Other than some additional comments from Faith ... silence. EagleOne, you seemed surprised in an earlier comment, that Catholics read scripture. Now it is my turn to be surprised. I fully expected that your immediate response would be from scripture. In both Luke 11 and Matthew 6, our Lord was in a certain place, praying. When he had finished, his disciples asked him: “Lord, teach us to pray just as John taught his disciples.” And he taught them the prayer we Catholics (and I presume you too), call the "Our Father". That prayer is the pre-eminent one that Catholics pray, alone or in community.
If you have ever attended a Catholic mass, you would probably be surprised how all the prayers derive from scripture. For example, The Gloria.
Glory to God in the highest, (Lk. 2:14)
and peace to his people on earth. (Rev 19:6)
Lord God, heavenly King, almighty God and Father, (Rev 22:9; Eph 5:20; Rev 7:2)
we worship you, we give you thanks,
we praise you for your glory. (2 Jn 3; Phil 2:11; Jn 1:29)
Lord Jesus Christ, only Son of the Father, Lord God, Lamb of God, (Rom 8:34)
you take away the sin of the world, have mercy on us; (Lk 4:34; Lk 1:32, Jn 14:26)
you are seated at the right
hand of the Father, receive our prayer.
For you alone are the Holy One,
you alone are the Lord,
you alone are the Most High,
Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit
in the glory of God the Father. Amen.
To the above, I would add one of the most ancient prayers in the Church (both Catholic and Orthodox). It is the Trisagion (Gr) or "thrice holy" prayer:
Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on us.
It originated from Nicodemus. While taking the body of Christ off the cross with Joseph of Arimathea, Nicodemus saw Christ's eyes open then shouted "Holy God, Holy Mighty, Holy Immortal". Around the globe, in every Eastern Catholic and Orthodox Church, this prayer is chanted at every Divine Liturgy ... every day of the week. Even the Latin (Roman) Church retains this prayer on Good Friday. It is also part of the Divine Mercy Chaplet, that many of us pray each dat at 3pm, the hour at which our Lord died on the cross, for us.
Spiritual growth requires us to form a consistent habit of prayer. Because prayer is a relationship with Jesus, we need to find the ways of praying that fit our personality and our relationship with our Lord. These include:
Charismatic: based on an active, experienced relationship with the Holy Spirit. It is often characterized as “emotional” prayer, and there is definitely a more emotional dimension to it. But the focus of charismatic prayer is on relationship.
Meditative: Also known as the “Divine Office,” Liturgy of the Hours is the traditional prayer that priests and religious are required to pray throughout the day. Many lay people, myself included, follow this daily approach that consists of prayers, psalms, and readings from both the Old and New Testaments.
Contemplative: thinking about the mysteries and truths of our faith in a way that leads us to greater intimacy with God. For example, meditating on a scene in scripture and placing yourself there. In meditative prayer, you are both an eyewitness and participant to the events unfolding. (Ex: John 5 - the Pool of Bethesda)
There are many methods to pray. Ultimately, the goal remains the same for Catholics and Evangelicals, and that is to draw closer to Jesus, and hopefully, model our lives after His.
Your thoughts and examples of prayer in your faith denomination. Pax et Bonum
Casper is still favoring that leg.
He might just be like me in the morning, if I’ve slept wrongly!
Or Jack could have blasted him in the side...
Could be just half frozen; too!
This is REALLY weird weather for Indiana!!
Actually, what Catholics try to do is APPEASE God.
He's always there ready to zap them for falling short unless they say enough rosaries, take enough communion, say enough prayers, do enough good deeds, participate in the *right* sacraments, etc...
He did? Chapter and verse?
Whatever "confusion" you think I claimed you caused, was simply your own contradiction of yourself by claiming Catholics don't pray to Mary and the saints but then turning around and defending that they do indeed pray to Mary and the saints. The confusion wasn't mine.
That’s probably one of those “legends” someone got around to remembering happening three or four hundred years afterward. ;o)
Fake but true...
For all the denial that Catholics don't pray to anyone but Mary, there's this from this threads.....
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3258791/posts?page=13#13
The center is where the pain is that causes the limping gg
I live in nasty Michigan and never had a problem with frost bite, that would turn the living hoof black. (I think) cause that what frost bite does to human flesh..
I pick out all the poop and dirt from around the hoof before I start trimming.
He still is not putting any weight on it.
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.