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.
Maybe because hit pieces of that variety aren't nearly as numerous as hit pieces of this variety? While we are on the subject of lists...(the criterion I used was whether the article is a direct attack on a doctrine of the Church posted by a non-member of said Church, i.e. I didn't count articles about stupid stuff Francis has said, or articles about a Protestant doctrine which attacks Catholic doctrine in passing but do not derive their primary purpose from attacking Catholic doctrine.)
Oh, and I only counted articles from this year. I could delve into last year's offering if you want, but of course that would take quite a bit more time.
------------------------------------------
Bowing the Knee to Rome // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3257212/posts
The 13th Century // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253149/posts
Roman Catholicism, Part 7, Mary // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253530/posts
How the fictional early papacy became real // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3257584/posts
Papacy built on pious fiction and forgery 2 // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3257505/posts
Papacy built on pious fiction and forgery, part 1 // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3257356/posts
Rome's New and Novel Concept of Tradition // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3256919/posts
Sola Historia? // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255771/posts
Is The Roman Catholic View of the Eucharist Supported by the Historical Evidence? // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255526/posts
Is the Mass the Real Sacrifice of Christ? // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255436/posts
Ooh, he said ‘chair’” – “Florilegia” vs. the Reformation discipline of Textual Criticism // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255425/posts
Book Review: The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part Three): The Papacy // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253013/posts
The Protestant's Dilemma: A Review (Part Two): Divine Authority, Church Corruption // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253010/posts
Evangelicals & the Eucharist (Part 1) // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3251616/posts
The Absurdity of Separated Brethren // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3250639/posts
Pagan Saints // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3249311/posts
How Christians Will Know They Can Join Hands With Rome // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3242731/posts
A Tale of Two Gospels // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3245574/posts
Upon This Rock // http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3247666/posts
It is rather telling that those trying to defend the Catholic religion have not provided any documentation to challenge any of the points made in the article.
Too bad the ones who say things like that ignore the reality of the situation.
Not going anywhere, mom. Deal with it.
I have gone to Capital Christian Center, at 50 and Bradshaw a time or two. 😄
Well, I’m convinced. There’s obviously a lot of truthful information out there showing the error of the Catholic religion.
The Dems in Congress are boycotting Bibi, more ISIS prisoners are about to get burned alive, 400 of our Marines in Iraq are under attack, a shooting at a free speech rally in Copenhagen, Hassan gets to grow a beard, Charlie Hedbo, Manning is going to get a free vagina, an ex-pres probably had sex slaves, Bengazi, the Kyle murder case . . .
Yet so far you have offered any documentation to counter the information in the article. Is their none?
You have convinced me that you would rather focus on the cares of this world.
I have loved to read ever since I learned how in 1950/51. I know how to find info on the internet and I do. Can you say the same? When I see something I do not understand, I look it up. I have learned a lot about Catholic beliefs plus I go to the Bible for more information. It is sad that some of them do not do the same. They would learn the truth instead of believing men.
And another amen.
I’ll sleep tonight....
No, I despise reading. That’s why I have a BA in English literature, Maaaaadam.
Ah, well, don’t try to bring common sense to FR religious forums!
LOL, roger that.
The strong reaction against the thought of putting Jesus and His word first, above the pope and the catechism, church fathers, and Mary is very significant.
I would not expect anyone who is truly Spirit born from above to rail so much and so strongly against the primacy of Christ in everything.
There’s only one source that I would expect that kind of reaction from......
No, praying for the unsaved, reciting memorized Scripture verses and meditating on God and His character and mercy and grace.
If you don’t care about that list of issues, please review this site’s purpose as stated by Jim Robinson and remove yourself as a member. Create your own site at your own expense and type whatever you want.
Some people have all kinds of degrees but do not know how to find information about anythng. I belong to several sites where posters ask for someone else to look up information about things they are curious about. They are just too lazy or dumb to find out for themselves. Degrees do not impress me. I live in an area full of degreed people. Some do not have any common sense at all. I have come across people with no degrees who are much smarter and have a lot of common sense.
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.