You want some cries with that whaaaburger?
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.
You want some cries with that whaaaburger?
Knock it off.
Nope.
The One, Holy, Savior of the world has the truth which He has freely shared with the world. Anyone who is willing to open the Word can learn about this truth. You don't need the roman catholic church.
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life. John 3:16
I tell you, catholicism has about as thin of a skin as does Obama. Neither seems to be able to handle any degree of scrutiny without resorting to name calling.
Pretty soon someone will come along and want this thread pulled.
There is no such thing as "apostolic succession" ...Sal read your bible
That is true DB... They have no idea that my prayer is for them to see Christ...
Now, if you want to start a count of who has posted the most catholic articles we can do that also.
You do have a way of lighting up the RC’s. I have read through some 50 posts and no one gives facts to refute your post only attacks on you for posting it. Speaks volumes. Keep up the good work
Ok, dear. Whatever you say. My brain is overloaded. Was supposed to have surgery on both eyes Tuesday. But, when I had my blood work done my potassium was not high enough. It was fine in November when I had my first surgery. Do not understand. Seeing double is no fun.
These "anti-Catholicism" threads are the theological equivalent of a "yo momma" joke. Catholics see the Church as the Bride of Christ, insulting the Church by calling it a cult for instance is like calling the bride a whore. I take any attack against my wife as a personal attack against myself, who wouldn't? I hope Our Lord doesn't take it as personally as I would.
On a more positive note, my retired Nazarene minister father was talking with his sister a few weeks ago and I heard him say "I used to think the Catholic Church was a cult, now I know it is the original". He's learned this through the personal witness of my wife and myself and our five children. He's "proud that his son is a good Catholic" (His words, not mine, I'm far from good. I fail Our Lord on a daily basis.)
All the anti-Catholic rhetoric in this world has finally started to collapse in my real life and the mindless yammering that passes for Protestant anti-apologetics on Freep won't change that one little bit. For this I give thanks to God.
You should have made them links for me
Not according to history and even your own church. Not until at least the 4th century was there a single pope.
"The word pope derives from Greek πάππας meaning "Father". In the early centuries of Christianity, this title was applied, especially in the east, to all bishops and other senior clergy, and later became reserved in the west to the Bishop of Rome, a reservation made official only in the 11th century." [Schatz, Klaus (1996). Papal Primacy. Liturgical Press. pp. 28–29. ISBN 9780814655221.]
"The fourth canon of the First Council of Nicaea of 325 attributed to the bishop of the capital (metropolis) of each Roman province (the "metropolitan bishop") a position of authority among the bishops of the province, without reference to the founding figure of that bishop's see." [Canons of the First Council of Nicaea]
Domasus 366-384 - First to call himself Apostolic See
Leo the Great - 440-461 - first Pontifex Maximus
Prior to that the Pontifex Maximus was the secular ruler over the pagan religion who often presented himself as a god. An interesting read is how the early church fathers referred to that title.
The Catholic Church itself agrees there were many referred to as "pope".
The title pope, once used with far greater latitude, is at present employed solely to denote the Bishop of Rome" [http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm]
That unbroken line of popes is a fallacy. The rest of your posts is based on Old Testament and not applicable to the New Testament ekklesia of Christ.
I pray that The Lord, hopefully the same God to whom you pray, not Mary, will open your heart and your mind to his truth, his gospel, and his Son and that you will come to know salvation.
Hoss
And you still give no documented evidence to refute the information in the article. What’s up with that?
He did, that's why I'm a Catholic and no longer a Protestant.
As I said Arthur I hate false doctrine that steals the glory that belongs to Christ alone
. no matter what your church says a priest,ANY PRIEST is not "another Christ" ... EVER ..
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.