5 reasons to seriously doubt the story the papacy likes to tell about its origins

Dominic Tennant's Bnonn Blog ^ | February 4, 2014 | James T. Shotwell, Louise Ropes Loomis

[RnMomof7]

The Shepherd of Hermas is an early second century church document. We’re interested particularly in Visions 2.4 and 3.9, which indicate a plurality of eldership in Rome as opposed to a monarchical episcopate:

But you yourself will read it to this city [Rome], along with the elders (presbuteroi) who preside (proistamenoi – plural leadership) over the church. (Vis 2.4)

Now, therefore, I say to you [plural] who lead the church and occupy the seats of honor: do not be like the sorcerers. For the sorcerers carry their drugs in bottles, but you carry your drug and poison in your heart. You are calloused and do not want to cleanse your hearts and to mix your wisdom together in a clean heart, in order that you may have mercy from the great King. Watch out, therefore, children, lest these divisions of yours [among you elders] deprive you of your life. How is it that you desire to instruct God’s elect, while you yourselves have no instruction? Instruct one another, therefore, and have peace among yourselves, in order that I too may stand joyfully before the Father and give an account on behalf of all of you to your Lord. (Vis 3.9)

If there is anywhere we should expect petrine succession mentioned, this would be a prime candidate, because a petrine office would have been the ideal solution to bishops fighting among themselves about who was greatest! But Hermas talks about multiple people who “lead the church”, and makes no mention of such an office. The most reasonable conclusion, therefore, is that leadership was indeed divided among a number of elders, and no such monarchical office existed.

2. House churches in Rome

There seem to only have been house churches in Rome in the first–early second centuries. This is the likely reason 1 Clement repeatedly emphasizes hospitality along with faith (1.2; 10.7; 11.1; 12.1-3)—because of the natural conflict between house patrons and church elders. Paul also indicates a knowledge of as many as six house churches in Rome, one of which was associated with the Jewish Christian leaders Aquila and Priscilla (Rom 16:3-15). In a strikingly odd turn of events for Catholics, he forgets to mention Peter in Romans 16! William L Lane draws together multiple lines of evidence pointing to house churches, in “Social Perspectives on Roman Christianity during the Formative Years from Nero to Nerva: Romans, Hebrews, 1 Clement”, a paper he contributed to Judaism and Christianity in First-Century Rome, ed Karl P. Donfried and Peter Richardson (Grand Rapids, MI, Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1998). His conclusion:

Christians in Rome during this formative period appear to have met as ‘household’ groups in privately owned locations scattered around the capital city. They constituted a loose network of house churches, without any central facility for worship. The absence of central coordination matches the profile of the separated synagogues in Rome during this period.

In other words, not only was there no monepiscopate during this time, but there was no central episcopate at all.

3. Peter and Paul did not found the church in Rome

There is utterly no contemporary evidence that Peter or Paul founded the church of Rome; rather, it is likely that the Roman Jews among the 3,000 converted in Acts 2 took their faith back to their city and started churches there. It isn’t until much later that we get the claim of Peter and Paul founding the church of Rome; a claim hard to reconcile with Paul’s extremely diplomatic, almost apologetic tone when writing to that church, as compared to his tone when addressing churches he actually had founded, such as you’ll find in 1 and 2 Corinthians. And it’s not until Eusebius, over 300 years later, that we start getting claims about Peter residing in Rome (and as you probably know, Eusebius was not exactly a reliable historian). How would he know, in 354 AD, what Peter was up to in the first century? We can safely conclude that Eusebius is just engaging in some legendary embellishment, since Paul, in Galatians 2:7-9, knows that Peter is still in Jerusalem in 49 AD for the council!

As Eamon Duffy put it on page 2 of Saints and Sinners: A History of the Popes:

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.

4. The existence of the book of Romans

Why did Paul need to write the epistle to the Romans if they had the benefit of Peter’s direct oversight and teaching? After all, this was smack in the middle of the period traditionally ascribed to Peter’s “reign”. Paul wrote in about 56 AD; Peter was supposed to have been pope from 32–67 AD (or pick your tradition) before Linus took over. Yet apparently the church of Rome not only needed serious theological training (Romans is the most systematically theological of all the epistles), but also suffered from in-fighting (ch 14-15).

Forgeries and fabrications

Finally, we know that much of the “evidence” used by the developing Catholic Church to bolster its historical claims about the papacy are simply forgeries or fabrications. It would get tedious to keep quoting historians, but John Bugay has put together a good summary titled The Fictional Beginnings of Papal Infallibility.

All of this together builds an extremely strong cumulative case against any kind of monarchical episcopate in Rome until at least the middle of the second century. Indeed, John Reuman observes,

Biblical and patristic studies make clear that historically a gap occurs at the point where it has been claimed “the apostles were careful to appoint successors in” what is called “this hierarchically constituted society,” specifically “those who were made bishops by the apostles…,” an episcopate with an “unbroken succession going back to the beginning.” For that, evidence is lacking, quite apart from the problem that the monepiscopacy replaced presbyterial governance in Rome only in the mid-or late second century. It has been noted above how recent treatments conclude that in the New Testament no successor for Peter is indicated.”

And Herman Pottmeyer notes that “the historical facts are not disputed”. This overall picture simply lacks anything resembling a papacy. Moreover, it includes features that are antithetical to such a thing. So the burden of proof rests heavily on the Catholic to establish the historical claim that Peter was primate of Rome and was succeeded by a continuing office. Yet there seems no possible way for them to shoulder that burden. Even going as far back as 1927, Shotwell and Loomis recognized that,

For example, the first definite statement which has come down to us that Peter and Paul founded the Roman church, is made by Dionysius of Corinth about 170 A.D. That is a long way from contemporary evidence. We have no lists of the early bishops of Rome until about the same period, and those we have do not quite agree. There is almost a blank, as far as precise documentary evidence goes, for the preceding century; and that was a century of turmoil, persecution and obscurity for the Christians, in which mythical legends of saints and martyrs were springing up. The Christians themselves were, according to pagan critics, rather credulous people and were living under that high emotional pressure in which historic accuracy is of relatively little importance compared with the free life of the spirit. The great growth of what we call spurious apostolic literature in this and the following period points to a continuance of the same unscientific and unhistorical habits of mind. Who, under such circumstances, would be prepared to accept a text a century old as adequate evidence for any historical fact? James T. Shotwell, Louise Ropes Loomis, “The See of Peter,” “Records of Western Civilization” series, New York: Columbia University Press, 1927, 1955, 1991, pp xix-xxii

[DungeonMaster]

Per other posts, the RCC seems to be in it's end times morph into the beast.

Rev 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

[Elsie]

They worship Jesus Christ therefore they are Christian.

So can ANYONE put the name 'Jesus Christ' on their door and get in Heaven?

[Elsie]

Whether or not the Catholics or Mormons practice a “true” Christianity is a non argument.

Luckily; I do not have to judge their hearts; but I DO have to post some FACTS!

---

What Joseph Smith Means to Us  (From: various sources )

 

 

 

"He (Joseph Smith) is the man through whom God has spoken... yet I would not like to call him a savior, though in a certain capacity he was a god to us, and is to the nations of the earth, and will continue to be."

- Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses 8:321

 

 

 

 

"You call us fools; but the day will be, gentlemen and ladies, whether you belong to this Church or not, when you will prize brother Joseph Smith as the Prophet of the Living God, and look upon him as a god..."

- Herber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses 5:88

 

 

 

 

"If we get our salvation, we shall have to pass by him [Joseph Smith]; if we enter our glory, it will be through the authority he has received. We cannot get around him [Joseph Smith]"

- (as quoted in 1988 Melchizedek Priesthood Study Guide, p. 142)

There is "no salvation without accepting Joseph Smith. If Joseph Smith was verily a prophet, and if he told the truth...no man can reject that testimony without incurring the most dreadful consequences, for he cannot enter the kingdom of God"

- Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation, vol. 1, p.190

 

 

 

 

"I tell you, Joseph holds the keys, and none of us can get into the celestial kingdom without passing by him. We have not got rid of him, but he stands there as the sentinel, holding the keys of the kingdom of God; and there are many of them beside him. I tell you, if we get past those who have mingled with us, and know us best, and have a right to know us best, probably we can pass all other sentinels as far as it is necessary, or as far as we may desire. But I tell you, the pinch will be with those that have mingled with us, stood next to us, weighed our spirits, tried us, and proven us: there will be a pinch, in my view, to get past them. The others, perhaps, will say, If brother Joseph is satisfied with you, you may pass. If it is all right with him, it is all right with me. Then if Joseph shall say to a man, or if brother Brigham say to a man, I forgive you your sins, "Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them;" if you who have suffered and felt the weight of transgression—if you have generosity enough to forgive the sinner, I will forgive him: you cannot have more generosity than I have. I have given you power to forgive sins, and when the Lord gives a gift, he does not take it back again."

- Orson Hyde, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p.154-155

 

 

 

 

"It is because the Lord called Joseph Smith that salvation is again available to mortal men.... If it had not been for Joseph Smith and the restoration, there would be no salvation,"

- Bruce McConkie, Mormon Doctrine, p. 396, 670

---

---

They succeeded in killing Joseph, but he had finished his work.

He was a servant of God, and gave us the Book of Mormon.

He said the Bible was right in the main, but, through the translators and others, many precious portions were suppressed, and several other portions were wrongly translated; and now his testimony is in force, for he has sealed it with his blood.

As I have frequently told them, no man in this dispensation will enter the courts of heaven, without the approbation of the Prophet Joseph Smith, Jun.

Who has made this so?

Have I?

Have this people?

Have the world?

No; but the Lord Jehovah has decreed it.

If I ever pass into the heavenly courts, it will be by the consent of the Prophet Joseph.

If you ever pass through the gates into the Holy City, you will do so upon his certificate that you are worthy to pass.

Can you pass without his inspection?

No; neither can any person in this dispensation, which is the dispensation of the fulness of times.

In this generation, and in all the generations that are to come, everyone will have to undergo the scrutiny of this Prophet.

They say that they killed Joseph, and they will yet come with their hats under their arms and bend to him; but what good will it do them, unless they repent?

They can come in a certain way and find favor, but will they?

Brigham Young,

--JOURNAL OF DISCOURSES, vol. 8, p. 224

[Elsie]

Well; it’s gone now...

[Elsie]

Jesus said, “I am the way, the life and the truth.”

That is the Catholic truth we believe in.

Jesus said, “I am the way, the life and the truth.”
Talk to Mom if you want to get MY attention.

This is the Catholic TEACHING Rome pushes.

[BlueDragon]

Well; it’s gone now...

Gone Daddy, Gone

Violent Femmes, 1983 [info supplied at youtube link for year of release of this one, possibly off by a year]

[JAKraig]

Most Catholics I know and certainly Mormons too love the Lord Jesus Christ and do what they believe is right to try to follow Him. It is hard to fault someone for truly trying to please The Lord. Catholics don't worship the Pope and Mormons don't Worship Joseph Smith. You may bring all the out of context 150 year old quotes you like but they are mostly irrelevant to what Catholics and Mormons actually believe and how they act.

Catholics do revere the Pope and Mormons do revere Joseph Smith. To Catholics not accepting the Pope is to not accept the doctrines of The Church, while that may not seem a big deal to us it is a big deal to them because the doctrines of The Church include the Godhood of Jesus Christ and what we now call the Apostles Creed.

The same is true in the Mormon Church. If you don't accept Joseph Smith then you can't accept a portion of the doctrines of the LDS Church because he first promulgated them. There are doctrines of The LDS that if not accepted then in the eyes of That Church you can't be saved into the highest heaven.

When we enter the next life or at sometime after that we will likely see all truth and learn if the Universal Church is after all the Church Peter led or some other. We will find if the Mormon Church is the re-institution of that Church that Peter led or some other. We will learn whether the doctrine of Transubstantiation is real or silliness.

There is much then we will learn and we will likely learn that what really mattered in this life is whether or not we followed Jesus Christ to the best of our ability.

The Pope could be evil but it doesn't make the Catholics evil. Joseph Smith could be evil but it doesn't make the LDS evil.

Barack Obama is evil but it doesn't mean that Americans are evil. One more parting thought, it is the Catholics who brought us what we have of the Gospel, it is they who nurtured it through the many centuries. If there is a protestant religion it is only Catholicism lite. Mormonism makes more of your argument of the dead Catholic Church than you do. The Mormons believe you can't take a part of a dead church and bring the whole of it back to life, they believe that a new church had to be started without using the ashes of the old. Active Catholics and Mormons on the whole are the salt of the earth. They are the very best of people and the very best of Christian Love. More power to them. They may not believe what I believe but then again I may not believe what they believe except that we all love Jesus and Him being raised from the dead so that we too may be raised from the dead to live with Him forever.

[MHGinTN]

One ofhe great lies satan has used throughout history to help the lost deceive themselves is, "what really mattered in this life is whether or not we followed Jesus Christ to the best of our ability." The Mormons repeat that one as 'after all that we can do' and the catholics on these threads repeat that one as, 'Strivie to follow the sacraments and confess our sins, partake in the Mass as often as we can, and when we die obtain eternal life'. The heart of both of those versions of satan1.0 is pride, self pride, which will deceive and inveigle, do anything, but always do, do, do, work for eternal life.

What is the Gospel of this new covenant Jesus established with His own precious blood, shed while upon that cross, spread upon the Mercy Seat in Heaven above the laws od sin and death establishing freedom from those laws and offered to any whole will believe He is Savior and THEIE ONLY MEANS to obtain God's life in them? ... Did you catch that? I just put the Gospel of the new covenant in the question. See it? What regimen of sacraments and toil did the folks in the house of Cornelius go through to have God's Holy Spirit enter them, giving them immediately Eternal Life?

[verga]

Please read "Church History" by Eusibius.

Church History

Online PDF

[verga]

See my post 49 for the REAL truth.

[philfourthirteen]

I thought Church history started with the Reformation :)

[JAKraig]

What regimen of sacraments and toil did the folks in the house of Cornelius go through to have God’s Holy Spirit enter them, giving them immediately Eternal Life?

_____________________________________________________________

What most Protestants believe and teach is that by confessing that Jesus is Lord you are saved, that simply is not true. the Holy Ghost can witness to someone but that does not save them. Someone seeking the truth can be given the truth by the Holy Ghost but they still have to accept or reject it.

While it is true that pride has nothing to do with being saved, being saved does require work, please let me explain. I will agree that no matter how much a person does, no matter how good a person is he can not be saved because of his work. But there are things that must be done to be saved. Confessing Christ is only a start, Christ is the gateway. Christ explained to Nicodemus that he must be born of water and spirit to enter the kingdom. Modern Christians recognize that as meaning that we must be baptized and receive the Holy Ghost. Christ while on the Earth himself instituted the sacrament of the Lord’s supper or what is called the Eucharist. Christ told his apostles to do this often in remembrance of Me. Christ ordained his apostles. So we now see that ordinances are a part of Christ’s gospel, saying we believe in Christ is simply not enough. Begging for entrance into heaven simply not enough. Christ taught that we must repent of our sins. Repentance is work. Repentance can cause much pain and agony, many tears. Perhaps repentance does not equal “works”, but it is work.

In the epistle of James, James explains that faith without works is dead, what did he mean? Again in his epistle he says “show me your works and I will show you your faith”. Faith and works are inseparable. We can make fun of works all we want to, we can make fun of people who you say believe in works but God-fearing Christians better believe in works because without works there is no faith without faith there is no repentance without repentance there is no saving, there is no grace to be had.

Mormons have a saying, I can’t quote it exactly but it goes something to the effect of “we are saved by grace after all we can do”. Many people make fun of the statement because they believe there is nothing we can do to save ourselves but if you think about the statement realizing that without works there’s no faith then it makes sense.

Believing in Christ, repentance of sin, baptism for remission of sins and receipt of the Holy Ghost is the gate by which we enter into Christ’s church. It is only the beginning, a life of love and obedience to the laws of the Gospel, enduring to the end is how we qualify for Grace. People who think that Christ will save them without their trying to follow Christ are ignorant of the truth. We cannot wish our way into heaven, Christ will not cast his pearls before swine, he will not offer grace to those who are not willing to work for it.

[MHGinTN]

You assert, “But there are things that must be done to be saved.” What works did the people in the house of Crnelius do such that God sent His Holy Spirit into them —that’e eternal life in them— even before Peter finished the sermon?

[MHGinTN]

The assertion, “... he will not offer grace to those who are not willing to work for it” is a demonic lie upon which the most famous works based religions are founded, like catholociism and Mormonism. Catholics have it well ensconced in their version of The Gospel of Grace. Those work for Grace. That makes it not grace but wages due. Sadly, catholics are unable to see that just as Mormons are unable to see it.

[MHGinTN]

The further assertion, “...enduring to the end is how we qualify for Grace” is yet another phrasing of the works based religion of catholiciism. The Bible passage we expect to now be taken out of context to defend this demonic lie will reveal the subtlety of the lie. A catholic is taught to believe they must QUALIFY for Grace! How demonic and blatant can it get, yet catholics are blind to the Truth of that lie. It is by Grace we are saved, not of works lest any catholic boast of his qualifying worthiness!

[MHGinTN]

I would not want Christians saved By His Grace alone in Christ Alone to miss this short essay revealing why it is so difficult to cut through the blindness at the heart of catholiciism. I asked a specific question regarding the believers receiving the Holy Spirit in the house of Cornelius and this short essay insisting on works is what I got back. It is revealing ...

[MamaB]

No thanks. I will read the Bible for the real truth.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

“What most Protestants believe and teach is that by confessing that Jesus is Lord you are saved,”

Starting with a false statement never leads to a good conclusion...

it is certainly worth your time to know the saving Gospel of Grace that can alone lead you to eternal life.

[verga]

Didn’t claim once that you enjoyed reading history?

[Elsie]

Most Catholics I know and certainly Mormons too love the Lord Jesus Christ and do what they believe is right to try to follow Him.

No one I know would disagree with what you have just stated.

However, BOTH groups will insist until Jesus returns that ONLY their organization is CORRECT!