 |
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
Posted on 04/15/2005 8:02:23 AM PDT by katieanna
Good morning Friends!
The passing of John Paul II has piqued my curiosity to try to learn the origins of the Catholic faith. As a protestant, there are things I do not understand. For example, the last reference I see in scripture of Peter's whereabouts is that he dwelt in Caesarea. What in Catholic doctrine places him in Rome? Second, who were the individuals named as popes after Peter? In other words, who were they in relation to Christ? Or, put another way, where are the disciples of Christ in the early chuch in the papal succession (ie: Paul, Barnabus, James, Timothy, John(exiled, of course), Andrew, Matthew, Luke, Cornelius and others mentioned in the New Testament?)
Please respond with what you've been taught, if you will. I appreciate your learned answers. Peace and Joy Kate
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||
My point is, none of the wild assertions proffered on the site are given any proof at all. They are simply baldly stated, as if the website author were as authoritative as the Scriptures themselves.
I am not claiming that the site is 100% accurate, but there are plenty of things mentioned on the site that are backed up with proof.
In point of fact there are dozens of assertions, just glancing through, that are offered with no proof whatsoever.
And the ones offered "wth proof" seem to consist of dcuments quoted partially and out-of-context in classic DNC fashion.
The problem is the site is fraudulently saying that Catholics "claim" things which they do not even claim.
Dear katieanna,
Many early Christian writers refer to the Peter and Paul's being martyred in Rome. Some have been mentioned by Mr. SausageDog. Another early example is St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was the leading bishop in Asia Minor and was martyred around 107 AD. There survive seven letters that he wrote (mostly to churches in Asia and Greece) while he was traveling to Rome, under guard, to be martyred. One of these letters is to the Church in Rome, and in its introduction (which is MUCH more deferential than the introductions to the letters to the other churches) he says that he will not try to give advice to or teach the Roman Church
"as if I were a Peter or a Paul". (His letters to the other churches were filled with advice and teaching.) The belief that Peter spent the last years of his life in Rome, and was martyred there, was universally accepted in the early centuries of Christianity, and it is generally also accepted as true by modern scholars, whatever religion they are.
The question itself misses the point, this is the error of sola scriptura. The Christian faith stands on 3 pillars - sacred scripture, sacred tradition and the living magesterium of the Church. This is the "deposit of faith" entrusted to the Church to protect and spread throughout the world. Scripture notes in several places things that Jesus or the Apostles did that were not written down, how much more clear could it be?
The Church precedes the Bible,did St. Paul go around the Med dropping off copies of bibles like some mad gideon? No, he taught and bade those who he taught to teach others.We did not have recognizable form of the Bible til the 4th century and which most people couldn't read it even then due to high illiteracy rates! Both problems the Church attempted to address by solidifying the canon, charging St. Jerome to translate it into Latin (the vulgar or common tongue of the time, hence Vulgate) and commissioning copies made. And who do you think, out of the dozens of "letters" and "gospels" that were floating around the Mediterrean world at the time, who do you think decided what the Bible contained? It would be funny if it weren't so tragic, the image of protestants waving the Bible in the faces of Catholics who wrote the bloody thing.
The most tragic result of this error is perhaps the complete ignorance most protestants have of the patristic traditions, the writings of the men who studied at the feet of the apostles themselves are ignored or completely unknown. It was necessary for revolutionaries to throw out the Father's writings tho, for they were asserting that some 15 centuries later they had finally figured out what the Bible said. They would have been in many cases directly contradicted by the writings of the men who heard it from the lips of the apostles themselves.
Here is one example, written before the death of the last apostle (John in approx 100 AD), the Didache
. Find others here
No sir, not only is sola scriptura not biblical in and of itself, it doesn't stand the test of common sense.
**No sir, not only is sola scriptura not biblical in and of itself, it doesn't stand the test of common sense.**
Especially since this was a concept introduced along with "faith only" into the Luther-used Bible at that time.
Well let's see.
In 144BC King Mithridates I of Parthia conquered Babylon.
Around 25BC the famous geographer Strabo visited Babylon. He described the Hanging Gardens as one of the Seven Wonders of the world. He also described the bountiful crops of barley produced in the surrounding country. Not bad for a city considered to be deserted. I stand by my original statement. Babylonia was a vibrant part of the Parthian empire. Believe it or not, there were other nations besides those comprising the Roman Empire during the time of Christ. In fact the Roman Empire had very little success against the Parthians. Marc Anthony was one Roman general who failed against the Parthians.
Even in Acts, scripture states that there were visiting Jews from Babylon. I do not believe scripture is referring to Rome.
I still challenge my opponent to bridge the gap between Petrine primacy and papal primacy.
Try a history book, or some of the writings already linked from the very early church. If you still doubt apostolic sucession in general try the Bible
"I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you" (1 Cor. 11:2)
"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter " (2 Thess. 2:15)
emphasis mine
"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us" (2 Thess. 3:6).
There is too much here on the Papacy and Apostolic succession to even quote a representative sample if you are interested in learning start there.
The mother of these errors remain sola scriptura, the debate linked recycles the same argument that has debunked a thousands times
"All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work."
Answered in full here
Strabo never saw the Gardens. Modern historians have doubts they ever existed.
In 144BC King Mithridates I of Parthia conquered Babylon.
Correct.
Around 25BC the famous geographer Strabo visited Babylon. He described the Hanging Gardens as one of the Seven Wonders of the world. He also described the bountiful crops of barley produced in the surrounding country. Not bad for a city considered to be deserted.
Well, you brought up Strabo, so allow me to quote from his Geographies, Book XVI, chapter 1, section 5:
What is more, Seleuceia at the present time has become larger than Babylon, whereas the greater part of Babylon is so deserted that one would not hesitate to say with one of the comic poets said in reference to the Megalopolitans in Arcadia: "The Great City is a great desert."
If your authority Strabo wouldn't hesitate to say that Babylon was a "great desert" I won't either.
Babylonia was a vibrant part of the Parthian empire. Believe it or not, there were other nations besides those comprising the Roman Empire during the time of Christ.
Your condescension is silly and unworthy of the discussion.
I am quite familiar with the history of the Ancient Near East.
In fact the Roman Empire had very little success against the Parthians. Marc Anthony was one Roman general who failed against the Parthians.
Crassus failed before he did.
Even in Acts, scripture states that there were visiting Jews from Babylon. I do not believe scripture is referring to Rome.
In that instance, it is just a list of origins.
There was a large community of Jews in Babylon for many years obviously, even after the rebuilding of the Temple, and even after moving from the actual city of Babylon proper they still retained this name, just as Jews today are called "Sephardic" (Spanish), even though their families may have lived in Morocco for centuries after leaving Spain.
You will get a lot of confusing information these days.
A few things to keep in mind are, that until the 16th century, there was no such thing as Protestants.
That's 1600 years: a long time for the faith to still be intact without corruption. And at the time, Luther, et. al., claimed the Bible as their sole foundation. IF IT HAD NOT BEEN FOR THE CATHOLIC CHURCH THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO BIBLE FOR THEM TO START WITH.
A principle difference therefore, between Catholic and non-Catholic teaching is that Sacred Tradition holds equal authority with Sacred Scripture. Think of it like a bird flying with two wings. Another bird has only one wing, which prohibits him from getting airborne. Consider this: When the Apostles were writing the books of the New Testament, they were not deliberately writing installments in the Bible. It took hundreds of years for the Church Christ founded to decide what was Scripture and what was not. The amount of material that was ultimately REJECTED as not Scripture was effectively many thousands of pages, perhaps 10 times the volume of the present Old and New testaments combined. (Or, comparable to the output of JPII, for example!) Under the authority of the Pope at the time, the books of the Bible were defined, which included several in the Old Testament that the Jews of that time rejected, but that had been part of the ancient Septuagint of the Temple. Later, Martin Luther would find that the doctrines of the Church he did not like were conveniently limited to those books the modern Jews did not like too, so he used the excuse of Jewish denial to cast out several books. He even wanted to eliminate the book of James because of the verse that faith without works is dead. He did not get away with that much revision, and the book of James has been a rift in the Protestant debates ever since, and still continues to this day.
For without Tradition (with a capitol "T") the Church would not have given us a Bible upon which Protestants and "non-religious Christians" could now proudly stand.
It is this same Tradition that gives us other things, as well. One of them is the power of the Holy Office to make definitions which settle disputes in doctrine as they come up. History is full of controversies that were extremely important at key times, even though they might not seem so relevant to us today, or for others at other times. The power of the Holy Father to put an end to the controversy has been what has kept the Catholic Church from fading into obscurity. Other religions have come and gone.
For example, try to find a Lutheran today that believes everything that Martin Luther preached (if he was ever consistent enough to pin him down on things). Most Lutherans know very little about his teachings, or how he changed his teachings. How many versions of the King James Bible were there before new editions stopped coming? Why was the question of priestly celibacy such a difficult one for Luther? The doctrine he introduced was that of changing doctrine. The Catholic teaching has always been the UNCHANGEABILITY of doctrine.
Since the Bible is not specific enough in many questions, there has to be an authority here on earth that can field questions as they arise, and that is where Tradition comes in. Even the Orthodox have some degree of this protection, and they would say that they even have more, sice they have meticulously maintianed their rubrics from ancient times, while the Roman Church has introduced enormous changes recently.
The errors of Luther have crept into the Church of Rome, and some housecleaning is in order. We will see how that goes in the near future...
They probably did exist in some form, but every description seems to be wildly exaggerated - mistaking the ruins of a tiered Babylonian temple for the more modest gardens.
There is a modern archaeologist who has done extensive work on gardens in the ANE, and identified a structure that was definitely part of a royal residence and may have been an elaborate 80-100 foot square walled garden.
A hearty 'thank you' to all of you for your responses. You've given me much to read and I look forward to doing just that. Have a lovely weekend and do let me know if I can ever be of help to you.
Peace and Joy,
Kate
The Apologia website has an extensive database on all things Catholic. It is a very good site.
http://www.kensmen.com/catholic/index.html
In any case, Wikipedia agress with you that no Christianity community existed in NT times. By then Babylon has mainly literary meaning.
Kate,
Let me add a few things to what Don Bosco posted in 32. The Sacred Tradition should be separated from practices of the Church (called "disciplines") that he Magisterium may and do change. What language to use, liturgical posture and vestments, even celibacy of priests are disciplines, and do not belong to the Sacred Tradition, although they are, of course, traditions in the ordinary sense of the word. Good examples of the Sacred Tradition are the teachings on the Holy Trinity and on Purgatory (the former acceptable to the Protestants, the latter not). This cannot be changed. For example, if the Magisterium wanted to use Greek and not Latin in some prayers, that would be possible for the Magisterium to decide. But it is not possible for the Magisterium to find, for example, a fourth Person in the Trinity.
Secondly, the Tradition explains and develops the revelation of the Scripture, but it does not contradict it. For example, the Holy Trinity is not directly revealed in the Scripture, but our teaching on the Trinity does not contradict the references to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost that are in the Scripture. The teaching on Purgatory does not contradict the scriptural references to the afterlife, the judgement of Christ and the purification of souls after death, even though it is not directly revealed through the Scripture.
Indeed.
But I'm getting a little tired of people who talk down to me like I'm a moron on these threads.
I've read Strabo in the Greek, I've taken independent study courses with Johannes Betz (Rudolf Bultmann's protege) on the New Testament, I read from the Bible daily in the original languages, and yet on every thread I have some jerk telling me "you know you should try actually reading the Bible for once" or "you only think that because you're reading it in translation" or "you should realize there were other empires in the ancient world besides the Roman" - it's really, really tiring.
Yah but what about "call no man father" huh.;)
It's been really tough getting used to calling my dad my "progenitor" so as not to disobey the KJV.
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.