Posted on 08/24/2006 2:28:03 PM PDT by Ottofire
Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example
April 11, 2000
by James White
The large gap that exists between Roman Catholic historical scholarship and Roman Catholic apologists is a large one indeed. One often finds the historians admitting what the apologists will not regarding the truths of history that are so often utterly contradictory to later Roman dogmatic claims. This is especially true regarding such modern doctrinal developments as the Marian dogmas and the infallible Papacy.
Over the past few years Roman Catholic apologists have been producing a great deal of written material of varying levels of quality. Books and magazines of this nature gain a wide audience. As in so much of our modern culture, many readers are willing to simply accept at face value whatever is said without performing any first-hand testing of the quality of the data being presented, let alone the conclusions that follow. The result has been a growing body of "Catholic legends," claims or concepts that are being presented as absolute fact by large numbers of Catholics who simply do not know better.
A glowing example of how these "urban legends" get started can be seen in the way in which Karl Keating’s Catholicism and Fundamentalism is treated by Catholic readers starved for some kind of an answer to the Evangelical position. If it appears in the pages of C&F, it must be true! And so highly questionable statements of dubious historic integrity (easily challenged by anyone familiar with the historic sources) end up being repeated as pure fact by those who implicitly trust their sources.
On page 217 of Catholicism and Fundamentalism we find a paragraph that has given rise to two of these "Catholic legends," ideas that are utterly without merit, historically speaking, but are now a part of the "lore" that makes up the majority of Catholic apologetics. Just as the medieval Church built its power on the back of spurious documents and forged decretals, modern Roman Catholics find a means of propping up their faith in supposedly historical dogmas through this kind of writing:
As Christians got clearer and clearer notions of the teaching authority of the whole Church and of the primacy of the Pope, they got clearer notions of the Pope’s own infallibility. This happened early on. In 433 Pope Sixtus III declared that to assent to the Bishop of Rome’s decision is to assent to Peter, who lives in his successors and whose faith does not fail. Cyprian of Carthage, writing about 256, asked: "Would heretics dare to come to the very seat of Peter whence apostolic faith is derived and whither no errors can come?" Augustine of Hippo summed up the ancient attitude when he remarked, "Rome has spoken; the case is closed."
We have often seen amateur Catholic apologists confidently asserting that Cyprian believed in the infallibility of the bishop of Rome, or that Augustine took the word of Rome as the final authority. Surely that is Keating’s intention, given the context, in citing both patristic sources. But, as all students of church history know (and as Roman Catholic historians have admitted for a very long time), neither early father would have agreed with the use of their words by Keating. In fact, Keating could never defend the veracity of his research against a meaningful criticism. Let’s look briefly at Cyprian and Augustine and see how this Catholic legend is just that: legendary.
Cyprian
Cyprian did indeed speak of the "seat of Peter," in Latin, the "cathedra Petri." It was also very central to his view of church unity and authority. No one who broke unity with the cathedra Petri was truly in the Church. All of this is quite true. And beyond this, Cyprian spoke highly of the Roman see when defending Cornelius as a result of the Novationist schism in Rome. He rebuked those who rejected Cornelius’ position as the bishop of Rome. Despite this, Cyprian sent a sharp rebuke to Cornelius when he gave audience to men who had been deposed in North Africa.
But it is just here that we learn how important it is to study church history as a discipline, not as a mere tool to be used in polemic debate. We can assume out of generosity that when Mr. Keating wrote his book he actually believed that when Cyprian spoke of the "cathedra Petri" that Cyprian understood this phrase as a modern Roman Catholic would. That is, he may well have assumed that the "seat of Peter" was understood by everyone back then to refer to the bishop of Rome. However, all students of church history know differently. Cyprian (and the North African church as a whole for the span of centuries) believed the "chair of Peter" referred to all bishops in all churches across the world. Cyprian, for example, claimed to sit upon the "cathedra Petri" as did all bishops. For example, he wrote in Epistle XXVI:
Our Lord, whose precepts and admonitions we ought to observe, describing the honor of a bishop and the order of His Church, speaks in the Gospel, and says to Peter: 'I say unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock will I build my Church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.' Thence, through the changes of times and successions, the ordering of bishops and the plan of the Church flow onwards; so that the Church is founded upon the bishops, and every act of the Church is controlled by these same rulers (emphasis added).
This fact is recognized by Roman Catholic historians. Johannes Quasten, Catholic patristic scholar, commented, (Patrology, vol. 2, p. 375), "Thus he understands Matth. 16, 18 of the whole episcopate, the various members of which, attached to one another by the laws of charity and concord, thus render the Church universal a single body." And a little later Quasten cites the words of an African Synod, led by Cyprian, which said:
No one among us sets himself up as a bishop of bishops, or by tyranny and terror forces his colleagues to compulsory obedience, seeing that every bishop in the freedom of his liberty and power possesses the right to his own mind and can no more be judged by another than he himself can judge another. We must all await the judgment of our Lord Jesus Christ, who singly and alone has power both to appoint us to the government of his Church and to judge our acts therein (CSEL 3, 1, 436).
More at http://aomin.org/Sermo131.html
I was shocked by the blantant anti-Catholicism was posted on the Plan B threads. But then again, "Be good to those who hate you." If it wasn't true they wouldn't hate it so.
Excellent post.
Ok,
So, this may be a shot in the dark. But, I see your posting name is Virgil. Do you know of any good English translations of Dante's Divine Comedy? I've read one, but it is since discontinued/out-of-print, and my parents have my old versions. Any help, as I traverse these many rings of life would be helpful. I just bought a couple of Cardinal Ratzinger books (now the Pope) that I'm really looking forward to reading.
Thanks,
ARAD
You're welcome!
It is very disturbing to me too. We will just have to counter it as best we can.
You wrote:
"I suspect that one reason for Cyprian to look at that passage literally was due to the competing Christianities of the time."
Uh, yeah, wmfights, Cyprian was writing in about 256 wasn't he? What competing Christianies exactly are you talking about?
Donatists? Didn't exist yet.
Arians? Didn't exist yet.
Novatians? Existed, but weren't a different Christianity, so much as a schism really.
Gnostics? Weren't Christians.
Who was Cyprian in essence competing with? What proof do you have he was interpreting literally to "empower his church"?
Good work, you saved me some searching!
I have gone away from FR for varying length of time because I have been so insulted by the anti-Catholicism regularly expressed here.
The discourse is not the type of thing I think people would ever engage in face to face but they think nothing of doing it here.
Well, Cyprian, the answer seems to be yes, one can imagine such a thing.
If that isn't an anachronistic statement, I don't know what is...
Regards
Forgive me for being contrary, but I don't quite understand why we must characterize a classical Protestant position as "anti-Catholic". Of course its anti-Catholic, in the sense that the posters/writers are theologically opposed to the Catholic Church--that is the very essence of the protest in "Protestant". On the other hand, if it's being used as an ad hominem label...as if to suggest that the posters/authors are particularly prejudiced against us rather than merely in disagreement, I think it is bandied about far too often. The Protestant apologists on this forum don't--by and large--seem to be motivated by prejudice but by honest disagreement.
Moreover, I can't see how it helps in any way, at all. The people who are firmly convicted against Holy Church will proudly wear the term like a badge of honor, as much as I wear the term "anti-abortion" like a badge of honor. The people who are just in disagreement will be frustrated and get put in the uncomfortable (and nearly impossible) position of having to defend themselves against an accusation of blind hatred and prejudice. "Anti-Catholic" has become our own version of "homophobic". I have yet to see anyone called it react positively.
IMHO, I think we would be well-served by a total moratorium on the term. Perhaps I'm wrong--and please tell me if I am-- but I really see it as more harmful than helpful in this context.
The Certainty of the Written Word of Truth The Lord Christ or the Pope of Rome?
Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example
Hitler's Pope? (Book review of The Myth of Hitler's Pope)
The real problem is that these threads are condoned. If they were reworded, let's say against Baptists, Evangelicals, or Calvinists, and posted here, it would be pulled almost immediately. Since it is against Catholics, it's just a "legitimate objection to Catholic doctrine", and is freely able to be "discussed". There is certainly an anti-Catholic bias here. There always has been, but things are starting to go out of control. The Catholics that raise objection to this are warned, and threatened with suspension, while the Protestants who do the same get nothing. A good, long time member was banned just yesterday for daring to challenge this.
They may very well be. But every attempt at flame bait is a chance for us to publicly correct the record. Every attack on the papacy is a chance for us to post the Fathers. Even if the poster learns nothing from the exchange, those threads stay up and are read by lots of people...people will continue to see seeing flame bait being turned into cogent, reasonable, and frankly compelling defenses of Catholic doctrine. Moreover, they will see the flame baiter unable or unwilling to respond to those specific points.
Also, I monitor the forum closely to make sure the various confessions have an opportunity to be heard, with a few exceptions: Christian Identity/KKK/Aryan Nations et al are not tolerated – neither are confessions which are anti-Semitic, anti-American, anti-Israel or anti-U.S. Military. Other confessions are tolerated even though they may for all intents and purposes be "anti" other confessions. This includes confessions which are anti-Calvinist, anti-Arminian, anti-Catholic, anti-Mormon, anti-Scientology, anti-Hindu, anti-Buddhist, anti-Wiccan, anti-Atheist, anti-Baptist, anti-Methodist, anti-Orthodox, anti-Anglican and so on.
I see no way to have a Religion Forum which permits rigorous debate among a wide variety of confessions but disallows any of them to declare another belief or practice as false, anathema, etc. On the bright side, our loudest and strongest witness is often how we deal with false claims and other adversities.
And of course, the devotional, prayer, caucus and other "church-like" threads are protected from all challenges. So every confession which is allowed on the forum can find a "safe harbor" at least for now.
Recurring - and especially collective - broaches into the closed threads of other confessions to protest, poke fun, assert challenges etc. could result in a loss of the privilege to all. I will not permit “safe harbors” for only selected confessions – if one is allowed a safe harbor, all are allowed a safe harbor.
The following is not true:
"When in the service of Mother Church, any response, as long as it uses words, is a refutation of those who are not part of Mother Church."
Did you hear his side of it?
His relationship to his sister is something that is very personal and to my mind a family matter. I have heard much on this, and anyone that makes a lot about this is getting out of the apologia realm and jumping straight into an ugly affair with both feet. I was uncomfortable listening to the attacks on him from those that wanted to beat him with her conversion, as well as his defense. Some laundry is best not displayed.
My church right or wrong? I agree this is a problem.
When a dialog cannot be made and both sides just throw ad hominum or I am right you are wrong attacks, then we are wasting our time.
Debate does not actually get anywhere either, in my experience, as those on either side are already to emotionally attached to their ideas. Only occasionally will a debate spur real reflection on the opponents position away from the emotion. It is those that have not made up their minds that debates can effect.
Is it possible to get a dispassionate debate on something so tied to the human emotional response as religion is?
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.