Catholic Legends And How They Get Started: An Example

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 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).

Is it possible to get a dispassionate debate on something so tied to the human emotional response as religion is?

My two cents: yes it is, as evidenced on this long-standing thread.

If you wish to carry on such a debate, IMHO AlbionGirl would be an excellent correspondent. She is a contributor on that thread as well.

Is it possible to get a dispassionate debate on something so tied to the human emotional response as religion is?

No, hence the Reformation.

C.S. Lewis so hated the enmity between Christians that he wrote of the Reformation, that issues which required the deliberation of Godly and fair-minded men, in order to keep the schism from occurring, was pretty much lost before it even began.

And, you can see in the early polemics of the Reformers a real sense of betrayal, and oddly enough, while that sense of betrayal was hot, unity was possible, once it cooled, unity became nearly impossible.

That's the problem with anti-Catholic rhetoric. ... I hope this doesn't sound snotty; not meant that way.

I do not think you sounded snotty. My only point is I would prefer to call it Protestant rhetoric though, rather than Anti-Catholic, which is inherently Anti-Catholic, but with a bit broader than just a "Catholics-are-wrong" belief.

And as such, James White's rhetoric must be actually called Reformed Baptist, as there are many in the Protestant, as well as Southern Baptist Convention, circles that would also like to hang him by his heels and make him watch Jimmy Swaggart cry until he repents of his Calvinistic ways.

And to quote Mr. White here's where I think the problem lies

It's a cinch that when White blames those who act "in the service of Mother Church," he's not blaming Baptists or Presbyterians.

Nothing like a little finger-pointing to advance the cause of Christian charity.

LOL, 12K replies? Egads!

I guess that would keep me busy for a few weeks.

Shouldn't you archive that monstrosity and put in a table of contents and an index?

RE: Dante. A recent translation was reviewed in the New Oxford Review, June 2004, available to read at this link:

http://www.newoxfordreview.org/reviews.jsp?did=0604-gardiner

Yes. I read The Inferno, (Signet Classic, translated John Ciardi). I liked this one because there are notes at the end of each Canto. I found the notes very helpful and just as interesting as the literature, and it was inexpensive. The Inferno is a great book. I know of a complete copy of The Divine Comedy...Everyman's Library, translated by Allen Mandelbaum. Good quality book in hardcover. Another good book(s) is Paradise Lost and Paradise Regained.

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.