Posted on 09/11/2014 12:08:50 PM PDT by Alex Murphy
There are one billion Roman Catholics worldwide, one billion people who are subject to the Pope’s authority. How, one might ask, did all of this happen? The answer, I believe, is far more complex and untidy than Catholics have argued. First, I will give a brief explanation of what the Catholic position is, and then, second, I will suggest what I think actually took place.
The Catholic Explanation
The traditional Catholic understanding is that Jesus said that it was upon Peter the church was to be built (Matt. 16:18−19; see also John 21:15−17; Luke 22:32). Following this, Peter spent a quarter of a century in Rome as its founder and bishop, and his authority was recognized among the earliest churches; this authority was handed down to his successors. Indeed, the Second Vatican Council (1962–65) re-affirmed this understanding. Apostolic authority has been handed on to the apostles’ successors even as Peter’s supreme apostolic power has been handed on to each of his successors in Rome.
The problem with this explanation, however, is that there is no evidence to sustain it. The best explanation of Matthew 16:18–19 is that the church will be built, not on an ecclesiastical position, but on Peter’s confession regarding Christ’s divinity. Correlative to this understanding is the fact that there is no biblical evidence to support the view that Peter spent a long time in the church in Rome as its leader. The Book of Acts is silent about this; it is not to be found in Peter’s own letters; and Paul makes no mention of it, which is strange if, indeed, Peter was in Rome early on since at the end of Paul’s letter to the Romans, he greets many people by name. And the argument that Peter’s authority was universally recognized among the early churches is contradicted by the facts. It is true that Irenaeus, in the second century, did say that the church was founded by “the blessed apostles,” Peter and Paul, as did Eusebius in the fourth century, and by the fifth century, Jerome did claim that it was founded by Peter whom he calls “the prince of the apostles.” However, on the other side of the equation are some contradictory facts. Ignatius, for example, en route to his martyrdom, wrote letters to the bishops of the dominant churches of the day, but he spoke of Rome’s prominence only in moral, not ecclesiastical, terms. At about the same time early in the second century, the Shepherd of Hermas, a small work written in Rome, spoke only of its “rulers” and “the elders” who presided over it. There was, apparently, no dominant bishop at that time. Not only so, but in the second and third centuries, there were numerous instances of church leaders resisting claims from leaders in Rome to ecclesiastical authority in settling disputes.
It is, in fact, more plausible to think that the emergence of the Roman pontiff to power and prominence happened by natural circumstance rather than divine appointment. This took place in two stages. First, it was the church in Rome that emerged to prominence and only then, as part of its eminence, did its leader begin to stand out. The Catholic church has inverted these facts by suggesting that apostolic power and authority, indeed, Peter’s preeminent power and authority, established the Roman bishop whereas, in fact, the Roman bishopric’s growing ecclesiastical prestige derived, not from Peter, but from the church in Rome.
The Actual Explanation
In the beginning, the church in Rome was just one church among many in the Roman empire but natural events conspired to change this. Jerusalem had been the original “home base” of the faith, but in a.d. 70, the army of Titus destroyed it and that left Christianity without its center. It was not unnatural for people in the empire to begin to look to the church in Rome since this city was its political capital. All roads in that ancient world did, indeed, lead to Rome, and many of them, of course, were traveled by Christian missionaries. It is also the case that the Roman church, in the early centuries, developed a reputation for moral and doctrinal probity and, for these reasons, warranted respect. Its growing eminence, therefore, seems to have come about in part because it was warranted and also, in part, because it was able to bask in some of the reflected splendor of the imperial city.
Heresies had abounded from the start, but in the third-century, churches began to take up a new defensive posture against them. Would it not be the case, Tertullian argued, that churches founded by the apostles would have a secure footing for their claims to authenticity, in contrast to potentially heretical churches? This argument buttressed the growing claims to preeminence of the Roman church. However, it is interesting to note that in the middle of this century, Cyprian in North Africa argued that the words, “You are Peter …” were not a charter for the papacy but, in fact, applied to all bishops. Furthermore, at the third Council of Carthage in 256, he asserted that the Roman bishop should not attempt to be a “bishop of bishops” and exercise “tyrannical” powers.
Already in the New Testament period, persecution was a reality, but in the centuries that followed, the church suffered intensely because of the animosities and apprehensions of successive emperors. In the fourth century, however, the unimaginable happened. Emperor Constantine, prior to a pivotal battle, saw a vision and turned to Christianity. The church, which had lived a lonely existence on the “outside” up to this time, now enjoyed an unexpected imperial embrace. As a result, from this point on, the distinction between appropriate ecclesiastical demeanor and worldly pretensions to pomp and power were increasingly lost. In the Middle Ages, the distinction disappeared entirely. In the sixth century, Pope Gregory brazenly exploited this by asserting that the “care of the whole church” had been placed in the hands of Peter and his successors in Rome. Yet even at this late date, such a claim did not pass unchallenged. Those in the east, whose center was in Constantinople, resented universal claims like this, and, in fact, this difference of opinion was never settled. In 1054, after a series of disputes, the Great Schism between the eastern and western churches began. Eastern Orthodoxy began to go its own way, separated from Roman jurisdiction, and this remains a breach that has been mostly unhealed.
The pope’s emergence to a position of great power and authority was, then, long in the making. Just how far the popes had traveled away from New Testament ideas about church life was brutally exposed by Erasmus at the time of the Reformation. Pope Julius II had just died when, in 1517, Erasmus penned his Julius Exclusus. He pictured this pope entering heaven where, to his amazement, he was not recognized by Peter! Erasmus’ point was simply that the popes had become rich, pretentious, worldly, and everything but apostolic. However, he should have made his point even more radically. It was not just papal behavior that Peter would not have recognized as his own, but papal pretensions to universal authority as well.
BTW, I clicked your link and it went nowhere. Puzzling ..
And yes, I note your observation about statutory versus case law. There is some merit to the analogy you propose, but to be fully consistent, you would then also have to recognize that case law is mutable and can change course, but the statutes are fixed by the legislature, which in our analogy would be the Supreme Legislator, God Himself. Which is why at any point a good attorney will know when he/she should challenge a precedent case law as a misinterpretation of the statute, just as Jesus challenged the precedents of the Jewish magisterium. Sometimes that is the only right way to proceed, though it can lead to considerable resistance.
Peace,
SR
If they were on FR I would gladly do so. since they're not (to the best of my knowledge) you can give them this reference. https://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/abortio2.htm:
Exact wording from the CCL:
TITLE VI. DELICTS AGAINST HUMAN LIFE AND FREEDOM (Cann. 1397 - 1398) Can. 1397 A person who commits a homicide or who kidnaps, detains, mutilates, or gravely wounds a person by force or fraud is to be punished with the privations and prohibitions mentioned in ⇒ can. 1336 according to the gravity of the delict. Homicide against the persons mentioned in ⇒ can. 1370, however, is to be punished by the penalties established there. Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.
Your relatives are certainly free to ignore this, just as many people choose to ignore speed limits or laws about driving intoxicated. sooner or later it will catch up with them.
God always gets the final word and the last laugh.
On that point, at least, we fully agree:
Psa 2:2-5 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed, saying, (3) Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us. (4) He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. (5) Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Peace,
SR
gnosis.org/library/marcion/Harnack.html
cut and paste. I guess since it’s html it does not hot link.
I heard that. For me it's the eyes. My books remain boxed up since I moved two years ago - I much prefer electronic media wherein I can comfortably increase the font and do away with bothersome glasses.
But what remains a caution to me is that if I need to recall something from a book, I can immediately picture the correct one in my mind (complete with wear and tear), and in going to that book, I can usually hit what I want from it in a few minutes... To recall something from online is far more troublesome - I think because it lacks input from auxiliary senses, perhaps... I DO miss slogging around in musty old tomes - I really do.
Greek? Well, they have the best food; Russians have the best liurgical music. Dogma is the same. As with the Antiochians but as with the Greeks,[...]
Uhoh... Did I misspeak? I know 'Orthodox' is right - Forgive me if I assumed... So which is it then?
I find myself distracted and confounded by the Byzantine chant. I'm sure that's the American in me.
Yeah, I'm more a Country Gospel music guy myself... beats all that weird moaning and whining hands-down (no offense meant).
Thanks. The trick is to have the http:// prefix in place. It’ll pick up the link if there are no other html things floating around in your post.
http://gnosis.org/library/marcion/Harnack.html
Perhaps you forget that your Master is one among that 'group of people'... As were most of His immediate followers.
Do not boast against the branches.
I don't see how that changes anything.
That was pathetic. Catholics claim no proof for Sola Scriptura in scripture thinking it’s a gotcha yet can’t come up with scripture for one of their most important dogmas so post that thinking it’s somehow going to make them look good. Pathetic, just pathetic.
They decided to speak to the Head Rabbi. They explained the situation to him and he said the exact same thing happened with my son. He spent a year in Jerusalem and came back Catholic.
The three men decided to talk to God.
The Head Rabbi explained to God how there three sons had spent time in Israel and all converted to the Catholic Church.
There was a long pause and God said" Ya know the exact same thing happened ......."
Good one!
Which did happen with the iconoclast heresy.
but the statutes are fixed by the legislature, which in our analogy would be the Supreme Legislator, God Himself.
Which leaves the question of the authority / venue for settling disputes. Insisting that it must be words on paper (or papyrus) won't stand up to logical and historical scrutiny. This is not a denigration of the Scriptures, at all. But, it is an affirmation of the teaching office of the Bishops. Doctrine must be in harmony with the Scripture, rightly divided.
In my journey, I looked for the Church after the events recorded in the 66 books had passed. I looked for who had the "say so" and what THEY said and how that turned out in the intervening centuries.
And isn't it case law that got us so far from the constitution?
Let’s keep the apples separated from the oranges.
Alas, I think that you and I came to very different conclusions in that regard.
“You are a Catholic who does not understand his Church.”
No, the problem is that the malice in your heart will not allow you to see things as they are.
I figured you wouldn’t like that one. Judges making laws or magisterium making dogma. Same thing. It leads away from the original document.
“Please show where the assumption of Mary is found in scripture.”
The odd notion of sola scriptura is not merely false, it is patently ridiculous.
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/immaculate-conception-and-assumption
“Peter’s statement to Yashua that He is the Christ is the rock He was mentioning - He wasn’t calling Peter the rock”
Don’t you know what Peter’s name—or rather nickname—means?
Jesus said, “Dude, you are “The Rock,” and on this Rock I will build My Church.”
Your ridiculous misinterpretation would be risible, if it did not carry with it the danger of leading souls to Hell.
Bait declined.
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.