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.
And father/sister, what makes me a cafeteria Catholic? Specifically please... after all you made a decision based on a few sentences. Also please tell us all why you are Catholic and your/the religious strengths that allow snap decisions about others.
No, 'solo' means alone.'Sola' means preeminent, above all others... the 'Sole rule of Faith' does not mean there can be no other rules, but that there can be no other rules that trump the 'sole rule'. All Protestant denominations have traditions too - The difference is that their traditions, together or respectively, cannot displace the clear Word.
This absurdity comes up often, and is refuted every time.
Sadly true. It becomes tedious at times. We would like to think our opponents would confront our actual positions, and not caricatures. But so long as the caricatures persist, we must continue to swat them down, lest others be misled.
Peace,
SR
PS: Haven't forgotten about the "abba" research. Just stalled on primary sources, though secondary sources definitely have been helpful, esp. Jewish Encyclopedia.
Because the rent in your noggin is always due on the 15th?
Always? One of the favorite polemics of the FRoman Catholic crowd is that everything that happened wasn't written down.
And so explain how on a few sentences you can base that statement? Better yet explain what training and experience shows that to be accurate statement.
I look forward to the web site you referred to and your FR page gave no real indication to support your analysis of my few sentence post.
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/rise-papacy/
Protestant site.....is anyone going to believe that they have the truth?
your question is sarcastic??
Great! When is the Vatican releasing the tapes of Peter's sermons? Since we know Peter wouldn't preach by mouth contrary to Scripture and we know from John that all things necessary to know to believe in Christ and have eternal life are contained in his Gospel account, why does the Catholic church lay unbiblical burdens on its members in the form of dogmas? If Tradition is the basis for dogma, how can it levy requirements not found in Scripture?
It’s a more cogent explanation than the smoke and mirrors trotted out by the Roman Catholic hoards.
No. Ligonier Ministries was founded by R.C. Sproul. Wonderful Biblical teacher.
Which means then that the Catholic explanation of Protestantism is more cogent than the smoke and mirrors trotted out by Protestant hoards?
Bm
No it is not unanimous, nor has it been.
You show me one credible account of where he died elsewhere.
There is an ossuary in Jerusalem, found in a first century Christian cemetery - under the care of a Franciscan Order... Which makes perfect sense... More sense than to assume a devout Jew would be buried in a pagan cemetery.
Finally, it’s balderdash that Peter never mentions Rome in his own Epistle. He says it right in 1 Peter 5:13, the Church that is in Babylon. Oh but Babylon means Mesopotamia, not Rome? Really? When was Peter in Mesopotamia?
When he wrote and SAID he was in Babylon.
And wasn’t Babylon a ruin by then?
Not according to Josephus... Antiquities, I believe, who claims it a center of Judaism.
History is not always as clear as we like. Here it is.
No, it isn't.
Jews glorify God through their faith which is a gift from God. To God is the glory. Period. Yes, they will be blessed and people will hang onto the coat tails of a Jew and of course, all Christians worship a Jew and even the Pope kneels. God is sooooo smart.
“Are you UNAWARE at that “sola” means alone? That is what protestants preach and they are big on insisting “sola scriptura.” Itsy bitsy problem for you people is that it is UNBIBLICAL. NO WHERE in the bible, EVER does the bible itself say “scripture ALONE.” In fact the bible directly contradicts your favorite pony. 2 Thessalonians 2:15 indicates teaching can be either a) by letter b) WORD OF MOUTH — and certainly if Peter teaches by letter he can also orally teach too. Duh. Also 1 Timothy 3:15 also states that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth...and Jesus said that Peter is who he is building his church on. It’s not Catholics you have an issue with, but apparently Jesus Christ. Sola Scriptura is not our circus.”
Let’s take it a statement at a time.
“Are you UNAWARE at that “sola” means alone? That is what protestants preach and they are big on insisting “sola scriptura.”
What you wrote is not what is meant by sola scriptura. Your post presents a straw man instead of an accurate understanding. So first, I suggest doing some work to understand what is meant by this concept.
“Itsy bitsy problem for you people is that it is UNBIBLICAL.”
No. It is quite Biblical. Your straw man version is not biblical. Sola Scriptura is quite biblical.
“NO WHERE in the bible, EVER does the bible itself say “scripture ALONE.”
First, I must point out that your post is now attacking the false straw man it created. This is a logical fallacy. Go ahead and kick him hard. He’s all yours.
Scripture does not say Trinity, or Bible either. We use those terms to express a Biblical concept that is taught. Had you started with a correct meaning of sola scriptura, you would not have posted this.
“In fact the bible directly contradicts your favorite pony.”
I have no ponies or horses or donkeys. Nor do I play favorites.
“2 Thessalonians 2:15 indicates teaching can be either a) by letter b) WORD OF MOUTH — and certainly if Peter teaches by letter he can also orally teach too.”
Peter is departed and is no longer writing or teaching on earth. Scripture has been given. Teaching is not inspired. Scripture is inspired.
“Duh.”
OK.
“Also 1 Timothy 3:15 also states that the church is the pillar and foundation of truth...”
The church, when it does its job, is a foundation under truth and a pillar to show off truth to the world. The church is never truth.
“and Jesus said that Peter is who he is building his church on.”
Well, I understand that many catholics believe that, but it doesn’t say that.
“It’s not Catholics you have an issue with, but apparently Jesus Christ.”
Well, starting with the catholic personal interpretation of scripture, it would appear that way, but in reality, not at all.
“Sola Scriptura is not our circus.”
OK.
What, pray tell, is this clear word? And where is it to be found?
The only thing worse than a liberal Jesuit priest is the following quote:
“Uh, no. I am Catholic..... but the Pope has NO AUTHORITY over me.”
I was reading Isaiah 22 and there is a note in my Bible that links that reference of the “key” to the letter in Revelation 3 to the church in Philadelphia. Is this not Jesus who has the key? At the beginning of each letter is a description of Jesus.
I still think there are 7 churches just as there are 7 Spirits of God. The fight between Catholics and Protestants makes me feel like an Iraqi watching the Shiites and Sunnis.
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.