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.
Likewise. My participation on the RF is rare, as it is mostly a temptation and stumbling block to me. From time to time I do lurk and will chime in when something catches my eye, as did my FRiend roamer's comment about the "clear word."
Let Michael Voris set you straight.and all decided seemingly in unison (we are a tight knit group, we minions) that now, right about now ! would be an excellent time to just go ahead and relax a bit and let that maniacal laughter you have been so long holding back, come roaring out, Mein Führer.
HAIL, HOLY QUEEN, Mother of Mercy, our life, our sweetness and our hope! To thee do we cry, poor banished children of Eve; to thee do we send up our sighs, mourning and weeping in this vale of tears. Turn then, most gracious advocate, thine eyes of mercy toward us, and after this our exile, show unto us the blessed fruit of thy womb, Jesus. O clement, O loving, O sweet Virgin Mary!
V. Pray for us, O Holy Mother of God.
R. That we may be made worthy of the promises of Christ.
Let us pray. O GOD, whose only begotten Son, by His life, death, and resurrection, has purchased for us the rewards of eternal life, grant, we beseech Thee, that meditating upon these mysteries of the Most Holy Rosary of the Blessed Virgin Mary, we may imitate what they contain and obtain what they promise, through the same Christ Our Lord. Amen.
After each decade say the following prayer requested by the Blessed Virgin Mary at Fatima: “O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those who have most need of your mercy.”
That is interesting. More, please on how this would relate to the early church, in light of Stephen's martyrdom after his address in the synagogue.
Thank you for your response. I am a lawyer. By my credentials, I have an authority of office by which I am permitted to appear before the court and make my case. But if I made my case on strictly my lawerly office, how far would that get me? "Your honor, I am a lawyer, therefore when I say my client is innocent, it must be true." Do you see how that doesn't make sense? Indeed, such an action would probably draw a sanction from the judge.
But when I want to win my case, what do I do? I use the authority of my office to cite to the real authority, statutory law and the case law that interprets it. I am recognizing in that act that the true authority does not rest in my office, but in legal truth (such as it is).
By the same token, while it is entertaining to speculate about photographic memories, in truth the jury is free to infer that copious and exacting reference to Scripture very well could be an indication that said Scripture was in the possession of Polycarp, and if not for the pressure of your argument to find otherwise, would naturally lead to that conclusion.
But more importantly, whether by memory or by reference to a physical text, Polycarp is following in a long tradition, exampled by both Christ Himself and His apostles, of citing to the word of God as the dispositive authority in any contest of ideas about God and Christian truth. And in truth, if Christ is our only true Master, and God our only true Father, how else could it be?
Peace,
SR
Post of the day and dead on accurate.
Instructing the ignorant, and we do have our work cut out for us.
Then why do so may of your brethren and sistren insist on calling themselves "bible ALONE" christians?
I may not be dismissing Lampe so much as your interpretation of him. Either way, I’m happy to look at the scholarship, especially if it is as good a collection of primary sources as it seems.
But don’t wave that blanket “bias” charge. It’s a lousy cop-out and terrible form for a historian. Every man is who he is and looks at things a certain way.
And don’t forget SR, that your claim against Petrine primacy rests not only on Irenaeus but on a whole tissue of assumptions from the interpretation of “Petros” on down to every disputed passages in the Fathers.
Oh it’s real easy to not see any factual evidence when you’ve already conveniently dismissed everything inimical to your case, n’est-ce pas?
The same group of people decided against the NT and had the OT in a different order. Still think they got it right laughing boy.
actually it is automatic, there is no need for a formal declaration.
Here's his contemporary Justin Martyr:
"And on the day called Sunday, all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things."
The NT was originally not a bound book published for personal home instruction. It was a collection of documents circulated and read liturgically.
Tell that to my RC relatives. If the Church was serious about that, the membership lists could be edited immediately and everyone not on the list treated as lost pagans. How many would still be in attendance after that? In the Chicago area I'm betting you'd lose more than half. When I see that happen, then I'll take your "automatic excommunication" seriously. Until then, I see it as a mere rationalization, a bit of paper that formalizes the fallacy that "no true Scotsman" would ever behave so badly.
Peace,
SR
Indeed. I have to keep reminding myself what I’m doing here lest my Mediterranean temper give entry to pride and the devil.
I'm not a historian, never claimed to be. As an attorney, I look at bias all the time, because in a contest of memories, you have to at least recognize the possibility, just as you said, that witnesses are necessarily operating within the limits of their own perspective. In that sense, the bias is not meant to discredit the person, only to stay alert for confirmation bias generally, to which we are all subject, fallible creatures that we are.
As for Petrine supremacy etc., the burden is on the party making the positive assertion. My belief or disbelief on the subject is conditioned by the affirmative evidence presented. In the absence of such evidence, the only honest position I can take is to reject the theory as having no authority to bind the Christian's conscience.
I’m not a historian either, but in this context we both are discussing historical events and so must adopt their methodology.
But, that knife cuts two ways. The heretics were not ignorant of Holy Scripture. As much as I find snip quotes sometimes tedious, I will submit:
A new reformation was therefore necessary. Marcion felt himself entrusted with this commission, and the church which he gathered recognized this vocation of his to be the reformer. 35 He did not appeal to a new revelation such as he presupposed for Paul. As the Pauline Epistles and an authentic "evangelion of the Lord" were in existence, it was only necessary to purify these from interpolations, and restore the genuine Paulinism which was just the Gospel itself.
Marcion From Adolf Von Harnack, History of Dogma
But when I want to win my case, what do I do? I use the authority of my office to cite to the real authority, statutory law and the case law that interprets it. I am recognizing in that act that the true authority does not rest in my office, but in legal truth (such as it is).
Was not Marcion doing exactly this? And it worked, requiring several ecumenical councils over hundreds of years to continue to refute the heresy and preserve the chain of orthodoxy (right belief).
Is it fair to say that the Holy Scripture is "statutory law" and the councils are "case law"?
I do not dispute that. I entered the conversation after the oft repeated wranglings about Peter when roamer tossed that softball about a "clear word." That rekindled the memory of my own spiritual journey when I had to grapple with why I believed what I thought I believed. And among the first, the question of authority had to be dealt with.
it was only necessary to purify these from interpolations,
No, this is not the same as citing to Scripture for authority, and objectively so. Marcion's "interpolations" correspond more closely to the undertaking of higher criticism, where no text is presumed to be authentic, but more like an archeological gradient that must be brushed away to get a little closer to (but never actually arriving at) the "authentic" text.
Put another way, Marcion attacked the received text as inauthentic. That is the opposite of appeal to it's authority. It is analogous to the serpent in the garden hissing, "has God said ..." to insinuate doubt into holy writ, not confidence in the same.
But even Christ during His temptation was not offput by Satan's own misquoting of Scripture, but fires Scripture right back at him, because Scripture handled truthfully becomes a mighty weapon in the hand of the believer, and I for one am not willing to lay it down:
Eph 6:14-17 Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness; (15) And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace; (16) Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked. (17) And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:
Peace,
SR
I am aware of the various arguments, and I really don't need to defend it further. As it stands, there is more solid proof here than in Rome. And if this were finally disproved, it still would not point me back to a Roman grave in pagan profaned ground. Even if he was buried there, his family would not leave him there. The offense is too great, and they would want his bones at home.
And we can concoct scenarios all day about Peter going along the Silk Road. But the weight of the evidence just isn’t there.
Actually, the literal weight of the evidence IS there - It is where Peter ~says~ that he is, taking his words in context, at face value, and your appeals to tradition notwithstanding. And it makes sense for him to actually be in Babylon - The longstanding centers of Judaism having been Jerusalem, Babylon, and Alexandria - With Babylonian tradition being second only to Jerusalem. Converting Babylon would have a tremendous impact, so it is not surprising at all that the Apostles would spend their resources there.
And did you forget that a sizable population of Jews was in Rome?
No, but there is still the insurmountable silence of Paul. And that Paul writes to Rome as though no one else has yet been there (that they might be established). IIRC, according to your tradition, Peter would have had to have been made pope some 15 years before Paul ever even arrived - So why then the need for establishment? It makes no sense.
Perhaps offset by the ministry we know the most about - Paul - Who is seen in synagogues all the way along.
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.