Posted on 02/14/2015 1:16:14 PM PST by RnMomof7
"Historically, Catholics have argued that the papacy was a divinely-given institution papacy (Matt 16:17-19) etc., and they have relied on the notion that there have been bishops of Rome extending all the way back to the time of Peter.
This notion of bishops extending all the way back was thought to be actual history. In fact, as Shotwell and Loomis pointed out, in the General Introduction to their 1927 work "The See of Peter":
With reference to the Petrine doctrine, however, the Catholic attitude is much more than a "pre-disposition to believe." That doctrine is the fundamental basis of the whole papal structure. It may be summed up in three main claims. They are: first, that Peter was appointed by Christ to be his chief representative and successor and the head of his Church; second, that Peter went to Rome and founded the bishopric there; third, that his successors succeeded to his prerogatives and to all the authority thereby implied. In dealing with these claims we are passing along the border line between history and dogmatic theology. The primacy of Peter and his appointment by Christ to succeed Him as head of the Church are accepted by the Catholic Church as the indubitable word of inspired Gospel, in its only possible meaning. That Peter went to Rome and founded there his See, is just as definitely what is termed in Catholic theology as a dogmatic fact. This has been defined by an eminent Catholic theologian as "historical fact so intimately connected with some great Catholic truths that it would e believed even if time and accident had destroyed all the original evidence therefore. (xxiii-xxiv, emphasis in original).So, if the history of the early papacy is disrupted, it should, by all rights, disrupt the dogmatic definition of the papacy. And this is what we have come upon in our era: the most widely accepted historical accounts of the period -- which are now almost universally accepted among legitimate historians of the era -- is that Peter did not "found a bishopric." There was no "bishopric" in that city for 100 years after his death. The history completely contradicts what the "dogmatic fact" has held for more than 1000 years. Now, according to Eamon Duffy, among others, what was thought to be historical accounts were actually fictitious accounts that became passed along as history:
These stories were to be accepted as sober history by some of the greatest minds of the early Church -- Origen, Ambrose, Augustine. But they are pious romance, not history, and the fact is that we have no reliable accounts either of Peter's later life or the manner or place of his death. Neither Peter nor Paul founded the Church at Rome, for there were Christians in the city before either of the Apostles set foot there. Nor can we assume, as Irenaeus did, that the Apostles established there a succession of bishops to carry on their work in the city, for all the indications are that there was no single bishop at Rome for almost a century after the deaths of the Apostles. In fact, wherever we turn, the solid outlines of the Petrine succession at Rome seem to blur and dissolve. (Duffy, pg 2.)Briefly, on Peter and "the tradition," Reymond talks about the further lack of information about Peter in Scripture:
The Peter died in Rome, as ancient tradition has it, is a distinct possibility (see 1 Peter 5:13, where "Babylon" has been rather uniformly understood by commentators as a metaphor for Rome), but that he ever actually pastored the church there is surely a fiction, seven some scholars in the Roman communion will acknowledge. Jerome's Latin translation of Eusebius (not Eusebius's Greek copy) records that Peter ministered in Rome for twenty-five years, but if Philip Schaff (as well as many other church historians) is to believed, this is "a colossal chronological mistake." Paul write his letter to the church in Rome in early A.D. 57, but he did not address the letter to Peter or refer to him as its pastor. And in the last chapter he extended greetings to twenty-eight friends in Rome but made no mention of Peter, which would have been a major oversight, indeed, an affront, if in fact Peter was "ruling" the Roman church at that time. Then later when Paul was himself in Rome, from which city he wrote both his four prison letters during his first imprisonment in A.D. 60-62 when he "was welcoming all who came to him" (Acts 28:30), and his last pastoral letter during his second imprisonment around A.D. 64, in which letters he extend greetings to his letters' recipients from ten specific people in Rome, again he made no mention of Peter being there. Here is a period of time spanning around seven years (a.d. 57-64) during which time Paul related himself to the Roman church both as correspondent and as resident, but he said not a word to suggest that Peter was in Rome. (Reymond, "Systematic Theology," pg 814)
It has been suggested that Acts is a "selective" history, a fragmentary history, which simply did not include the facts pertaining to the last days and martyrdom of Peter and Paul. This is not acceptable, for such information would have been of great moment in the early church, which a century and a half before the rise of the cult of martyrs, only thirty-two years after the death of the apostles, remembered their martyrdom vividly (1 Clement 5). [But] the Early Church was so eager for details that within another century it created the full accounts which are found in the apocryphal Acts. (O'Connor, 11).In my next post, I'll provide a catalog of some of these.
Details; as them ain’t DOCTRINE!
Thanks; Catholics; for giving these Scriptures to the World!
According to Rome; there WAS none!
Joseph of the Splintery Hands was continually rejected by his 'wife'; Our Lady of the Perpetual Headache.
Their 'marriage' was NEVER consummated - so says ROME!
Kinda hard to do; since they are spontaneous; not written and repeated again and again and again.
Ya mean that I have not posted ENOUGH of them for you?
I happened in passing to see this post and it reminded me of something I heard a couple days ago FWIW:
It was a talk being given by a convert. From his personal experience he said that outside the Church, Mary looms larger than life - or something to that effect.
But once inside the Church, She assumes a perfectly natural place - or something like that.
Remarks like this sound so very very stupid.
Actually: ignorant.
All the highlevel religious writing on the subject would just BLOW YOUR MIND.
[ It’s out there. Go look for it. ]
The lock was one of those heavy hook and eye types. I yelled at him over the fence and threw some grain out for him...While he ate the grain I threw in the pasture I went back into his room, unlocked the door so he could get back in with his nannys. If I had gotten hurt, it would have been by my carelessness in forgetting he was back there.....Its amazing what strength you have with argueing with a goat once your adrenlin kicks it and its you or the goat....good thing I stayed on my feet, bless that side of the barn, it kept me upright...LOL
Now in my 70's I have a hard time carrying a 24 pack of pepsi....The loss of strength is what I miss most growing old...I was in my 40's at the time and farming keeps you strong...had an attack goose and large nasty rooster. I didn't turn my back to those 2 but alas he *THE ROOSTER* went after my hubby one time and lost his head...the coop was safe to enter without my shovel in my hand...None of the bantum roosters never pulled that stunt, they were much more mellow....
....”there are some who sincerely do try and who have the emotional maturity to be respectful while disagreeing, but the majority of those who come onto these threads only seem to want to disrupt, divert, condemn and criticize anyone who dares disagree with Roman Catholicism”.....
When I first came to FR I knew little of catholicism so I watched the debates...and there were some very good ones on here from all sides. That is when we all learn ....I moss those.
The Council of Trent is simply a *500 year old document*?
You mean it’s not valid any more? From the church that never changes?
Catholics do the same thing with Scripture and with a straight face expect us to accept their cherry picked Scripture verses.
So why is that a problem when a non-Catholic does it but not when a Catholic does it?
Elsie is right on that about prayers.
No Evangelical church I have ever attended prays already composed prayers, such as the Hail Mary or Our Father, as recited in Catholicism. They are not prayed over and over again as if they have some power in and of themselves that moves God to act by virtue of certain words being spoken.
Most prayers in Evangelicalism model the Lord's Prayer in that it begins with addressing God the Father, usually thanks Him for His provision, confesses sin, asks for the enlightening of the Holy Spirit to receive what He has for us to hear that the preacher is speaking about or what they are reading in Scripture, show us how to apply it to our lives, sometimes when needed - asks for healing of the person.
It's far more conversational as we believe that we are literally addressing our FATHER, who is a person, who loves and cares for us, and responds to spontaneous out pouring of our heart to Him.
I see canned prayers more as a child going up to his father and reciting poetry at him and thinking that's communicating with him, that it somehow pleases him. Any human father would much more rather have the child tell him what he(the child) is thinking than hearing him recite poetry, flowery and maybe nice as it may sound.
What I see Catholic prayer being treated as is more of a incantation or religious obligation. If the Catholic prays so many of such prayer, then it satisfies some kind of obligation and God will grant the person's request.
I would be surprised to find any former Catholics who ever saw it any different.
Do non-Catholics sometimes print prayers? Yes.
Do they sometimes pray those? Yes. Especially if it expresses what is in their heart.
But as a rule, canned prayer is avoided.
Some examples of pre-printed prayer can be found in the Tozer threads which I will link to in another post so I don't have to waste time with HTML'ing them.
At the end of the following threads is a prayer just as an example of how ONE person prayed at one time, (Probably 60-70 years ago)
Most people I know don’t talk like that any more.
Following Hard after God - Chapter 1
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3242852/posts
The Blessedness of Possessing Nothing - Chapter 2
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3243934/posts
Removing the Veil - Chapter 3
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3245815/posts
Apprehending God - Chapter 4
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3247448/posts
The Universal Presence - Chapter 5
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3250069/posts
The Speaking Voice - Chapter 6
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3253136/posts
The Gaze of the Soul - Chapter 7
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/3255578/posts
Restoring the Creator-creature Relation - Chapter 8
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3257456/posts
That’s a fact Jack.
This isn’t so complicated as that. You were discussing things along the lines of personal prayer in general (”do you ask others to pray for you”) without the need to mention church services. Personal prayers. I’ve seen Catholics here mentioning they individually pray the prayer of “Our Lady of” this or that. And they mean it in the plain, ordinary, straightforward usage of “prayer,” of supernatural communication. What Muslims do five times a day towards Islam’s false god, and what atheists aren’t willing to do, because even though they “pray” all the time to people, in asking them things, they deny the supernatural and will not say they pray in the commonly understood sense of the word.
Wonderful prayers. Thank you.
I have found as I mature by God’s Grace in faith prayers become longer and become like the psalms. A praise, a plea, praise and confidence Jesus Christ is delivering the ‘song of my heart’ to the Throne of the Father.
No, it’s only an OPINION. An easily refuted one at that!
Refute away. Catholics with a brain do not leave the One, True Church. Catholics do not leave the precious blood and body of the Lord Jesus Christ. The ones that left were totally ignorant of their faith and never believed in the Real Presence to start with.
bump
I was never a fan of chanting
1 Corinthians 1:18-31 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written,“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth. But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong; God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. And because of him you are in Christ Jesus, who became to us wisdom from God, righteousness and sanctification and redemption, so that, as it is written, “Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord.”
1 Corinthians 2:1-16 And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.
Yet among the mature we do impart wisdom, although it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to pass away. But we impart a secret and hidden wisdom of God, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But, as it is written,
“What no eye has seen, nor ear heard, nor the heart of man imagined, what God has prepared for those who love him”—
these things God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual.
The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual person judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. “For who has understood the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.
The Holy Spirit can break through the indoctrination of the mind that exists within Catholicism and reveal the light of the gospel to those who are truly seeking after God.
Catholics can depend on and brag on the mind and their intellectual prowess all they want.
There's a world of difference between knowing about God, with the mind, and KNOWING God, with the heart.
the mind is not going to get them anywhere unless they are regenerated in the spirit.
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.