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.
From the Catechism of the Catholic church....
http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p6.htm
969 “This motherhood of Mary in the order of grace continues uninterruptedly from the consent which she loyally gave at the Annunciation and which she sustained without wavering beneath the cross, until the eternal fulfillment of all the elect. Taken up to heaven she did not lay aside this saving office but by her manifold intercession continues to bring us the gifts of eternal salvation .... Therefore the Blessed Virgin is invoked in the Church under the titles of Advocate, Helper, Benefactress, and Mediatrix.”510
So let's see if we have this straight now.
Mary is *mediatrix* according to the CCC. Quote and link provided.
But that is not dogma even though it's out of the CCC found on the Vatican.va website. But rather the CCC produced by Vatican 2 is "merely an opinion of some people"?
Is that correct?
I suspect you don’t understand what it means. She is A mediator, not “THE Mediator”.
God tells us there is ONE mediator between God and man.
It's found in the Bible that RC's take credit for their church writing.
We are all “mediators” when we pray for other people...we often ask fellow Christians, including those in heaven (”cloud of witnesses”),to pray for us. This is called the “communion of saints”, which is mentioned in the Apostle’s creed...
Nope. We are intercessors. We are ambassadors for Christ, but nowhere in Scripture are we called mediators.
Doesn’t your church emphasize spiritual warfare?
Sure it does. That's why it stands for the truth as found in Scripture, not any man made opinions that contradict it.
The sword of the Spirit is the Word of God.
Thanks for the heads up and the support in the next post. I am sorry you had to sit through something this intolerable.
Exactly the kind of thing a bigot would say.
Some people have a hard time dealing with the truth.
“It was good enough for Shakespeare....”
“Which that statement itself evidences catholics faith rests in ‘performance of a ritual’ rather than a relationship with Jesus”
Some like to pick and choose what they want to believe in the Bible. Guess what. It’s all the inspired Word of God!
Faithful Catholics don’t look else where. “Catholics” that never believed to start with and want to do it their way instead of God’s way leave all the time. “Oh that mean old Catholic Church, it’s too judgemental and has too many rules. I’m not having any Church tell me what I’m going to do”. ~ Joe Fallen Away Catholic
Perhaps failed Protestants who convert to Roman Catholicism HAVE to imagine everyone who doesn't also convert does so because they are ignorant. It helps them feel better about themselves - makes them feel superior. It's too bad they can't just praise the Lord for every soul that comes to repentance and saving faith in Christ and rejoice with ALL God's children seeing as we will be together for eternity. I guess their elitist and superior attitudes might impress fellow bigots but it won't profit them a bit before Almighty God.
:O( poor fellow
I don't think any would deny it's all God's word....but it is the ‘application’ of what it says that entangles people. But When a people believe ‘their salvation’ rests on taking communion via a ritual act on their part then God's way of Salvation has been derailed.
In most false religions and cults it is often ritual practices, among other things, which assists in keeping people bound, Which is why they are so often used as part of the belief system.
Salvation comes from God alone, we only have to receive what Christ's finished work has accomplished and is sufficient to save ones soul.....because God says it is. Rituals and practices will never save and never did.
...”it won’t profit them a bit before Almighty God”...
I don’t think they seek to please God, rather they seek to please Rome and their leadership. In fact it would be easy to say they have a false escape goat...the catholic church itself... which they can “blame” for telling them how and what to believe. And since the church itself teaches them to play victim I can see they would assume they could lay blame on the church for deceiving them before God.
I’ve heard some catholics speak after they left the catholic church and learned the truth...they were rejicing in the truth but also very hurt the church had deceived them for so many years.
Ma'am; we Bashers POST catholic WRITINGS AND HISTORY.
Which of these do you want us NOT to post any more; for making your chosen religious organization look bad?
I 'know' what a COVENANT is.
I know which one was between GOD and His Chosen People.
If a person, group or organization wants to CHANGE a covenant; it HAS to be agreed upon by both parties involved.
Signed: A Gentile...
She is DEAD; Girl!
Wake up and smell the coffee! (Sorry Mormons...)
You Catholics are TAUGHT that Mary SHARES the mediating job with Jesus.
The Scriptures say that GOD will NOT 'share' His glory.
(Your turn...)
--Huffy_Catholic(And proud of it!!!)
Mary is dead.
You 'catholics' lost track of her early on and NOW want to say she was ASSUMED into Heaven!
It ain't WORKING!!!
What is LEFT OUT OF IT that is absolutely essential to a persons salvation?
“OHhhh!!! that WONDERFUL old Catholic Church, it’s rightly judgmental on non-members and has a LOT of GOOD rules. I’m ESTACTIC over having MY Church tell me what I’m going to do”.
~ Joe Orgasmic_to_the_Max Catholic
Yet you CLING to things like Fatima and magical wafers; too!
It made ME cringe, seeing the rubber band, before things, uh, fell off.
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.