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.
Wrong. Jesus and the word of God are truth and nobody owns it.
You have no idea how much of a favor she is doing for you. She is caring deeply for your life, attempting to alert you to the fraud that is Rome. Please review the succession of Rome from Irenaus, who lists the first 12 so-called "Bishops of Rome"...Peter is not there. This list occurred sometime between 178 - 200AD.
Further, read (without the jaded eyes of Rome) the pornocracy of Sergius III. His mistress, Marozia (daughter of Theodora) was both a prostitute and an accomplice to murder. Read about Theodora bedding Ravena and the debauched lives lead by the popes she installed. Check the obsession of John XII for illicit sex until it was no longer safe for women in Rome. We could go on, but the point is the same. Your organization is built on a lie, corrupt to the core. The One to whom RnMomof7 points you is Jesus, alone. He is the Rescuer...not Rome.
You just made several unsupported assertions.
More *attack the messenger* instead of addressing the topic of the thread and refuting it.
Looks like you hit a nerve again.
I wonder why they don’t react like that on the hit pieces RC’s post about Protestantism?
I suppose it’s perspective. If we are looking for truth from scripture or simply use scripture out of context to falsely support some religion that has strayed from the truth of scripture.
Do you want me to start keeping track of the number of times I’ve been told to *Look it up yourself*?
I can do that.
In the meantime, can you provide some solid evidence refuting the statements made in this article?
Scripture = spam, eh?
I wonder what God thinks about that kind of attitude towards the words that He breathed out and inspired men to write about Him so that they could come to know Him......
Oh, please do. But also track the context; if somebody in the garden center tell you to look up the price of terracotta pots yourself, don't count it in your tally.
Do you have any documentation to refute the information in the article or is your tactic to attack the messenger hoping the message goes away?
Ah, the old *You left the RCC because of moral issues* canard.
Making it a wee bit personal there, aren’t you?
Is that the fall back when the content of the article can’t be refuted?
Who put you in charge anyway?
This goes to support my contention that I’ve stated several times that Catholicism is about controlling people’s lives.
They just cannot stand that someone is getting away with something they can’t.
As usual the anti Catholic author is doing history wrong. Here is an expanded passage to Duffy’s book which while maintaining St Peter did not start the Church in Rome shows why he was regarded as having primacy amongst the Apostles.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/d/duffy-saints.html
My issue with the RCC is their reliance on the works of the early Church Fathers to establish doctrine instead of the NT itself. Also the RCC has not been 100% consistent throughout its history when regarding matters of faith, salvation, and doctrine. All I know is that I trust 100% in Christ for my salvation, I give all the glory to him, and do all things in my life to serve his purpose.
AMEN!
Yes, it’s spam. And you know what I mean. It’s meant with no kindness, no spirituality - it’s meant to chase someone off the thread. I’m getting sick of the cuteness and hypocrisy on these various threads...
Well, then you can stop showing up and it’ll disappear.
That poster is telling the truth. Too bad the ones who need it the most do not see that.
Coincidentally, I happen to be reading Eamon Duffy’s book on the Papacy right now. His quotes are taken out of context, as on the very next page of the book he states that there is little doubt that Peter really was martyred in Rome(on Vatican Hill), and that there is no dispute to this by any source in history.
That’s all you have to counter the evidence put forth in the article? You attack the poster with unsubstantiated accusations put in the form of questions? Is that the depths to which Catholics have to go to defend the religion they profess?
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.