Thanks fieldmarshaldj. I've added it to the catalog, but due to the sectarian turmoil am not pinging it.
Posted on 03/24/2016 5:42:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Amos 3
7 Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.
Which prophet revealed what God decided your canon would be?
He says “will do nothing”.... nothing. Not “somethings” or “a little here and there.” He says God will do nothing. That’s definitive. Explicit.
So again, who was the prophet that revealed God’s will on which books were to be included in your canon and which were excluded?
Could have been Polycarp, but you and I will never know because Rome has so much material sequestered in their basement in the Vatican.
There are fables and there are doctrinal deceptions, and then there are outright fabrications and mixtures.
The Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals (or False Decretals) are a set of extensive, influential medieval forgeries written by a scholar (or group of scholars) known as Pseudo-Isidore. The authors, using the pseudonym of Isidore Mercator, were probably a group of Frankish clerics writing in the second quarter of the 9th century. To defend the position of bishops against metropolitans and secular authorities, they created documents purportedly authored by early popes and council documents
For 150 to 200 years, the forgeries were only moderately successful. Although a relatively-large number of ninth- or tenth-century manuscripts is known (about 100 more-or-less complete manuscripts of the False Decretals, dating from the ninth to the 16th century, have been preserved), the canonical collections took little notice of the False Decretals until the early 11th century.
During that century, the situation changed rapidly under the impetus of the Gregorian reforms and the Investiture Controversy. Spurred by monastic reform movements and the efforts of some Holy Roman Emperors, a group of cardinals and a series of popes strove to cleanse the church of abuses and free the papacy from its imperial patronage (which had recently freed it from the influence of Roman nobles). The reformers' efforts soon conflicted with temporal power; the bishops of the Holy Roman Empire were crucial to the emperors' power, forming the backbone of their administrative structure. This mingling of spiritual and temporal power was wrong, according to the reformers; Saint Peter had condemned Simon Magus (the "Simon" of simony), who tried to buy spiritual power.
During the Middle Ages, few doubted the authenticity of the alleged papal letters. This changed during the fifteenth century, when humanist Latin scholars such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa noticed bizarre anachronisms (such as the claim that Clement I had based the preeminence of local churches on the presence of pagan high priests). During the sixteenth century, Protestant ecclesiastical historians such as the Centuriators of Magdeburg (the authors of the Magdeburg Centuries) systematically criticized the forgeries without yet recognizing them as an interconnected complex. The final proof was provided by Calvinist preacher David Blondel, who discovered that the popes from the early centuries quoted extensively from much-later authors and published his findings (Pseudoisidorus et Turrianus vapulantes) in 1628. Although Catholic theologians originally tried to defend the authenticity of at least some of the material, since the nineteenth century no serious theologian (or historian) has denied the forgeries.
During the Middle Ages, few doubted the authenticity of the alleged papal letters. This changed during the fifteenth century, when humanist Latin scholars such as Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa noticed bizarre anachronisms (such as the claim that Clement I had based the preeminence of local churches on the presence of pagan high priests). During the sixteenth century, Protestant ecclesiastical historians such as the Centuriators of Magdeburg (the authors of the Magdeburg Centuries) systematically criticized the forgeries without yet recognizing them as an interconnected complex.
The final proof was provided by Calvinist preacher David Blondel, who discovered that the popes from the early centuries quoted extensively from much-later authors and published his findings (Pseudoisidorus et Turrianus vapulantes) in 1628. Although Catholic theologians originally tried to defend the authenticity of at least some of the material, since the nineteenth century no serious theologian (or historian) has denied the forgeries. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudo-Isidorian_Decretals
n the middle of the ninth century—about 845—there arose the huge fabrication of the Isidorian decretals...About a hundred pretended decrees of the earliest Popes, together with certain spurious writings of other Church dignitaries and acts of Synods, were then fabricated in the west of Gaul, and eagerly seized upon Pope Nicholas I at Rome, to be used as genuine documents in support of the new claims put forward by himself and his successors.
That the pseudo–Isidorian principles eventually revolutionized the whole constitution of the Church, and introduced a new system in place of the old—on that point there can be no controversy among candid historians.
The most potent instrument of the new Papal system was Gratian’s Decretum, which issued about the middle of the twelfth century from the first school of Law in Europe, the juristic teacher of the whole of Western Christendom, Bologna. In this work the Isidorian forgeries were combined with those of the other Gregorian (Gregory VII) writers...and with Gratia’s own additions. His work displaced all the older collections of canon law, and became the manual and repertory, not for canonists only, but for the scholastic theologians, who, for the most part, derived all their knowledge of Fathers and Councils from it. No book has ever come near it in its influence in the Church, although there is scarcely another so chokeful of gross errors, both intentional and unintentional. (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 76-77, 79, 115-116)
. In his defense of the papacy Thomas [Aquinas in "Against the Errors of the Greeks," 1264] bases practically his entire argument on forged quotations of Church fathers. Under the names of the eminent Greek fathers such as Cyril of Jerusalem, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria and Maximus the Abbott, a Latin forger had compiled a catena of quotations interspersing a number that were genuine with many that were forged which was subsequently submitted to Pope Urban IV. This work became known as the Thesaurus of Greek Fathers or Thesaurus Graecorum Patrum. In addition the Latin author also included spurious canons from early Ecumenical Councils. Pope Urban in turn submitted the work to Thomas Aquinas who used many of the forged passages in his work Against the Errors of the Greeks mistakenly thinking they were genuine. These spurious quotations had enormous influence on many Western theologians in succeeding centuries....
Von Döllinger elaborates on the far reaching influence of these forgeries, especially in their association with the authority of Aquinas, on succeeding generations of theologians and their extensive use as a defense of the papacy:
In theology, from the beginning of the fourteenth century, the spurious passages of St. Cyril and forged canons of Councils maintained their ground, being guaranteed against all suspicion by the authority of St. Thomas. Since the work of Trionfo in 1320, up to 1450, it is remarkable that no single new work appeared in the interests of the Papal system. But then the contest between the Council of Basle and Pope Eugenius IV evoked the work of Cardinal Torquemada, besides some others of less importance. Torquemada’s argument, which was held up to the time of Bellarmine to be the most conslusive apology of the Papal system, rests entirely on fabrications later than the pseudo-Isidore, and chiefly on the spurious passages of St. Cyril. To ignore the authority of St. Thomas is, according to the Cardinal, bad enough, but to slight the testimony of St. Cyril is intolerable. The Pope is infallible; all authority of other bishops is borrowed or derived frorn his. Decisions of Councils without his assent are null and void. These fundamental principles of Torquemada are proved by spurious passages of Anacletus, Clement, the Council of Chalcedon, St. Cyril, and a mass of forged or adulterated testimonies. In the times of Leo X and Clement III, the Cardinals Thomas of Vio, or Cajetan, and Jacobazzi, followed closely in his footsteps. Melchior Canus built firmly on the authority of Cyril, attested by St. Thomas, and so did Bellarmine and the Jesuits who followed him.
Those who wish to get a bird’s–eye view of the extent to which the genuine tradition of Church authority was still overlaid and obliterated by the rubbish of later inventions and forgeries about 1563, when the Loci of Canus appeared, must read the fifth book of his work. It is indeed still worse fifty years later in this part of Bellarmine’s work. The difference is that Canus was honest in his belief, which cannot be said of Bellarmine.
The Dominicans, Nicolai, Le Quien, Quetif, and Echard, were the first to avow openly that their master St. Thomas, had been deceived by an imposter, and had in turn misled the whole tribe of theologians and canonists who followed him. On the one hand, the Jesuits, including even such a scholar as Labbe, while giving up the pseudo–Isidorian decretals, manifested their resolve to still cling to St. Cyril. In Italy, as late as 1713, Professor Andruzzi of Bologna cited the most important of the interpolations of St. Cyril as a conclusive argument in his controversial treatise against the patriarch Dositheus (Johann Joseph Ignaz von Döllinger, The Pope and the Council (Boston: Roberts, 1870), pp. 233-234).
To be brief, modern impartial scholarship is reasonably certain that the conventional conclusion which views the Gregorians as defenders of a consistently uniform tradition is largely fiction. ‘The emergence of a papal monarchy from the eleventh century onwards cannot be represented as the realization of a homogenous development, even within the relatively closed circle of the western, Latin, Church’ (R.A. Marcus, From Augustine to Gregory the Great (London: Variorum Reprints, 1983), p. 355). - William Webster, "Forgeries and the Papacy;" http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/forgeries.html
The Donation of Constantine
The Donation of Constantine (Latin: Donatio Constantini) is a forged Roman imperial decree by which the emperor Constantine the Great supposedly transferred authority over Rome and the western part of the Roman Empire to the Pope. Composed probably in the 8th century, it was used, especially in the 13th century, in support of claims of political authority by the papacy...The Donation of Constantine was included in the ninth century Pseudo-Isidorean Decretals collection.
During the Middle Ages, the Donation was widely accepted as authentic, although the Emperor Otto III did possibly raise suspicions of the document "in letters of gold" as a forgery, in making a gift to the See of Rome.[9] It was not until the mid-15th century, with the revival of Classical scholarship and textual criticism, that humanists, and eventually the papal bureaucracy, began to realize that the document could not possibly be genuine. Cardinal Nicholas of Cusa declared it to be a forgery[10][11] and spoke of it as an apocryphal work. Later, the Catholic priest Lorenzo Valla, in De falso credita et ementita Constantini donatione declamatio, proved the forgery with certainty.
Valla's treatise was taken up vehemently by writers of the Protestant Reformation, such as Ulrich von Hutten and Martin Luther, causing the treatise to be placed on the list of banned books in the mid-16th century. The Donation continued to be tacitly accepted as authentic until Caesar Baronius in his "Annales Ecclesiastici" (published 1588–1607) admitted that it was a forgery, after which it was almost universally accepted as such.[3] Some continued to argue for its authenticity; nearly a century after "Annales Ecclesiastici", Christian Wolff still alluded to the Donation as undisputed fact. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donation_of_Constantine
Liber Pontificalis
The Liber Pontificalis (Latin for Book of the Popes) is a book of biographies of popes from Saint Peter until the 15th century. The original publication of the Liber Pontificalis stopped with Pope Adrian II (867–872) or Pope Stephen V (885–891),[1] but it was later supplemented in a different style until Pope Eugene IV (1431–1447) and then Pope Pius II (1458–1464).[2] Although quoted virtually uncritically from the 8th to 18th century,[3] the Liber Pontificalis has undergone intense modern scholarly scrutiny. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liber_Pontificalis
Further reading by the grace of God.
Thanks fieldmarshaldj. I've added it to the catalog, but due to the sectarian turmoil am not pinging it.
Thanks for taking time to delineate the false foundations of Rome. I’ve clipped it into Evernote.
Do you perchance have a link to material on the growing body of Christ during the period from after the destruction of Jerusalem, say around 75 or 76 AD, for the ekklesia in Smyrna and Asia Minor, in general, from which Polycarp arose?
I’m not sure if what confused you was “public worship.” I mean church service, but I was avoiding debate on the nature of church service. (As a Catholic, I read that as mass, but others don’t believe similarly.)
The apocalypse of Peter is honored, but not included in church worship; it is not canonical.
“We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, [7b] though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.”
7b. The Apocalypse of Peter describes with some imaginative detail the torments of hell and the blessings of heaven. It was read with respect and used for admonition throughout the churches in early times.
Here again, the fragment’s author upholds the Shepherd of Hermas as something Christians should read, but as unfit for mass:
“But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.”
Yes...AND, the only true and COMPLETE form of Christianity on Earth.
When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” — Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians 10
I would refer you to what Paul said of giving/remembering the poor. Could Polycarp be referring to alms can prevent starvation? Could Polycarp be referring to the Bema Seat of Christ in Heaven?
Paul taught and the Apostles wrote that clearly, faith/faithing in Jesus as Savior saves from spiritual death, that fiathing in Jesus results in being born from above.
The book of the Acts of the Apostles records clearly that upon believing in Jesus as Whom God has sent for our Salvation, these were immediately born from above, not saved later after striving to be worthy of God's Grace. To infer one must in any way earn that Grace is to insult the Gift of Jesus for when we are Saved by His Sacrifice it is He Who is due all the glory, not any act by us, so alms do not save a Saved, born from above member of the Ekklesia.
Therefore, search for another way to understand that passage, because Polycarp was directly taught by John and would not place any salvific value in behaviors, just the Grace of God in Christ. Polycarp's trust in this salvific reality was so great that as an old man he WALKED from Smyrna to Rome to oppose the heresies arising there and defend keeping the Lords TAble celebrated on Nisan 14 and not changed to the pagan holiday observance that was done on the Sunday called then by the pagans, Easter.
Mary clarified it:
"The Most Holy Virgin in these last times in which we live has given a new efficacy to the recitation of the Rosary to such an extent that there is no problem,
no matter how difficult it is, wheter temporal or above all spiritual, in the personal life of each one of us, of our families...that cannot be solved by the Rosary.
There is no problem, I tell you, no matter how difficult it is, that we cannot resolve by the prayer of the Holy Rosary."
Sister Lucia dos Santos
The 15 promises(Given to St. Dominic and Blessed Alan de la Roche)
1 Whoever shall faithfully serve me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall receive powerful graces. 2. I promise my special protection and the greatest graces to all those who shall recite the Rosary. 3. The Rosary shall be a powerful armor against hell, it will destroy vice, decrease sin, and defeat heresies 4. It will cause virtue and good works to flourish; it will obtain for souls the abundant mercy of God; it will withdraw the hearts of people from the love of the world and its vanities, and will lift them to the desire of eternal things. Oh, that souls would sanctify themselves by this means. 5. The soul which recommends itself to me by the recitation of the Rosary, shall not perish. 6. Whoever shall recite the Rosary devoutly, applying Himself to the consideration of its Sacred Mysteries shall never be conquered by misfortune. God will not chastise Him in His justice, he shall not perish by an unprovided death; if he be just, he shall remain in the grace of God, and become worthy of eternal life. 7. Whoever shall have a true devotion for the Rosary shall not die without the Sacraments of the Church. 8. Those who are faithful to recite the Rosary shall have during their life and at their death the light of God and the plentitude of His graces; at the moment of death they shall participate in the merits of the Saints in Paradise. 9. I shall deliver from purgatory those who have been devoted to the Rosary. 10. The faithful children of the Rosary shall merit a high degree of glory in Heaven. 11. You shall obtain all you ask of me by the recitation of the Rosary. 12. All those who propagate the Holy Rosary shall be aided by me in their necessities. 13. I have obtained from my Divine Son that all the advocates of the Rosary shall have for intercessors the entire celestial court during their life and at the hour of death 14. All who recite the Rosary are my children, and brothers and sisters of my only Son, Jesus Christ. 15. Devotion of my Rosary is a great sign of predestination.
Wow, you sure belittled my post with grand style ...
Jes tryin’ to help!
:^)
Technically speaking, the term "vellum" is strictly for cow/calf skin. Parchment is the proper term for goat, sheep or other skins.
No, that would take some research and more material, but while piety and basic faith remained, there was an progressive amount of false teachings adopted under the premise of such traditions being the word of God, yet conspicuously absent in the NT. And it took about just 250 post-apostolic years before we have the likes of Damasus 1 (366-384) who began his reign by employing a gang of thugs in seeking to secure his chair, which carried out a three-day massacre of his rivals supporters. Yet true to form, Rome made him a "saint."
Kelly, J. N. D.:
Upon Pope Liberius's death September 24 A.D. 366, violent disorders broke out over the choice of a successor. A group who had remained consistently loyal to Liberius immediately elected his deacon Ursinus in the Julian basilica and had him consecrated Bishop, but the rival faction of Felix's adherence elected Damasus, who did not hesitate to consolidate his claim by hiring a gang of thugs, storming the Julian Basilica in carrying out a three-day massacre of the Ursinians.
On Sunday, October 1 his partisans seized the Lateran Basilica, and he was there consecrated. He then sought the help of the city prefect (the first occasion of a Pope in enlisting the civil power against his adversaries), and he promptly expelled Ursinus and his followers from Rome. Mob violence continued until October 26, when Damasus's men attacked the Liberian Basilica, where the Ursinians had sought refuge; the pagan historian Ammianus Marcellinus reports that they left 137 dead on the field. Damasus was now secure on his throne; but the bishops of Italy were shocked by the reports they received, and his moral authority was weakened for several years...
Damasus enjoy the favor of court and aristocracy,... His magnificent lifestyle and hospitality help to break down the anti-Christian prejudices of upper-class pagan families. He was active in repressing heresies, including Arianism, and did not scruple to call in the secular power..
Damasus was indefatigable in promoting the Roman primacy, frequently referring to Rome as 'the apostolic see' and ruling that the test of a creed's orthodoxy was its endorsement by the Pope. In 378, he persuaded the government to recognize the holy see as a court of first instance and also of appeal for the Western episcopate... In tune with his ideas, Theodosius 1 (379-95) declared (February 27, 380) Christianity the state religion in that form from which the Romans had once [imagined they] received from St. Peter, and Damasus of Rome and Peter of Alexandria now professed; for Damasus this primacy was not based on decisions of synods, as were the claims of Constantinople, but exclusively on his [presumption of] being the direct successor of St. Peter and so the rightful heir of the promises made to him by Christ (Mt. 16:18)
This [false claim to] succession gave him a unique [presumptuous claim to] judicial power to bind and loose, and the assurance of this infused all his rulings on church discipline. -Kelly, J. N. D. (1989). The Oxford Dictionary of Popes. USA: Oxford University Press. pp. 32,34. Comments in [brackets] are mine.
An event of major historical importance for the future of the papacy was the conversion of the king of the Franks, Clovis, to Catholicism. From the historical standpoint it is certainly note-worthy that this conversion (probably in 496) occurred during the period in which many basic papal themes were germinating. The role which Constantine played within the Roman empire and its ecclesiastical organization, was to be played in the West by Clovis, called the new Constantine. While however the real Constantine's ecclesiastical policy was grafted on the ancient Roman structure, the Franks were in course of time to become vital instruments in the hands of the papacy...
Historically speaking, the conversion of Clovis provided the papacy with a platform from which it was able to deploy its own governmental schemes safely. Yet at exactly the same time the first internal ideological fissures began to shake the papacy in Reine. These were to lead to serious faction fights and tensions within the bosom of the Roman church. The significance of this internal papal situation was that two parties had constituted themselves, and these two parties were motivated by distinctly different outlooks, the one realizing the futility of carrying on within the confines and terms of the Roman empire, the other aiming at an appeasement of the imperial government in Constantinople....
This internal papal schism was the occasion which stimulated forgeries on a hitherto unknown scale. One of the so-called Symmachan forgeries (the name did not imply that the pope himself was involved) invented a synod held at Sinuessa during the reign of Diocletian in which speeches and statements were made that were to serve as a justification of the synod held in Rome in 501. Another forgery concocted one more council summoned and chaired by Pope Silvester (who rapidly gained legendary fame) in which the recently baptized Constantine also took part. According to this forgery a great number of decrees were issued, of which the last in particular attracted attention: 'Nobody can sit in judgment on the first (apostolic) see which distributes rightful justice to all. Neither the emperor nor the whole clergy nor kings nor people can judge the supreme judge.'...
_These Symmachan forgeries exercised a very powerful influence, because they dealt with topics of direct concern to the papacy. They were included in a number ol collections of canon law and formed, so to speak, the backbone of the constitutional position of the pope. The sentence 'The first (apostolic) see cannot be judged by anyone' showed persuasively how clearly the forger had grasped the notion of the pope's personal sovereignty: he had not received power from those who had elected him, and hence they could not take it away. The pope, in other words, formed an estate of his own. One cannot be surprised that this statement still forms a vital clement in the present-day canon law (can. 1556}.
...less than two generations earlier two popes, Zosimus and Boniface I, had expressed a view which in substance was identical with the one contained in the forgery (see above p. 18). Where the forger scored was in his better and more concise and impressive diction. - A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages By Waiter Ulmann, A Short History of the Papacy in the Middle Ages, pp. 23,24
The sixth century found Rome sunk too low by war and pestilence for many churches to be built; but at this time took place the transformation of ancient buildings into Christian shrines. Instead of despising the relics of paganism, the Roman priesthood prudently gathered to themselves all that could be adopted from the old world.
The Bishop of Rome assumed the position of Ponlifex Maximus, priest and temporal ruler in one, and the workings of this so-called spiritual kingdom, with bishops as senators, and priests as leaders of the army, followed on much the same lines as the empire. The analogy was more complete when monasteries were founded and provinces were won and governed by the Church. - Welbore St. Clair Baddeley, Lina Duff Gordon, “Rome and its story” p. 176
Even Cath scholarship provides testimony against the propaganda of Rome.
Newman: We are told in various ways by Eusebius [Note 16], that Constantine, in order to recommend the new religion to the heathen, transferred into it the outward ornaments to which they had been accustomed in their own. It is not necessary to go into a subject which the diligence of Protestant writers has made familiar to most of us.
The use of temples, and these dedicated to particular saints, and ornamented on occasions with branches of trees; incense, lamps, and candles; votive offerings on recovery from illness; holy water; asylums; holydays and seasons, use of calendars, processions, blessings on the fields; sacerdotal vestments, the tonsure, the ring in marriage, turning to the East, images at a later date, perhaps the ecclesiastical chant, and the Kyrie Eleison [Note 17], are all of pagan origin, and sanctified by their adoption into the Church. {374}
The introduction of Images was still later, and met with more opposition in the West than in the East. John Henry Newman, An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine, Chapter 8. Application of the Third Note of a True Development—Assimilative Power; http://www.newmanreader.org/works/development/chapter8.html
While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles....In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. - (John Henry Newman, Essay on the Development of Doctrine, Notre Dame edition, pp. 165,166).
Jerome"“The presbyter is the same as the bishop, and before parties had been raised up in religion by the provocations of Satan, the churches were governed by the Senate of the presbyters...
If you doubt that bishop and presbyter are the same, that the first word is one of function, and the second one of age, read the epistle of the Apostle to the Philippians. Without doubt it is the duty of the presbyters to bear in mind that by the discipline of the Church they are subordinated to him who has been given them as their head, but it is fitting that the bishops, on their side, do not forget that if they are set over the presbyters, it is the result of tradition, and not by the fact of a particular institution of the Lord. - 4th century RC scholar and priest Jerome, Commentary on Tit. 1.7, quoted. in “Religions of authority and the religion of the spirit," pp. 77,78. 1904, by AUGUSTE SABATIER. A similar translated version of this is provided by "Catholic World," Volume 32, by the Paulist Fathers, 1881, pp. 73,74).
Greg Dues: Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions. When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice [after Rome's theology], the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests.
Soon all presbyters were considered priests because they offered the Eucharistic sacrifice. To keep a distinction between them and the Bishops, the latter were called "high priests" [which in Greek is archiereus]. Our word "priest" is directly related to the Greek word presbyteros and the Latin presbyter. This [the] latter was shortened to "prester," giving us our English "priest. (Catholic author Greg Dues in "Catholic Customs & Traditions: A Popular Guide," pp. 166,168)
Eamon Duffy (Former president of Magdalene College and member of Pontifical Historical Commission, and current Professor of the History of Christianity at the University of Cambridge):
The conversion of Constatine had propelled the Bishops of Rome into the heart of the Roman establishment...They [bishops of Rome] set about [creating a Christian Rome] by building churches, converting the modest tituli (community church centres) into something grander, and creating new and more public foundations, though to begin with nothing that rivaled the great basilicas at the Lateran and St. Peter’s...
These churches were a mark of the upbeat confidence of post-Constantinian Christianity in Rome. The popes were potentates, and began to behave like it. Damasus perfectly embodied this growing grandeur. An urbane career cleric like his predecessor Liberius, at home in the wealthy salons of the city, he was also a ruthless power-broker, and he did not he did not hesitate to mobilize both the city police and [a hired mob of gravediggers with pickaxes] to back up his rule…
Self-consciously, the popes began to model their actions and their style as Christian leaders on the procedures of the Roman state. — Eamon Duffy “Saints and Sinners”, p. 37,38
Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,”...Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
“...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. - Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221,222,224
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
Schatz additionally states,
Cyprian regarded every bishop as the successor of Peter, holder of the keys to the kingdom of heaven and possessor of the power to bind and loose. For him, Peter embodied the original unity of the Church and the episcopal office, but in principle these were also present in every bishop. For Cyprian, responsibility for the whole Church and the solidarity of all bishops could also, if necessary, be turned against Rome." — Papal Primacy [Collegeville, Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996], p. 20)
American Roman Catholic priest and Biblical scholar Raymond Brown (twice appointed to Pontifical Biblical Commission), finds,
“The claims of various sees to descend from particular members of the Twelve are highly dubious. It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense – a confirmation of our contention that whatever succession there was from apostleship to episcopate, it was primarily in reference to the Puauline type of apostleship, not that of the Twelve.” (“Priest and Bishop, Biblical Reflections,” Nihil Obstat, Imprimatur, 1970, pg 72.)
Tobit is a spurious fantastic tale, with a a women, Sarah, who has lost seven husbands because Asmodeus, the demon of lust, and ‘the worst of demons’, abducts and kills every man she marries on their wedding night before the marriage can be consummated! (The women at the well had nothing on her.)
And about a man, Tobias, who was sleeping with his eyes open while birds dropped dung into in his eyes (sound sleeper!) and blinded him. And who later is attacked by a fish leaping out of the river to devour him! But Raphael has him capture it and later he burns the fish’s liver and heart to drive away the demon Asmodeus away to Upper Egypt, enabling him and Sarah to consummate his marriage. .
The officially approved NAB Bible says in its intro to Tobit that it is folklore, ass if that was not obvious, and in rejecting this, thank God, we have not followed "cunningly devised fables", "Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth." (Titus 1:14)
When you can do good, defer it not, because “alms delivers from death.” — Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle to the Philippians 10
In the sense that God may have mercy on a virtuous and penitent soul who does good,
The Lord give mercy unto the house of Onesiphorus; for he oft refreshed me, and was not ashamed of my chain: (2 Timothy 1:16)
But not as purchasing redemption:
Riches profit not in the day of wrath: but righteousness delivereth from death. (Proverbs 11:4)
Treasures of wickedness profit nothing: but righteousness delivereth from death. (Proverbs 10:2)
They that trust in their wealth, and boast themselves in the multitude of their riches; None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever:) (Psalms 49:6-8)
Fitting name. But have we declined in any areas from what we once were or did? For that is yes.
Amos 3:7 “Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets.”
>>Which prophet revealed what God decided your canon would be?<<
If you read that verse in context you would see He is talking about His plans for Israel - His chosen people. In other words, when the Lord God decides to do something, he will first tell his servants, the prophets.
The Holy Spirit was who inspired the prophets, the holy men of God, to write the truths God revealed. That same Holy Spirit is who opens the spiritual eyes and ears of believers to hear the voice of God in those precious writings HE has preserved through the ages. Of course, we also have the word of God that tells us how to tell the difference between genuine prophets and false ones.
Which is a verse that is misappropriated by just about every elitist cult in claiming to have exclusive knowledge, so it is appropriate that RC defenders (presuming you are) would do the same.
And if you do, and since the word of God coming to a prophet is an infallible revelatory event, then tell us when Rome provided this infallible. indisputable canon of Scripture.
And how many of those 1B+ Catholics really follow all of that stuff?
Most likely WAY more than 1/2 of them are “Cradle Catholics” and relate to Catholicism solely for that reason.
They just accept the branding (the “mark” branded on them by posters here if they were “baptized” in the Catholic sprinkle ceremony) and go on their merry way as “Catholics” and know nothing of basic Christianity, salvation and a personal relationship with Jesus.
What a system which allows to say Catholicism is made of over one billion *ahem* ‘Christians’ who are waiting to die to see where they end up.
Thank God for the simple salvation message that Jesus sent us through the Gospels.
May many misled sincere Catholics find it through all the clutter of extra Biblical “traditions” made up to keep people corralled in a belief system that does not feed them spiritually.
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.
