Protestants are truth?

[Contarini]

The secular, non biased, historical perspective points to Catholicism. I was taught in my AP World History Class at a public high school, that Jesus started the Papacy, even though many protestants will object.

Well, that was far from “unbiased”

Most secular scholars, for instance, don’t think that Jesus ever told Peter “upon you I will build my church,” and even if he did it’s not at all clear that this refers to the Papacy. Many scholars think that Matthew was written by a Christian living at Antioch and that Peter is exalted because of the connection with Antioch, not Rome.

The Papacy is a theological claim that can be supported by sound historical arguments. But the claim that “Jesus founded the Papacy” is not a “unbiased” historical claim, or even a responsible one to make in a secular context.

Edwin

 

[jcrichton]

Hello my fellow Catholics,

I recently heard something that unnerved me a bit and I was wondering what you guys think.

Basically it said that Protestants are the true church and they were simply not in existence before the reformation. The claim was that the church died with the apostle John in about 100 AD. What do you guys think. I don’t mean to be rude as I am a Catholic as well, but I think we should analyze this from a secular, non biased, historical, perspective. Any ideas?

Hi, Spud!
…is Christ a liar?

…is God incompetent?

…is the Holy Spirit simply a wisp of energy (JW)?

…if Christ is not a liar, and God is not incompetent, and the Holy Spirit is not a gush of God’s Spirit but in actuality God, then the Church could not have died/dissolved/disappeared/gone into hiding/gone underground at the death of the last Apostle!

Christ stated, much to the gangrene of non-Catholic theology, that He had to Go to the Father in order for Him to Send the other Paraclete (the Holy Spirit); the Coming of the Holy Spirit hinged on Christ’s Return to the Father; since God is immutable, it was Decreed from the Beginning: firstly, the Father would be Revealed, secondly, the Son would be Revealed, and thirdly, the Holy Spirit would be Revealed.

Before Returning to the Father Jesus told His Disciples (Eleven) that He would Send the Holy Spirit, Who would abide with the Church and in the Church, and that He Himself would not abandon the Church but would Remain with her till the end of times (ages).

Man is finite. Physical death reached all of Jesus’ Apostles… but does that mean that Jesus’ and the Holy Spirit’s Divinity would cease at the end of the Apostles temporal existence? Since Jesus and the Holy Spirit are Omnipotent there’s no way that the Church would have evaporated into non-existence just because a few of her original members passed into eternity.

When people listen to Scriptures, they will find that the Holy Spirit is unfolding that Truth which Jesus foretold that He (the other Paraclete) would Reveal… it is verified in Scriptures as the emerging Church begins to take shape (preaching of Gospels, Writing of Gospel, facing arising schisms and heresies, creating Doctrine, and refining understanding of worship and Revelation): in short, the Holy Spirit prepares the Church for the long haul!

Protestant theology (as well as all other) must reject Catholic theology in order to obtain legitimacy!

Say, you had a book that demonstrated that your ancestry dates back to US colonial days and I want to claim that I, not you, am the true inheritor of that legacy… well, I must make your book void!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Well, that was far from “unbiased”

Most secular scholars, for instance, don’t think that Jesus ever told Peter “upon you I will build my church,” and even if he did it’s not at all clear that this refers to the Papacy. Many scholars think that Matthew was written by a Christian living at Antioch and that Peter is exalted because of the connection with Antioch, not Rome.

The Papacy is a theological claim that can be supported by sound historical arguments. But the claim that “Jesus founded the Papacy” is not a “unbiased” historical claim, or even a responsible one to make in a secular context.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin!
…the problem with fallacy is that those who engage in it swear they are being factual… to suggest that only the Gospel of St. Matthew directs us to Cephas’s primacy would be tantamount to removing all text in all the passages that unambiguously point to it! :juggle:

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PraiseChrist]

Well, that was far from “unbiased”

Most secular scholars, for instance, don’t think that Jesus ever told Peter “upon you I will build my church,” and even if he did it’s not at all clear that this refers to the Papacy. Many scholars think that Matthew was written by a Christian living at Antioch and that Peter is exalted because of the connection with Antioch, not Rome.

The Papacy is a theological claim that can be supported by sound historical arguments. But the claim that “Jesus founded the Papacy” is not a “unbiased” historical claim, or even a responsible one to make in a secular context.

Edwin

Hi,

Though I was told this, there are secular scholars who definitely object.
I would say, though, that the Papacy is supported more historically than thought.
From St Irenaeus’ Against Heresies:

1. Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

I apologize for any misleadings I caused

All the best

 

[Contarini]

Hi,

Though I was told this, there are secular scholars who definitely object.
I would say, though, that the Papacy is supported more historically than thought.
From St Irenaeus’ Against Heresies:

I apologize for any misleadings I caused

All the best

Most scholars–including Catholic scholars–question Irenaeus’ list of Popes. It differs to some extent from some other similar lists. And more seriously, there is a striking silence from early-second-century texts concerning a “monarchical bishop” in Rome. The dominant view right now is that there were a bunch of local churches in Rome led by presbyters, with one of them having the job of corresponding with other churches but no single bishop of the kind Ignatius talks about. (One of the pieces of “evidence by silence” supporting this is Ignatius’ letter to the Romans–why would so staunch an advocate of monarchical episcopacy fail to mention the name of the bishop of Rome, when he does that in writing to all the other churches? Also see I Clement, which is written in the name of the whole Roman church and does not at any point identify Clement as a bishop.)

I don’t think this is fatal to Catholic claims at all. For one thing, these scholars may be wrong–scholarly theories, even very popular ones, have turned out to be wrong before. There may be explanations for all the suspicious bits of silence, and some decisive evidence might turn up tomorrow that will turn the whole thing on its head. But in the second place, even if they are right, the concept of the Papacy could have developed out of the “presbyter in charge of correspondence.” In fact, if that was the office that eventually became seen as the “monarchical episcopate” of Rome, it would underline how “universal” the Papacy was from the very beginning.

But Irenaeus’ list does not, in fact, settle the matter, given the currently dominant scholarly view that it reads late-second-century conditions back into the first and early second centuries.

Edwin

 

[jcrichton]

Most scholars–including Catholic scholars–question Irenaeus’ list of Popes. It differs to some extent from some other similar lists. And more seriously, there is a striking silence from early-second-century texts concerning a “monarchical bishop” in Rome. The dominant view right now is that there were a bunch of local churches in Rome led by presbyters, with one of them having the job of corresponding with other churches but no single bishop of the kind Ignatius talks about. (One of the pieces of “evidence by silence” supporting this is Ignatius’ letter to the Romans–why would so staunch an advocate of monarchical episcopacy fail to mention the name of the bishop of Rome, when he does that in writing to all the other churches? Also see I Clement, which is written in the name of the whole Roman church and does not at any point identify Clement as a bishop.)

I don’t think this is fatal to Catholic claims at all. For one thing, these scholars may be wrong–scholarly theories, even very popular ones, have turned out to be wrong before. There may be explanations for all the suspicious bits of silence, and some decisive evidence might turn up tomorrow that will turn the whole thing on its head. But in the second place, even if they are right, the concept of the Papacy could have developed out of the “presbyter in charge of correspondence.” In fact, if that was the office that eventually became seen as the “monarchical episcopate” of Rome, it would underline how “universal” the Papacy was from the very beginning.

But Irenaeus’ list does not, in fact, settle the matter, given the currently dominant scholarly view that it reads late-second-century conditions back into the first and early second centuries.

Edwin

Hi, Edwin!
…the problem with scholastic (higher educated guessers) is that they form opinions based on personal/current biases (many seeking to be as original as the inventor of “x”); they reason from 20/20 hindsight (yes, including * “Catholic” theologians/scholars) attempting to apply their rational by measuring against what is known and unknown. I can recall when John’s Gospel was rejected as genuine and as a “proof” the Pool of Bethesda was cited–the 20/20 hindsighters hinged their contention on "not found on the other Gospels. Clearly, the educated minds knew what they were talking about… well… not!:

The Pool of Bethesda is a pool of water in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem, on the path of the Beth Zeta Valley. The fifth chapter of the Gospel of John describes such a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. It is associated with healing. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel for the existence of this pool; therefore, scholars argued that the gospel was written later, probably by someone without first-hand knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, and that the “pool” had only a metaphorical, rather than historical, significance.[1]

In the 19th century, archaeologists discovered the remains of a pool fitting the description in John’s Gospel.[2] (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pool_of_Bethesda

)
…so, since they did not have evidence at hand… scholars surmised (and most likely assured it was evidential fact) that there was hanky-panky (retrofitting) going on with the Gospel of St. John. Rather than considering that they just did not have all the facts, they jumped to conclude: “error” and “manipulation.”

If scholars and layman alike would accept, the Doctrine of the Church was developed through time both to organize the practice of Worship and to fight heresies–the latter being significant (though I would dare stress “paramount”) to setting in writing the various dogmas and terminologies that would define the Faith. Conversely, only when challenged would there be a need to solidify (as in clarify, define and write down) matters pertinent to Church Doctrine/practice.

We find this very practice in Scriptures as the Apostles preached the Good News for many years before the need of the Writings arose. Once the challenges (contentions and heresies) presented themselves they were quickly addressed–St. Peter, Inspired by the Holy Spirit, had the need to legitimize the Writings as (extra-Biblical) forces began to question St. Paul’s Epistles:

15 Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16 He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

(2 St. Peter 3:15-16)
If there was no challenge to the primacy of Peter, and his Office, why would there be a need to emphasize it? (…there would be time enough in the coming centuries!)

Even the “Disciple that the Lord loved” demonstrated his reverence for Cephas:

3 So Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb. 4 Both were running, but the other disciple outran Peter and reached the tomb first. 5 He bent over and looked in at the strips of linen lying there but did not go in. 6 Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb.

(St. John 20:3-6a)
Maran atha!

Angel*

 

[Contarini]

Hi, Edwin!
…the problem with scholastic (higher educated guessers) is that they form opinions based on personal/current biases (many seeking to be as original as the inventor of “x”); they reason from 20/20 hindsight (yes, including * “Catholic” theologians/scholars) attempting to apply their rational by measuring against what is known and unknown. I can recall when John’s Gospel was rejected as genuine and as a “proof” the Pool of Bethesda was cited–the 20/20 hindsighters hinged their contention on "not found on the other Gospels. *

That is why I said, above, that new discoveries could change the picture.

Here’s the thing: don’t invoke “secular, unbiased” scholarship and then refuse to be judged by it.

I brought all of this up because PraiseChrist said that “the secular, nonbiased, historical perspective points to Catholicism.”

Edwin

 

[Lenten_ashes]

That is why I said, above, that new discoveries could change the picture.

Here’s the thing: don’t invoke “secular, unbiased” scholarship and then refuse to be judged by it.

I brought all of this up because PraiseChrist said that “the secular, nonbiased, historical perspective points to Catholicism.”

Edwin

I think the bottom line is we just dont have enough very early patristic work to make a strong case for papacy. The Church was under heavy persecution …and i bet there existed much more very interesting documents that didnt survive the fire.

Thankfully we can make a solid case scripturally though. When the Orthodox are actually admitting Roman primacy there’s not much more left to debate ,imo.

Pax

 

[jcrichton]

That is why I said, above, that new discoveries could change the picture.

Here’s the thing: don’t invoke “secular, unbiased” scholarship and then refuse to be judged by it.

I brought all of this up because PraiseChrist said that “the secular, nonbiased, historical perspective points to Catholicism.”

Edwin

Hi, Edwin!
I understand your argument. Perhaps PraiseChrist meant to say that an unbiased study of Scriptures (exegesis removed from theological/secular bias) points to Christ’s institution of the Church on Cephas, making St. Peter the first “Pope”–a term that would not be adopted till later on in Church history. Much like the term “Apostle” which Jesus never used but it was later attributed to the Twelve, then to the Eleven, then again to the Twelve, then to the Thirteen, then…

Maran atha!

Angel