reply to
post by Devino
It's not like selling the Vatican would actually do any real good, I mean in the world today $500 billion isn't that much money. The point is the
Catholic Church stands in contrast to their own religion.
The Church went against Jesus' original teachings or what is called being against-Christ (anti-Christ), from that we now have several thousand
different religions and a myriad of churches.
The New Testament is part and parcel of the broad questions raised in religious thought that are known as: immortality and personal salvation, i.e.,
on escaping this world for a better heavenly life. At the same time, the NT is completely dominated by an apocalyptic world view of the future. The
writers believed all will be resolved by the decisive intervention of God, the End of the Age, the Battle of Armageddon, the last great Judgment, and
the eternal Kingdom of God.
The new Christology - evolving the messiah into god - that develops during the late first century, is thoroughly “Hellenistic” - Greek mythology -
with Jesus as the human to be transformed into the pre-existent, divine, Son of God, who sits at the right hand of God and is the Lord of the cosmos.
The whole complex of ideas about multiple levels of heaven, fate, angels, saints, demons, miracles and magic abound. In Dante’s Divine Comedy - him
a devout Catholic - he merely recreated in literature what had already evolved into the Catholic catechism of the Middle Ages. See on the outside of
any cathedral in Europe for examples of all those critters carved into stone!
The NT is as if all the questions hinted at in the Hebrew Bible - Christian OT - only begins to explore. Such questions about theodicy, justice, human
purpose, history, death, sin - are all suddenly answered with a loud and resounding “Yes!” There is little, if any, struggle remaining to
complete. There are a few haunting questions, but no genuine tragedy or meaningless suffering. All is guaranteed; all will shortly be worked out.
Beginning in 1517 with Martin Luther various attempts have been made to reinterpret early Christianity as a message for our time, but usually is
limited to terms of ethics or some existential core of truth. The Pentecostal and traditional Catholics still take the Holy Bible to be literally true
but no educated person could make that case today.
History. I seriously doubt that St. Peter was ever in Rome. But Note: The current Church hierarchy’s occasional references to “finding” new
archeological evidence supporting the claim (of Peter in Rome) must mean we are about to be treated to a rerun of the St. James ossuary “find.”
End.
Back to Peter. The hazards of traveling the Mediterranean aside - well recorded by St. Paul - there would have been no reason for Peter to travel from
Jerusalem to Rome. That was a month long sea voyage at best. 6 months overland with even more hazards. Only the most urgent of matters would have sent
anyone to Rome. As in life or death.
My concern involves the historic “Church Fathers.” The church of the First Century AD was organized as a stand-alone autonomous congregation. The
local congregational leadership followed the biblical directives. The office of bishop is also called elder or overseer (presbyter) in the NT. These
senior men were to posses these qualifications: to be men of good repute, husbands of one wife and with faithful children. When installed, they were
charged with the supremely important task of assuring adherence to the faith!
Another church office, the deacons did the heavy lifting and the evangelists were the ones out front doing the preaching. This is the New Testament
description of the first church of Christ!
The Romans dispersed many Jews of every ilk from Judea following the crushing of the Revolt of 66-73 AD. The number of independent churches grew
exponentially. By the end of the First Century AD, it is safe to say there were 1,000s of congregations. Some were larger and some were richer than
the others but all of those congregations had their own bishop. The cities of Rome and Alexandria must have had dozens of congregations and
consequently, dozens of bishops, all at the same time.
The next Jewish diaspora followed on Rome’s crushing of the second revolt in 132 to 135 AD. It was led by Simon bar Kochva. It was temporarily the
more successful revolt of the two. The rebels actually minted coins during their short lived revolt. And again, this dispersion of people would also
have resulted in the establishment of still more early Christian congregations around the Mediterranean basin. Remember that at the beginning, all
Christians were Jews! That was still the case in Judea.
Alexandria, Egypt is the city having a larger Jewish population outside of Judea including Jerusalem. One of the bishops of Alexandria was Cyril,
another was Clement and a third was Athanasius. The “accepted” dates of their service fit neatly into the Roman Church’s own ecclesiastical
history of the world. But that’s really a chicken and egg thing. I’m suggesting that at any one time in the early centuries there may have been 10
or 20 bishops in Alexandria or Rome.
Discounting the James and Peter interview with Paul in Jerusalem around 45 or 50 AD, the first church council was called in 325 AD, by Emperor
Constantine. It was
NOT called by the Bishop of Rome.
The emperor was more powerful than any individual bishop. More proof Constantine was the more influential is evidenced by the response of the bishops.
The Council was convened in the small town of Nicaea (which is now Iznik) in Turkey, about 43 miles from southwest of the city of Byzantium (which is
now Istanbul). The council was
NOT convened in Rome as you might expect if the Bishop of Rome was in fact the King of the Hill! As a fact, the
bishop of Rome Sylvester DID NOT ATTEND the Council! More evidence of his LACK of standing.
Again, this demonstrates the relative insignificance placed on the bishopric of Rome as late as the 4th century AD. From the skimpy records extant it
is generally accepted that about 250 bishops attended (out of an estimated 318 bishops - but whose estimate is this? Why not estimate 1,318 bishops?).
The Roman Church claims a certain man named Sylvester was the Bishop of Rome. I submit Sylvester was but one of a dozen or more “bishops” IN Rome.
There is no evidence he was bishop OF Rome outside the Catholic Encyclopedia.
The Roman Church designates Sylvester as “the First” which fits with their writing of history after the fact. I have come to the conclusion that
the church we know today and call the Roman Catholic Church was founded around 476 AD, the year the last Roman emperor fled Rome never to return.
That’s consistent with Sir Edward Gibbon’s view of history.
Epilogue. Benito Mussolini did the Church its greatest service in 1929, when he forced the Pope to sign the Lateran Treaty. That took the Church out
of DIRECT and open involvement in world politics. The Church is still deep into covert involvement especially in the Western Hemisphere south of the
Rio Grande River, but as younger men rise to the Curia, it is getting to be less so. The Treaty created the legal Vatican City of today. Oh, for his
trouble, the Pope promptly excommunicated Mussolini for deigning to defy the Holy Mother Church and its Vicar of Christ, the embodiment of GOD on
earth!
Oh, the Pope did not get promoted to “infallible” status until the Vatican Council in the early 1870s. Now alluded to as the FIRST Vatican
Council following the Second Vatican Council called by Pope John XXIII.
[edit on 10/15/2009 by donwhite]
