Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why do Catholics Have a Pope? (A Protestant explains the papacy) [Ecumenical]
Crosswalk ^ | Sarah Jennings

Posted on 05/20/2008 10:10:12 AM PDT by NYer

Product photo


Pope:
From the Greek word papas, a term of endearment meaning "papa" or "daddy."

With the recent, historic visit of Pope Benedict XVI to the U.S., many Christians may be wondering what exactly Catholics believe about the robed figure with the German accent and his line of predecessors. Why do Catholics have a Pope? Do Catholics worship him? Is his authority political, spiritual, or is he just a figurehead?

While I had a basic understanding of the Catholic papacy before his visit, I didn't fully grasp it. So, in an effort to better understand this central figure in Christendom and to help Christians more effectively dialogue, I dove into some heady reading materials from both Catholic and non-Catholic sources. Hopefully, my explanation here will offer some clarity on what Catholics really believe.

First, a summary: For Catholics, the Pope is more than a ceremonial leader. The Pope is considered the spiritual successor to the Apostle Peter. As successor to the "Chair of Peter," he is the Supreme Pastor of the Catholic Church, God's steward ordained to authoritatively teach, unify, and protect God's people, keeping them free from error and deception (CCC 882, 890).

Of his many official titles, the Pope is the Bishop of Rome and the head of the Magisterium (the teaching authority of the Church made up of the college of Bishops). He holds the final word on matters of faith and morals (known as "papal infallibility"). In the words of the Catechism of the Catholic Church (937): The Pope enjoys, by divine institution, 'supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls' (CD 2)."

There's a lot of strong wording here, but before we dive into some of the details, it's important to clarify that Catholics, in fact, do not worship the Pope or see him as a replacement of Christ or the Heavenly Father. From the Catholic perspective, the office of the papacy affirms Christ's Kingship and the Church's confidence in the Holy Spirit to guide believers. So, to fully understand the relationship Catholics have with the man they call both "Papa" and "Supreme Pontiff," let's look at a source all Christians have in common: Scripture.

Matthew 16: 13-19

While Catholic doctrine pulls from many Scriptures when defining Church authority, Matthew 16:13-19 is one of the most important. Indeed, Catholic teachings point to Matthew 16: 18 as the moment when Christ officially instituted Peter as the first Pope, so it's worth spending the bulk of our time here.

The scene opens with Jesus and the Twelve in the region of Caesarea Philippi – an area where ancient pagan worship of the Greek god Pan – the god of Spring and shepherds – once flourished (Ray 1999, 32-33). It was a dramatic place located on the side of a mountain with a sheer rock wall overshadowing the town with Pan's namesake, Paneas. Adding to the already stunning landscape, a temple to the Roman Caesar Augustus stood at the wall's highest point. The scene is ripe with symbolism for Catholics. Catholic apologist Stephen Ray points out, "By choosing this location for the appointment, Jesus clearly shows that he is setting up his divine kingdom in opposition to the worldly kingdom of the Roman Caesars, who claimed divinity for themselves" (1999, 32).

When Jesus came to the region of Ceasarea Philippi, he asked his disciples "Who do people say the Son of Man is?"

They replied, "Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets."

"But what about you?' he asked. "Who do you say I am?'

Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven."

The Catholic Church sees three important points here:

  1. The Primacy of Simon Bar-Jonah above the other apostles demonstrated through his divinely-inspired response to Jesus.
  2. The establishment of Simon Bar-Jonah, renamed "Peter," as the Rock from which Christ expressed intention to build His Church.
  3. The handing over of the keys to the kingdom with the authority to "loose" and "bind."

Simon's divinely-inspired response. While our ears may have become numb to these passages over the centuries, this moment was, no doubt, as dramatic as the surrounding landscape – one on which Protestants and Catholics alike hinge their faith. Jesus' earthly ministry had made waves among the Jews and Gentiles. The apostles here recount how, in awe of Jesus' teaching and miracles, many surmised he must be an Old Testament prophet come back from the dead. But the truth about Jesus' identity was even more astonishing than the rumors, so amazing that even His closest followers had yet to make the connection. When Jesus turns to His chosen twelve to identify Him, Simon Bar-Jonah ("son of Jonah") speaks first among all – a pattern of leadership the Catholic Church teaches can be found throughout the New Testament (CCC 880). In this defining moment, Simon asserts Jesus is not merely a prophet but the Messiah, God Incarnate. The Apostle's astounding profession of faith – directly inspired by the Heavenly Father – leads into Christ's words that for Catholics have had tangible implications to this very day.

The renaming of Simon. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

When a person in the Bible is renamed, it is a sign of God's intention to work in a special way through that individual. Abram became the father of nations after being renamed "Abraham," and Sarai the mother after being renamed "Sarah." Other pivotal renamings in Biblical history include Jacob becoming "Israel" and Saul becoming "Paul."

In regards to Catholic doctrine, the implication of Simon's new name is easiest to understand when going back to Jesus' native language, Aramaic -- the language scholars believe the original words were spoken (Ray 1999, 34). Unlike modern English and New Testament Greek, the Aramaic word for "Peter" and the word "rock" are identical: Kepha. So this verse, when spoken, would have sounded something like this:

And I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha), and on this rock (kepha) I will build my church…

Catholic doctrine asserts that linguistically, Christ links the person and position of Peter – not Himself or a general profession of faith – to the founding of His Church here (CCC 881). While both Christ and the Apostles are referred to as "rocks" (kepha) and "small stones" (Greek, petros) in other areas of Scripture, Catholic teaching points to Peter as the only person in the Bible given the proper name "Kepha," later spelled "Cephas"(Ray 1999, 35).

While some Christians might see the assertion that Peter was the rock upon which Christ would build His Church as an affront to Christ's Headship and status as the true Rock, Catholics take a different view. To better understand why, let's move to the next Scripture, involving the keys to the kingdom.

The keys to the kingdom

I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.

If you've ever seen the official Papal seal, you'll notice a set of golden keys included in it. Catholic teaching puts this verse in context with Isaiah 22: 22, where God tells Isaiah to go to King Hezekiah's steward, Shebna, and inform him of God's intention to replace him with Eliakim. In regards to the new steward, Eliakim, God says: I will place on his shoulder the key to the house of David; what he opens no one can shut, and what he shuts no one can open.

In Old Testament times, the steward of the palace was the king's right-hand man, the second-in-command. When the king was away, the royal steward was keeper of the keys to the kingdom, ruling in the king's stead. While he looked after the affairs of the kingdom as the king instructed, he never replaced the king but awaited his return. When the present steward died (or in this case, when the Almighty intervened), the office was filled by another.

The office of the Papacy works in the same manner. Catholics believe Christ, to ensure the unity and health of His flock, gave Peter governing authority over His Church by handing over the keys to His Kingdom. Like the ancient "key keepers," Catholics do not believe the Pope is the new king but instead a steward awaiting the King's return. Even the Pope's title "Father" imitates the role and title of the steward of Judah, also called "father." Until Christ's second coming, the keys will be passed on to each successor to the Papal office (Ray 1999, 29-40; CCC 857-860).

Now, what do the terms "binding" and "loosing" refer to? These words sounded strange to my modern ears, so I looked for some historical context. Apparently, the terms were common in Rabbinic canon-law, representing the legislative and judicial powers held by a Rabbi (Ray 1999, 40). In this context, Catholics view Peter's key-keeping status as one that makes him "Supreme Pastor," with final authority over what is permitted and what is denied in matters of doctrine and spiritual discipline.

How does Papal Infallibility work?

The issue of religious authority brings up an often misunderstood doctrine of Catholic teaching: Papal infallibility. We see that Catholics believe the Pope has great authority in matters of the faith, but this doesn't mean that Catholics believe every word the Pope says comes straight from the Heavenly Father like Peter's first pronouncement.

Papal infallibility refers to the belief that while all Christians have personal access to the Holy Spirit in prayer, Christ promised a unique protection over the Apostles’ teachings, ensuring they would preach without error (John 16: 12-15). In order for a papal teaching to be considered free of error or "infallible," the Pope must a) be speaking on a matter of faith and morals (not on his recent vacation plans) and b) make it clear he is speaking from the "Chair of Peter" and that what he is about to say is binding. Back to the concept of guardianship, the Catholic Church teaches that infallible statements are for affirming what has always been true and is not a method of creating new beliefs. (CCC 86, 888-891) Official statements of infallibility are rare today – the last one was made in 1950, long before Pope Benedict XVI.

An important clarification: Papal Infallibility refers to doctrine being protected from error, not the man holding the Papal office being free of imperfection or sin. Catholics point to Peter's sinfulness as an example of failings in a Pope, and John Paul II was known to confess his sins weekly.

Servant of the Servants of God

One last "key" element of Catholic teaching on the Papacy is worth mentioning. As is typical with the Christian faith, a great paradox exists that endears Catholics further to their "Papa." Three times after Christ's resurrection, Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him, and in response to each of Peter's professions of love, Jesus instructed him to feed and care for His sheep (John 21: 15-17). Catholics believe that in imitation of Christ, Peter's successor is a shepherd called to embrace the biblical model of servant-leadership, earning him the official title "Servant of the Servants of God." The sacrifices made of Pontiffs are often so great, that it is not uncommon for Popes, including the current Pope, to accept their appointment out of a sense of obedience instead of personal desire. So the office, while powerful, is meant to be authoritative in nature, not authoritarian like a dictatorship.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Catholic; Ecumenism; History
KEYWORDS: papacy; protestant; scripture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last
Sources:

1. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Edition. 1997. Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana. http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc.htm

2. Ray, Stephen. 1999. Footnotes in Upon This Rock, 32-40. San Fransisc Ignatius Press.

3. Joyce, G.H. 1910. “Pope,” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm

4. Toner, P.J. 1910. “Infallibility” in The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VII. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

5. Wikipedia.org, 2008. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope.

6. Archdiocese of Lincoln’s wesbite, 2008. “Ask the Register,” http://www.dioceseoflincoln.org/purple/pope/index.htm

7. St. Charles Borromeo Catholic Church website, Picayune, Mississippi, 2008. “I’m Glad You Asked!” http://www.scborromeo.org/glad/c5.htm

8. Rodriquez, Pedro, “The Papacy and Primacy of Peter,” reprinted on www.ewtn.org from “The Primacy of the Pope in the Church,” from Catholic Position Papers, September, 1981 -- Japan Edition (http://www.ewtn.org/faith/teachings/papab1.htm).

9. Mirus, Jeffrey, Ph.D. “Papal Infallibility” posted on www.ewtn.org, (http://www.ewtn.org/faith/teachings/papac2.htm)

10. Kellmeyer, Steve. 2000. Bible Basics, 107-111. Steubenville, OH: Basilica Press.

1 posted on 05/20/2008 10:11:06 AM PDT by NYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Salvation; narses; SMEDLEYBUTLER; redhead; Notwithstanding; nickcarraway; Romulus; ...

Sarah Jennings has done a good job on her presentation of the papacy. Unfortunately, based on their comments, her readers still post anti-Catholic nonsense. Let’s hope that FR readers will be more positive.


2 posted on 05/20/2008 10:15:49 AM PDT by NYer (Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
[Ecumenical]

Does this require/request posting of a different nature than "[Open]"? And, isn't everything open, except for the "[Caucus]" threads?

3 posted on 05/20/2008 10:20:54 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Very nice.


4 posted on 05/20/2008 10:26:47 AM PDT by informavoracious (Freedom Isn't Free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
On the Religion Forum:

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.

Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.


5 posted on 05/20/2008 10:29:03 AM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
Does this require/request posting of a different nature than "[Open]"? And, isn't everything open, except for the "[Caucus]" threads?

Your guess is as good as mine. Some of these labels are confusing. Ecumenic? Open? This thread is open for ecumenical discussion.

6 posted on 05/20/2008 10:34:52 AM PDT by NYer (Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer

Just disregard my last post. The Religion Moderator has clarified the matter.


7 posted on 05/20/2008 10:37:13 AM PDT by NYer (Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator

Thanks. { ... rolling my eyes ... JMHO }


8 posted on 05/20/2008 10:39:36 AM PDT by newgeezer (It is [the people's] right and duty to be at all times armed. --Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
And, isn't everything open, except for the "[Caucus]" threads?

The good news is that unmarked threads are apparently still open to posts with an ecumenic bias.

9 posted on 05/20/2008 10:43:31 AM PDT by delacoert
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: NYer

The author did a good job of using RCC sources to make RCC arguments. Not very persuasive to this Reformed Protestant.


10 posted on 05/20/2008 10:46:22 AM PDT by Manfred the Wonder Dawg (Test ALL things, hold to that which is True.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I enjoyed that... thanks!


11 posted on 05/20/2008 10:46:39 AM PDT by MarineBrat (My wife and I took an AIDS vaccination that the Church offers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Saul becoming "Paul."

Just to clarify the author, this isn't an example of a name change in the same form as Simon -> Peter, or Abram -> Abraham. Saul and Paul are two different versions of the same name - for example, if I went to Italy, I may be called Franco. The Italians aren't changing my name, just translating it into their language. The Latin "Paul" is used after he receives the laying on of hands - it is not a name change per se, but instead highlights his mission as belonging to the non-Jewish world.

12 posted on 05/20/2008 10:47:10 AM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer

I read recently that the Aramaic word for Rock used in this context is describing a small rock such as a pebble. There is a seperate word in Aramaic for describing a large rock such as a boulder (I don’t know what that word is, though). Essentially, when Jesus said he would build his house upon the rock that was Peter, he was referring to Peter as a small rock. Wouldn’t it make more sense that he would prefer to build the church on a boulder (metaphorically, of course)?


13 posted on 05/20/2008 10:49:51 AM PDT by camerongood210
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: NYer
her readers still post anti-Catholic nonsense.

Love Catholics -- their faith, their dedication, their blessed humanity, their contribution to America and the World.

Don't understand the denomination or traditions one little bit.

But I still love them all.

14 posted on 05/20/2008 10:56:13 AM PDT by Edit35 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: NYer
Unfortunately, many who disagree (with sound reasoning) with the doctrine regarding the Pope/Peter issue are NOT allowed to dissent here lest we be referred to as "Catholic bashing."

One can surely argue doctrine issues and other matters of linguistic statements about the exact Biblical Greek meaning of rock and pebble without being a "Catholic basher".; Again, unfortunately, for many of that faith, intellectual disagreement is not permitted but taken as a verbal assault.

I shall keep my comments for another time and place with people who believe that intellectually disagreeing with supporting reasoning, is not a personal affront.

15 posted on 05/20/2008 11:03:48 AM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: thefrankbaum
The Latin "Paul" is used after he receives the laying on of hands - it is not a name change per se, but instead highlights his mission as belonging to the non-Jewish world.

It's not even that. As a born Roman citizen, Sha'ul (the proper pronunciation of his Hebrew name) would have had a Latinized/Hellenized name in addition to his Jewish given name. The closest equivalent to "Sha'ul" in the Greek language is "Saulos"--which happens to mean, "the haughty walk of a prostitute" in Greek.

"Hi, I'm Walks-Like-a-Prostitute. Let me tell you about the Messiah and how He died for your sins." *cue snickers*

Here we don't have a name change so much as a greater emphasis given to his Greek/Roman name as he spent more time in the Gentile world.

Shalom.

16 posted on 05/20/2008 11:06:55 AM PDT by Buggman (HebrewRoot.com - Baruch haBa b'Shem ADONAI!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican

>>Love Catholics — their faith, their dedication, their blessed humanity, their contribution to America and the World.

Don’t understand the denomination or traditions one little bit.

But I still love them all. <<

What a fantastic post! From this Catholic, thank you!
You actually make me feel proud!


17 posted on 05/20/2008 11:08:03 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Well Golly, the post below yours is giving the Biblical meaning of rock.

In a very nice way.

You’re more than welcome to come on by!


18 posted on 05/20/2008 11:10:29 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Buggman; Tax-chick

Hey Tax-Chick can you give a word on this post.

You have some Greek speakers in your house, right?


19 posted on 05/20/2008 11:12:22 AM PDT by netmilsmom (I am Ironmom. (but really made from Gold plated titanium))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Jesus believed in teaching through people. If Jesus didn’t create a Pope, the Papacy would not have lasted some 2000 years. With all its ups and downs, it will last until the end of time.


20 posted on 05/20/2008 11:27:46 AM PDT by ex-snook ("Above all things, truth beareth away the victory.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Buggman

Very true, but the Scripture uses his Jewish name until the laying on of hands - then, it refers to him as Paul. Like I said, it isn’t a name change, but it highlights his mission to the Gentiles.


21 posted on 05/20/2008 11:28:42 AM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: camerongood210

You’re confusing Aramaic and Greek, methinks. Aramaic has one word for rock - “Kepha,” as the article states. The Greek language is one with gender (much like modern day Romance languages) and the Greek word for Rock is Petra - a feminine ending. Thus, in Greek manuscripts, it is changed to Petros to refer to Simon - a masculine ending. Otherwise, we’d have Jesus calling Peter a little girl!


22 posted on 05/20/2008 11:32:35 AM PDT by thefrankbaum (Ad maiorem Dei gloriam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican
Love Catholics -- their faith, their dedication, their blessed humanity, their contribution to America and the World.

Don't understand the denomination or traditions one little bit.

But I still love them all.

You're so very kind. Thank you for a post that makes me feel the way that I always felt in Catholic grade school in the 60's. Our Nun-Teachers always tried to instill into us that we were very special and that we had a high standard of behaviour to uphold. The "glow" I feel from your post will make it easier for me today to make my Nuns proud of me. :)

Thanks

MarineBrat (On a mission to make my Nuns proud of me today)

23 posted on 05/20/2008 11:52:35 AM PDT by MarineBrat (My wife and I took an AIDS vaccination that the Church offers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: camerongood210
I read recently that the Aramaic word for Rock used in this context is describing a small rock such as a pebble.

Actually, that distinction is in the Greek language. the words petros and petra were synonyms in first century Greek. They meant "small stone" and "large rock" in some ancient Greek poetry, centuries before the time of Christ, but that distinction had disappeared from the language by the time Matthew’s Gospel was rendered in Greek. The difference in meaning can only be found in Attic Greek, but the New Testament was written in Koine Greek—an entirely different dialect. In Koine Greek, both petros and petra simply meant "rock." If Jesus had wanted to call Simon a small stone, the Greek lithos would have been used. The missionary’s argument didn’t work and showed a faulty knowledge of Greek.cf.

Jesus and the Apostles were all Jews. They spoke in Aramaic. In Paul’s epistles—four times in Galatians and four times in 1 Corinthians—we have the Aramaic form of Simon’s new name preserved for us. In our English Bibles it comes out as Cephas. That isn’t Greek. That’s a transliteration of the Aramaic word Kepha (rendered asKephas in its Hellenistic form).

Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).

24 posted on 05/20/2008 11:56:42 AM PDT by NYer (Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican
Don't understand the denomination or traditions one little bit.

Thank you for your kind post. You will find most, if not all the answers to your questions here. Enjoy!

25 posted on 05/20/2008 12:05:32 PM PDT by NYer (Jesus whom I know as my Redeemer cannot be less than God. - St. Athanasius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: camerongood210

You may be confusing Aramaic with Greek.

In Greek, “petros” means “small pebble”, while “petra” means “large boulder”. Keep in mind also that “petros” is a masculine word, while “petra” is feminine. So, in Greek, Peter, being a man, would have to be referred to by the masculine word, while the rock upon which the Church was built could be referred to by the feminine.

However, the words were spoken by Christ in Aramaic, so the same word “kepha”, meaning “rock” was used both times.


26 posted on 05/20/2008 12:15:46 PM PDT by guinnessman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: NYer

This is just one more reason why I should always check for prior posts before I post a response. :^)


27 posted on 05/20/2008 12:24:53 PM PDT by guinnessman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

Ditto from me, non-Catholic.

And I am a big fan of Pope Benedict XVI. I also think the Humanae Vitae is one of the greatest literary works of recent history. Papal Infallibility holds, of course, that Humanae Vitae is perfect; but even for me, I can see it is clearly Divine.


28 posted on 05/20/2008 12:29:52 PM PDT by Stat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Stat-boy
Dear Stat-boy,

“Papal Infallibility holds, of course, that Humanae Vitae is perfect...”

Actually, it is questionable whether Humanae Vitae itself is a document that enjoys infallibility. Pope Paul VI specifically refused to invoke infallibility when he promulgated it. Nonetheless, the teaching against artificial contraception is an infallible part of the ordinary Magisterium, in that it has been universally taught by the Church from the first or second century.

However, even if Pope Paul VI had promulgated Humanae Vitae as infallible, that wouldn't have meant that the document would have been perfect or even without error. It merely would have meant that the teaching of the doctrine on artificial contraception would have been infallible, even if the means used - the document itself - had been flawed.


sitetest

29 posted on 05/20/2008 12:37:35 PM PDT by sitetest (If Roe is not overturned, no unborn child will ever be protected in law.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Stat-boy

The status of Humanae Vitae as “infallible” is not that clear. It certainly is what you might call “operative opinion” and authoritative folks have said that the basic ideas should be considered to be infallible, But it’s not a slam dunk.


30 posted on 05/20/2008 12:42:18 PM PDT by Mad Dawg (It would save us all a great deal of precious time if you'd just admit that I'm right.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: sitetest

Thanks.

One of my favorite quotes:

“Marriage, then, is far from being the effect of chance or the result of the blind evolution of natural forces. It is in reality the wise and provident institution of God the Creator, whose purpose was to effect in man His loving design. As a consequence, husband and wife, through that mutual gift of themselves, which is specific and exclusive to them alone, develop that union of two persons in which they perfect one another, cooperating with God in the generation and rearing of new lives.”


31 posted on 05/20/2008 12:57:26 PM PDT by Stat-boy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom; Buggman

Our New Testament Greek course has not yet introduced vocabulary related to prostitution. We have sentences like, “I see the house of a brother and the son of an apostle.”


32 posted on 05/20/2008 1:01:14 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("If Global Warming did not exist, the left would have to invent it. In fact, they did." ~Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Comment #33 Removed by Moderator

To: chuckles

There’s a lot of facts in that post. Some of them true!


34 posted on 05/20/2008 1:07:10 PM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

Other threads are appropriate for aggressive disagreement. The way I understand it “Ecumenic” threads are for exposition and explanation. Debate and insult detract from the purpose. LDS explicators could do “Ecumenic” threads without bringing out the thin skinned among us, too, and Jehovah’s Witnesses and Missionary Baptists and Buddhists and even Episcopalians. I like the category. We can actually explain our viewpoints to each other without having to leap up and frantically deny and call names at any suggestion that one has a bit of a different perspective.


35 posted on 05/20/2008 1:08:03 PM PDT by arthurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: camerongood210

One word for large rock is Petra not the Petros Jesus referred to Peter as.


36 posted on 05/20/2008 1:08:11 PM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: zerosix
One word for large rock is Petra not the Petros Jesus referred to Peter as.

Petra is feminine. I think Christ was wise enough to make Petra into Petros, for a man.

37 posted on 05/20/2008 1:10:58 PM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: chuckles

Goodness gracious, dear! What a tizzy! And it’s only Tuesday, too. May we expect a full-fledged Conniption by Friday?


38 posted on 05/20/2008 1:11:38 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("If Global Warming did not exist, the left would have to invent it. In fact, they did." ~Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: zerosix

The rules for an Ecumenic thread are much more lax than your post seems to state. They permit statements about your beliefs or questions about the beliefs of others.


39 posted on 05/20/2008 1:16:34 PM PDT by Petronski (Scripture & Tradition must be accepted & honored w/equal sentiments of devotion & reverence. CCC 82)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick

:)

Good afternoon Tax-Chick....


40 posted on 05/20/2008 1:17:38 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Stat-boy

First off, let me state that the author of this paper/piece did an outstanding job in presenting the case for why the Catholic Church has a Pope/Bishop of Rome.

Also, it is true that “Humanae Vitae” in of itself may not be an infallible document, thus it would not be raised to the level of a teaching from the “Sacred Magesterium” or what Cardinal Avery Dulles has referred to as Level 1 teachings which require “full assent of the will, heart and intellect” These teachings would of course be the ones in the Creed and moral teachings expounded in the 10 commandments.

On the other hand, I think “Humanae Vitae” would be teaching to be held, and would fall under the “Ordinary Magesterium”, so while the document itself my not have been stated “ex cathedra”, I think the teaching is related to a Divine Truth, which is the meaning of marriage and human sexuality. I would encourage everyone to go back and read the document, remember it was published in 1968, and look at how prophetic the document has become. In essence, once you distort the meaning of sexuality which is to be ordered to the good of a man/woman for unitive and procreative purposes, then sex becomes something as an end for itself and thus marriage, or the meaning of marriage becomes what society at the time thinks it is. Hmmmm, recent California court case anybody. Anyway, if anyone wants to read Humanae Vitae, here it is. I have also linked Pope John Paul II’s Evangelisum Vitae

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_25031995_evangelium-vitae_en.html


41 posted on 05/20/2008 1:26:11 PM PDT by CTrent1564
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom

Good afternoon! (I not sure that was actually appropriate to an ecumenical thread :-).


42 posted on 05/20/2008 1:27:31 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("If Global Warming did not exist, the left would have to invent it. In fact, they did." ~Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: NYer
While both Christ and the Apostles are referred to as "rocks" (kepha) and "small stones" (Greek, petros) in other areas of Scripture

Eh, that's inaccurate, at least if the author has 1 Peter 2:5 in mind. The word there is "lithoi", not "petres".

In fact, "petros" is simply the word for rock "petra" in masculine form. The connotation that "petros" is SMALL rock does not exist in Koine Greek -- all the examples of that are from the classic period. Liddell, Scott

43 posted on 05/20/2008 1:33:59 PM PDT by annalex (http://www.catecheticsonline.com/CatenaAurea.php)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tax-chick; Religion Moderator

With these new categories of religious threads, I am not sure either....but your remark put a smile on my face...

The RM has very clearly and adequately explained the different rules for the various threads, and done really an excellent job...I guess it must be a real nightmare to moderate these threads...

In any case, I suppose it will just be a matter of feeling our way around these threads...

I posted a couple of responses on another thread, earlier today, and I am not sure there either, if what I posted was acceptable on that thread or not...time will tell...

I guess we will get used to this in time...

And Religion Moderator, I dont envy your job, but thanks for being so patient with everyone...


44 posted on 05/20/2008 1:35:38 PM PDT by andysandmikesmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: andysandmikesmom
I think this rule: Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended. makes Post 33 inappropriate to the thread. However, my response was simply a snark, which isn't mentioned in the rules ...
45 posted on 05/20/2008 1:45:47 PM PDT by Tax-chick ("If Global Warming did not exist, the left would have to invent it. In fact, they did." ~Don Feder)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Religion Moderator; NYer

It feels weird (and somewhat refreshing) to read a Catholic debate thread without seeing the same old nasty insults against the Church by the usual suspects. Thank you for the new Ecumenical category.

And NYer, thank you for your years of posting these educational articles.


46 posted on 05/20/2008 1:59:10 PM PDT by RabidBartender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: NYer

47 posted on 05/20/2008 2:09:14 PM PDT by A.A. Cunningham
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: zerosix
I shall keep my comments for another time and place with people who believe that intellectually disagreeing with supporting reasoning, is not a personal affront.

The "open" threads on the Religion Forum may be your "cup of tea:"

Prayer threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Devotional threads are closed to debate of any kind.

Caucus threads are closed to any poster who is not a member of the caucus. If it says “Catholic Caucus” and you are not Catholic, do not post to the thread. However, if the poster of the caucus welcomes you, I will not boot you from the thread.

Ecumenic threads in this trial run are closed to all “anti” arguments. Posters who try to tear down other’s beliefs – or use subterfuge to accomplish the same goal – are the disrupters on ecumenic threads and will be booted from the thread and/or suspended.

Open threads are a town square – posters may argue for or against beliefs of any kind. They may tear down other's beliefs. They may ridicule, similar to the Smoky Backroom with the exception that a poster must never “make it personal.” Reading minds and attributing motives are forms of “making it personal.” Thin-skinned posters will be booted from “open” threads because in the town square, they are the disrupters.


48 posted on 05/20/2008 2:18:06 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: RabidBartender; andysandmikesmom

Thank you!


49 posted on 05/20/2008 2:19:45 PM PDT by Religion Moderator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Petronski
I only posted as I did to answer the "Catholic bashing" statement.

I believe that one can and should strongly question, disagree and discuss points on religion (especially for me as I am getting a degree in Biblical Christianity) but many take offense when none is intended (in my opinion only) because they lack actual facts to back up their beliefs.

That having been said, I'm delighted with a lively debate --- and have been accused in having an armadillo hide, where almost all areas are concerned.

That's how we actually learn things - get expert in backing up our principles, beliefs with FACTS not merely long held traditions (many handed down by generations in our families, or even teachers' opinions.)

50 posted on 05/20/2008 4:04:24 PM PDT by zerosix (native sunflower)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-67 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson