Skip to comments.Oh, we are in deep, deep trouble
Posted on 03/16/2013 7:33:00 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
The consecration of the Host happens at 51:47. The consecration of the Chalice happens at 52:32.
I cannot believe I am about to type these words.
The Pope DID NOT GENUFLECT after either consecration. He did a weird bow thing, but didn't feel the need to bend his knee to God Almighty, physically present in his hands upon the altar.
HE. DID. NOT. GENUFLECT.
This is absolutely stunning. And unprecedented.
Oh yeah, we're in deep, deep trouble.
But hey, all of you guys who are sending me emails whining about how I'm not nice, or something, go ahead and explain this one. He is perfectly physically sound. He FREELY CHOOSES to not reverence Our Lord in the Eucharist upon the altar.
Oh, and he also didn't genuflect to Our Lord in the Tabernacle when he went to Santa Maria Maggiore on Thursday morning, either. Um, how can a man truly love Our Lady if he doesn't first show even the slightest respect to her Son? Someone please explain that one to me.
Hey! I have an idea! Let's do a Pope watch. First one to see the Pope genuflect to Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament, and not to a Superfun Rockband church pastor, wins! In the mean time, everyone should pray for Pope Francis and that he learns to show Our Lord the tiniest bit of respect and GENUFLECT to Him after He comes down onto the altar, and whenever he approaches or crosses the plane of a Tabernacle in which Our Lord is physically present. I think that would be a great prayer intention for one and all.
I never occurred to me that my desire to do penance in reparation to Our Lord for the sacrileges of the world would include the consecration rubrics of THE POPE.
Kyrie eleison. Christe eleison. Kyrie eleison.
You claim the Pope is perfectly sound; just how do you know that? You ARE aware that, as one poster has already mentioned, that the Pope tripped on the altar in one of his earlier Masses. If he doesn't genuflect, maybe it's because he's concerned about falling, again. And though you may claim that a bow before the altar, instead of a genuflection, is somehow displeasing to the Lord, how do you know that? The Lord may be just fine with it.
Frankly, from the posts you made since Pope Francis was announced, you've been almost happy to portray every thing his does in a negative light, and encouraging others to join you in not accepting him. Looks like calumny to me, and you might want to give that some thought, during this time of penance, preparing for the Great Feast of our Lord's Resurrection.
Of course, my comments about the article were directed to the author, not to you, personally. I should have put the quote in quotation marks.
How do you figure that? Jesus was an observant Jew, and said He didn't come to REFUTE the law, but to FULFILL it. Doesn't sound anti-religious to me.
I read your post. Here are the problems with it:
1) You originally wrote this, “Where does it say it is the Roman tradition, that teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace...”
I corrected you with this comment: “1) The Catholic Church has always taught salvation by grace alone - just as St. Paul did.”
Now, you’re posting this: “What saith the scripture? Eph_2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:”
First you said the Catholic Church “teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace...” Now you just completely avoid the “salvation by grace” issue and are now focusing on faith. Why? Either your original comment was right or wrong. Which is it? Clearly you were wrong. Trying to change to another issue doesn’t change that.
2) You also wrote:
“The Rock upon which the church is built is the confession of Jesus Christ.”
Nope. Jesus said it was Peter. Even many Protestant scripture scholars admit this:
D.A. Carson (Protestant Evangelical) —
“Although it is true that petros and petra can mean ‘stone’ and ‘rock’ respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover, the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (’you are kepha’ and ‘on this kepha’), since the word was used both for a name and for a ‘rock.’ The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name.” (Carson, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1984], volume 8, page 368, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 17-18)
“The word Peter petros, meaning ‘rock,’ (Gk 4377) is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken ‘rock’ to be anything or anyone other than Peter.” (Carson, Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary [Zondervan, 1994], volume 2, page 78, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 18)
R.T. France (Anglican/Protestant Evangelical) —
“The name Peter means ‘Rock’, and Jesus played on this meaning to designate Peter as the foundation of the new people of God. His leadership would involve the authority of the steward, whose keys symbolized his responsibility to regulate the affairs of the household. Peter would exercise his leadership by his authority to declare what is and is not permissible in the kingdom of heaven (to bind and to loose have this meaning in rabbinic writings)....It is sometimes suggested that because the word for ‘rock’ (petra) differs from the name Petros, the ‘rock’ referred to is not Peter himself but the confession he has just made of Jesus as Messiah. In Aramaic, however, the same term kefa would appear in both places; the change in Greek is due to the fact that petra, the normal word for rock, is feminine in gender, and therefore not suitable as a name for Simon! The echo of Peter’s name remains obvious, even in Greek; he is the rock, in the sense outlined above.” (France, New Bible Commentary with consulting editors Carson, France, Motyer, Wenham [Intervarsity Press, 1994], page 925, 926)
Oscar Cullmann (Lutheran) from Kittel’s Greek standard Theological Dictionary of the New Testament —
“The obvious pun which has made its way into the Gk. text as well suggests a material identity between petra and petros, the more so as it is impossible to differentiate strictly between the meanings of the two words. On the other hand, only the fairly assured Aramaic original of the saying enables us to assert with confidence the formal and material identity between petra and petros: petra = Kepha = petros....Since Peter, the rock of the Church, is thus given by Christ Himself, the master of the house (Is. 22:22; Rev. 3:7), the keys of the kingdom of heaven, he is the human mediator of the resurrection, and he has the task of admitting the people of God into the kingdom of the resurrection...The idea of the Reformers that He is referring to the faith of Peter is quite inconceivable in view of the probably different setting of the story...For there is no reference here to the faith of Peter. Rather, the parallelism of ‘thou art Rock’ and ‘on this rock I will build’ shows that the second rock can only be the same as the first. It is thus evident that Jesus is referring to Peter, to whom He has given the name Rock. He appoints Peter, the impulsive, enthusiastic, but not persevering man in the circle, to be the foundation of His ecclesia. To this extent Roman Catholic exegesis is right and all Protestant attempts to evade this interpretation are to be rejected.” (Cullmann, article on “Rock” (petros, petra) trans. and ed. by Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament [Eerdmans Publishing, 1968], volume 6, page 98, 107, 108)
Herman Ridderbos (Protestant Evangelical) —
“It is well known that the Greek word (petra) translated ‘rock’ here is different from the proper name Peter. The slight difference between them has no special importance, however. The most likely explanation for the change from petros (’Peter’) to petra is that petra was the normal word for ‘rock.’ Because the feminine ending of this noun made it unsuitable as a man’s name, however, Simon was not called petra but petros. The word petros was not an exact synonym of petra; it literally meant ‘stone.’ Jesus therefore had to switch to the word petra when He turned from Peter’s name to what it meant for the Church. There is no good reason to think that Jesus switched from petros to petra to show that He was not speaking of the man Peter but of his confession as the foundation of the Church. The words ‘on this rock [petra]’ indeed refer to Peter. Because of the revelation that he had received and the confession that it motivated in him, Peter was appointed by Jesus to lay the foundation of the future church.” (Ridderbos, Bible Student’s Commentary: Matthew [Zondervan, 1987], page 303 as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 35-36)
Craig Blomberg (Protestant Evangelical) —
“Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname ‘Peter’ (Petros=rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42 [wherein he is called Cephas]), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, ‘You are Peter,’ parallels Peter’s confession, ‘You are the Christ,’ as if to say, ‘Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.’ The expression ‘this rock’ almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following ‘the Christ’ in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word ‘rock’ (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification.” (Blomberg, The New American Commentary: Matthew [Broadman, 1992], page 251-252, as cited in Butler/Dahlgren/Hess, page 31-32)
William F. Albright and C.S. Mann (from The Anchor Bible series) —
“Rock (Aram. Kepha). This is not a name, but an appellation and a play on words. There is no evidence of Peter or Kephas as a name before Christian times. On building on a rock, or from a rock, cf. Isa 51:1ff; Matt 7:24f. Peter as Rock will be the foundation of the future community (cf. I will build). Jesus, not quoting the OT, here uses Aramaic, not Hebrew, and so uses the only Aramaic word which would serve his purpose. In view of the background of vs. 19 (see below), one must dismiss as confessional interpretation any attempt to see this rock as meaning the faith, or the Messianic confession, of Peter. To deny the pre-eminent position of Peter among the disciples or in the early Christian community is a denial of the evidence. Cf. in this gospel 10:2; 14:28-31; 15:15. The interest in Peter’s failures and vacillations does not detract from this pre-eminence; rather, it emphasizes it. Had Peter been a lesser figure his behavior would have been of far less consequence (cf. Gal 2:11ff).” (Albright/Mann, The Anchor Bible: Matthew [Doubleday, 1971], page 195)
Craig S. Keener (Protestant Evangelical) —
“’You are Peter,’ Jesus says (16:18), paralleling Peter’s ‘You are the Christ’ (16:16). He then plays on Simon’s nickname, ‘Peter,’ which is roughly the English ‘Rocky’: Peter is ‘rocky,’ and on this rock Jesus would build his church (16:18)....Protestants...have sometimes argued that Peter’s name in Greek (petros) differs from the Greek term for rock used here (petra)....But by Jesus’ day the terms were usually interchangeable, and the original Aramaic form of Peter’s nickname that Jesus probably used (kephas) means simply ‘rock.’ Further, Jesus does not say, ‘You are Peter, but on this rock I will build my church’....the copulative kai almost always means ‘and’.... Jesus’ teaching is the ultimate foundation for disciples (7:24-27; cf. 1 Cor 3:11), but here Peter functions as the foundation rock as the apostles and prophets do in Ephesians 2:20-21....Jesus does not simply assign this role arbitrarily to Peter, however; Peter is the ‘rock’ because he is the one who confessed Jesus as the Christ in this context (16:15-16)....” (Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew [Eerdmans, 1999], page 426-427)
Francis Wright Beare (Presbyterian/Reformed) —
“The play on words — ‘Peter’, this ‘rock’ — requires a change in Greek from petros (properly, ‘stone’) to petra. In Aramaic, the two words would be identical — Kepha the name given to Peter, transliterated into Greek as Kephas (Gal. 2:9), and kepha, ‘rock’. The symbol itself is Hebraic: Abraham is the ‘rock’ from which Israel was hewn, and in a rabbinic midrash, God finds in him a rock on which he can base and build the world...” (Beare, The Gospel According to Matthew [Harper and Row, 1981], page 355)
Eduard Schweizer (Presbyterian/Reformed) —
“The ‘rock’ is Peter himself, not his confession. Only on this interpretation does the pun make sense.” (Schweizer, The Good News According to Matthew [John Knox Press, 1975], page 341)
Ivor H. Jones (Methodist) —
“...in 16.18 Peter is the rock on which the new community could be built, as Abraham was described in rabbinic writings as the rock on which God could erect a new world to replace the old....The arguments have raged across the centuries over the phrase ‘on this rock’ : does it mean on Peter, or on Peter’s confession? But the text is clear: Peter was divinely inspired and this was the reason for his new function and the basis of his authorization. His function was to provide for Jesus Christ the beginnings of a stronghold, a people of God, to stand against all the powers of evil and death...They are God’s people, the church...as the church they represent God’s sovereign power over evil (18.18b) and rely upon a new kind of divine authorization...This authorization is given to Peter; so Peter is not only a stronghold against evil; he also is responsible for giving the community shape and direction.” (Jones, The Gospel of Matthew [London: Epworth Press, 1994], page 99)
M. Eugene Boring (Disciples of Christ) —
“16:18, Peter as Rock. Peter is the foundation rock on which Jesus builds the new community. The name ‘Peter’ means ‘stone’ or ‘rock’ (Aramaic Kepha Cepha; Greek petros).... There are no documented instances of anyone’s ever being named ‘rock’ in Aramaic or Greek prior to Simon. Thus English translations should render the word ‘stone’ or ‘rock,’ not ‘Peter,’ which gives the false impression that the word represented a common name and causes the contemporary reader to miss the word play of the passage: ‘You are Rock, and on this rock I will build my church.’ Peter is here pictured as the foundation of the church....On the basis of Isa 51:1-2 (cf. Matt 3:9), some scholars have seen Peter as here paralleled to Abraham; just as Abram stood at the beginning of the people of God, had his name changed, and was called a rock, so also Peter stands at the beginning of the new people of God and receives the Abrahamic name ‘rock’ to signify this.” (The New Interpreter’s Bible [Abingdon Press, 1995], volume 8, page 345)
Thomas G. Long (Presbyterian/Reformed) —
“Since, in the original Greek, Petros and petra both mean ‘rock,’ it is easy to spot this statement as a pun, a play on words: ‘Your name is “Rock,” and on this “rock” I will build my church.’ Jesus’ meaning is plain: Peter is the rock, the foundation, upon which he is going to erect his church...Jesus spoke Aramaic, however, not Greek. In Aramaic, the words for ‘Peter’ and ‘rock’ are the same (Kepha)...the most plausible interpretation of the passage is that Jesus is, indeed, pointing to Peter as the foundation stone, the principal leader, of this new people of God...there is much evidence that he also played a primary leadership role in the early Christian church....For the church, the new people of God, Peter was, indeed, the ‘rock,’ corresponding to Abraham of old, who was ‘the rock from which you were hewn’ (Isa. 51:1).” (Long, Matthew [Westminster John Knox Press, 1997], page 185, 186)
Richard B. Gardner (Brethren/Mennonite) —
“The key question here is whether the rock foundation of the church is Peter himself, or something to be distinguished from Peter. If the latter, Jesus could be speaking of Peter’s faith, or of the revelation Peter received. It is more likely, however, that the rock on which Jesus promises to build the church is in fact Peter himself, Peter the first disciple (cf. 4:18; 10:2), who represents the whole group of disciples from which the church will be formed. At least four considerations support this view....” (Gardner, Believers Church Bible Commentary: Matthew [Herald Press, 1991], 247)
3) You also wrote:
“Ignatius, writing sometime before his death between 97 and 115AD, listed the highest tier of the church as the Bishop. He never mentions any higher tiers.”
He didn’t have to. The pope is the bishop of Rome.
4) you also wrote:
“Pope Gregory the first, more than 400 years later, who asserted Peter was the First of the Apostles, nevertheless denied the title of the Universal Bishop (though the one who came right after him petitioned the Emperor that he should take the title), and asserted that the See of Peter was made up of three locations.”
What Pope St. Gregory I wrote was this:
“Your most sweet Holiness has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, Prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy, not only in the dignity of such as preside, but even in the number of such as stand. But I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. For who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Petrus from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven Matthew 16:19. And again it is said to him, And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren (xxii. 32). And once more, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love Me? Feed my sheep John 21:17. Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21. Moreover, in paying you the debt of salutation which is due to you, I declare to you that I exult with great joy from knowing that you labour assiduously against the barkings of heretics; and I implore Almighty God that He would aid your Blessedness with His protection, so as through your tongue to uproot every root of bitterness from the bosom of holy Church, lest it should germinate again to the hindrance of many, and through it many should be defiled. For having received your talent you think on the injunction, Trade till I come Luke 19:13. I therefore, though unable to trade at all nevertheless rejoice with you in the gains of your trade, inasmuch as I know this, that if operation does not make me partaker, yet charity does make me a partaker in your labour. For I reckon that the good of a neighbour is common to one that stands idle, if he knows how to rejoice in common in the doings of the other.”
5) And about Theodoret and his views on the papacy, I’ll quote him as cited by Dolan in The See of Peter and the voice of Antiquity:
It will be much to our purpose to quote
here a few lines from a letter written by the
historian Theodoret to Leo I, witnessing his
appreciation of the special honor and juris-
diction attaching to the Chair of Peter.
Theodoret was bishop of Cyrus and his letter
begs the annulment by Leo, of certain decrees
of the Latrocinium. The letter has all the
more force, proceeding as it does from an
oriental source. “If Paul . . . hastened
to the great Peter in order that he might
carry from him the solution of difficulties to
those at Antioch . . . much more do we
men of little account, hasten to your Apos-
tolic See, in order to obtain from you a rem-
edy for the wounds of the churches. For
every reason is it fitting for you to hold the
first place, since your see is endowed with so
many special privileges. ... In these days
God has adorned the throne of the Apostles,
by placing on it your holiness, emitting as
you do the rays of orthodoxy.” He then pro-
ceeds with the narrative of his grievances,
namely the imputation of heresy and the loss
of his see, and ends by a fervid appeal to Leo for help. “I await the sentence of your
Apostolic See. I beseech and implore your
holiness to help me in my appeal to your fair
and righteous tribunal. Command me to
come to you, to prove that my teaching fol-
lows the footprints of the apostles. . . .
Do not spurn my prayer, I beg of you. Be-
fore all I implore you to tell me whether I
must bear this unrighteous decision or not.
I await your decision.” This testimony is
too eloquent to stand in need of either note
So, apparently you still have quite a bit of studying to do. Just remember, interpretations aside, you were objectively wrong when you said, that the Catholic Church or Roman tradition “teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace...”. You were wrong and will continue to be so. Changing the subject will not change the fact that you were wrong.
Ummm...."among" implies comparison. As to the why-call-him-good, it's a fine example of a statement we... ought... not... to take... at... face... value.
I don't think you can chalk it up to mobility issues.
MISA DE NIÑOS 2011 (Consecrations at 5:30 and 6:16)
Not a single knee bends in the presence of the Lord's flesh and blood. Not one.
That's saying nothing of the rest of the circus "mass" in the video.
“First you said the Catholic Church teaches that Paul was all wrong about salvation by grace... Now you just completely avoid the salvation by grace issue and are now focusing on faith. “
I didn’t at all. I quoted from the catechism saying that salvation is “achieved” not by grace, but through baptism, obedience and works.
It’s interesting you dodged it completely and accused me of doing the same thing.
“Nope. Jesus said it was Peter. Even many Protestant scripture scholars admit this:”
Suppose the rock is Peter, and not Jesus Christ who is called the Rock or the cornerstone of the Church, most prominently taught in Peter’s own works no less. Who is to say that the rock in reference here is not to Peter’s work as being the first to preach (after Pentecost) to the Jews and Gentiles? Thus, he is a rock, or a foundation of the church. But certainly not the only foundation, as Peter himself teaches quite clearly that all Christians are “rocks” of the church, building up a Holy House.
Certainly the other Apostles established their churches across the world, and there is no evidence in the Bible that the Apostles never considered themselves as all equal ministers of the Gospel. In fact, on more than one occasion the “authority” and “infallibility” of Peter is challenged, at least in the sense if he were actually the Pope at that time.
I already gave the example of Paul. Another example is in Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, is followed.
The Roman abuses, therefore, have no basis of scripture, aside from a tortured interpretation from Matthew. It’s more reading into the scripture what the Catholics want, and less what is in the scripture itself.
“He didnt have to. The pope is the bishop of Rome.”
Ignatius wrote to every Bishop in the letters he sent, except in his letter to the Romans, where he wrote to no Bishop at all. Probably because there wasn’t one.
Ignatius says that the head of Bishop is God, and does not reference anything still yet between them.
“Ignatius, who is [also called] Theophorus, to Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, or rather, who has as his own bishop God the Father, and our Lord Jesus Christ: [wishes] abundance of happiness.” ~ Epistle to Polycarp
Not once in any of his epistles does Ignatius reference any one higher than a Bishop, aside from God Himself.
“What Pope St. Gregory I wrote was this:”
So your big argument is just to quote, but with more text, the same argument wherein Gregory declares: :”..See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside.”
That doesn’t help the Papal cause, which says the seat of Peter is in Rome only, and only has one who possesses the authority of Peter.
“And about Theodoret and his views on the papacy, Ill quote him as cited by Dolan in The See of Peter and the voice of Antiquity:”
lol, again, you ignore the argument, which is that Theodoret placed the “See of Peter” in three places also, placing the “Throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch.
“So, apparently you still have quite a bit of studying to do.”
Says the guy who argues against mist and shadows.
“Ummm....”among” implies comparison. As to the why-call-him-good, it’s a fine example of a statement we... ought... not... to take... at... face... value.
Again, you make the most absurd and irrelevant arguments.
Your post begs the question "what is important to the Christian faith?"
It would be ten miles high and then some.
That's a mighty big list! It reminds me of the amount of luggage the Howells brought with them for a three hour tour around the islands of Hawaii. Do you really "need" all of that stuff? Is it all that important? Can you imagine a list of "everything important" to the faith, that's still concise enough to fit into a single Bible?
No, you just miss the point. Get checked for planks!
With all due ummm. ;)
Debate the issue, not the person making the claim (ad hominem attack).
How do you know the state of her soul??
Much as I admire AB, I must agree with you. If the words are truly hers, there seems to be a toxic level of anger, and not the righteous kind. Rather than a public stoning of the man selected to lead the Church, she might pray for him. (If you're reading this, AB, I recommend also the Book of Jonah, especially where we read: "Should I not have pity on Nineveh?")
Please ignore all the personal attacks directed at you (and Ann) rather that debating the facts that you have posted.
Complaining, comparing, and criticizing are necessary for improvement. This is the main responsibility of bosses.
But good bosses also allow their subordinates to criticize them.
I firmly feel that too many Christians go too far in humility and meekness, where it ceases to become a virtue.
Much of this, by the way, is related to the personality type called “agreeableness”, which is determined (primarily) by genetics and in childhood, which no one can be blamed for.
Furthermore, people who are disagreeable, rarely make personal attacks because they are focused on results, and not people. I see no sin to criticize results in most cases.
“Get checked for planks!”
Let me know when your magic Roman exposition manages to make the word “blessed” for Mary into a word that implies even more blessedness than the others called blessed by Christ.
“I didnt at all. I quoted from the catechism saying that salvation is achieved not by grace, but through baptism, obedience and works.”
Grace is received through baptism, for instance. Thus, salvation is through grace alone. What will save you, grace or faith? I will be saved by grace alone. Some of that grace I will have received through baptism, but I will still be saved by grace alone.
“Its interesting you dodged it completely and accused me of doing the same thing.”
I didn’t dodge it. It wasn’t pertinent. Again, you FALSELY claimed that the Catholic Church said St. Paul was wrong. The Church did no such thing. I corrected you. You then tried to change the argument and are still wrong.
“No Protestants I care for, and I doubt there are many that even do who would still go forward to embrace the Roman abuse of it, which make Peter out to be infallible, and possessing an authority above all the Apostles.”
It doesn’t matter what you care for. It only matters that you were wrong, again. Jesus founded the Church on Peter and many men who are greater scholars of scripture than you apparently are agree.
“Suppose the rock is Peter, ...building up a Holy House.”
‘Suppose’ really means nothing.
“Certainly the other Apostles established their churches across the world, and there is no evidence in the Bible that the Apostles never considered themselves as all equal ministers of the Gospel. In fact, on more than one occasion the authority and infallibility of Peter is challenged, at least in the sense if he were actually the Pope at that time.”
No, not once. Yes, Peter was challenged and rebuked by Paul - as he should have been - and tha had nothing to do with “the sense if he were actually the Pope at that time.” The problem with Protestant assumptions is that they’re not only assumptions, which are always a problem, but that they are faulty in their premise.
“I already gave the example of Paul. Another example is in Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not of Peter, is followed.”
Again, false. Peter’s advice is followed first. That’s why everyone there held their tongue immediately after he spoke.
“The Roman abuses, therefore, have no basis of scripture, aside from a tortured interpretation from Matthew. Its more reading into the scripture what the Catholics want, and less what is in the scripture itself.”
Again, false. Protestantism didn’t exist for nearly 1500 years. Then Luther had his tower experience while emptying his bowels in the cloaca (seriously, look it up), and Protestantism as a theory - a bad one - was born. Born on the toilet. How fitting.
“Ignatius wrote to every Bishop in the letters he sent, except in his letter to the Romans, where he wrote to no Bishop at all. Probably because there wasnt one.”
But we know that there was one. We already have the letter of Clement to the Corinthians, for instance. Ignatius would not be interested in endangering the life of the pope by mentioning him by name.
“Ignatius says that the head of Bishop is God, and does not reference anything still yet between them.”
Because the pope doesn’t stand between them, but leads them instead. That’s just Protestant thinking.
“Not once in any of his epistles does Ignatius reference any one higher than a Bishop, aside from God Himself.”
Again, the pope is a bishop.
“So your big argument is just to quote, but with more text, the same argument wherein Gregory declares: :..See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside.”
No, my argument is that the context shows you were taking it out of context.
“That doesnt help the Papal cause, which says the seat of Peter is in Rome only, and only has one who possesses the authority of Peter.”
That isn’t the “Papal cause”. Honestly, it’s as if you have no idea of what you’re talking about. Did being in Avignon for 70 years stop popes from being popes? No, it did not.
“lol, again, you ignore the argument, which is that Theodoret placed the See of Peter in three places also, placing the Throne of Peter under the Bishop of Antioch.”
There was no argument to ignore. You never made an argument. You merely posted a quote from Theodoret - which clearly had no context so I posted more information.
“Says the guy who argues against mist and shadows.”
Says the guy who claims he made an argument when all he did was post a quote or two which in no way go against the idea of a papacy.
I have no idea about the “state” of her soul. I do know that it is wrong to negatively judge the motives of the Pope’s actions or omission of actions in this case.
The Pope’s own words today:
“..mercy changes everything, it changes the world making it less cold and more fair.
Let’s not forget that God never gets tired of forgiving so let’s never get tired of asking for forgiveness.
Ah, Matthew 5:22, what a wonderful example of Scripture non-Christians frequently taken out of context.
Now let's look at Matthew 5:22 in context. Matthew 5 does indeed refer to calling someone a fool, but it does not refer to characterizing a behavior as foolish. That's not calling someone a fool nor is it making a statement about their state of being. Matthew 5 speaks to not only explicitly calling someone a fool, it is primarily focused on the fact that those who present themselves at the alter should first be reconciled with their brother lest they be delivered to the judge and punished.
That would mean, for example, if there were a poster who deliberately lied about what Christians believe and/or deliberately misrepresent what the Catholic Church teaches, that poster will be judged unless they reconcile with those they've lied and made misrepresentations about. Of course, most people would argue that our hypothetical poster wouldnt be worried about judgment anyway because if they believed in Jesus Christ to begin with they wouldn't be deliberately lying about Christians.
I would suggest you try to go one complete day without complaining, comparing or criticizing others.
Then at the end of the day, examine your conscience and see how you did.
I bet you will feel better than you expected.
BTW, a good boss will get better results with compliments toward an employee that with the three Cs.
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.