If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 8/23/2014 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[Salvation]

I asked the question with Peter and the first apostles. That did not include Paul.

Thanks for your research. You proved my point. Peter is always deferred to by the other 11 apostles, always mentioned first in lists, speaks at the Council of Jerusalem with authority. Converts 3000 on the Feast of Pentecost. And the list goes on and on.

[metmom]

I don’t have that kind of a search engine for the Bible. Mine is focused on books and verses.

There are all kinds of resources and search engines for that for free on the web. You have no excuse.

[metmom]

Have you ever studied a foreign language. Genders, etc. verbs, past, present, future have different forms.

Yes, I have and yes, I know, which is why I went to the Greek to clear up the ambiguity that is in English because it DOESN'T use gender in nouns and adjectives.

And you just shot yourself in the foot on the discussion about Peter and petra and petros.

Going to the Greek and taking into account the verb and noun endings, simply verifies and supports the argument that the Rock is Christ, not Peter.

It's only when you use English that it is possible to make the claim that Peter is the rock with any possibility that it might hold water.

[Salvation]

**Additionally. the form *petra* is used for Christ in two other places.**

LOL! Christ is not feminine. Was it talking about the Church?

[metmom]

Peter is always deferred to by the other 11 apostles,

Always? Prove it.

Or do you mean like this?

Galatians 2:11-14 But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned. For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party. And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy. But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

Or perhaps in this list where He is mentioned first? Oh, er, wait a minute....

Galatians 2:7-9 On the contrary, when they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised (for he who worked through Peter for his apostolic ministry to the circumcised worked also through me for mine to the Gentiles), and when James and Cephas and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given to me, they gave the right hand of fellowship to Barnabas and me, that we should go to the Gentiles and they to the circumcised.

Ooops......

[metmom]

What about *this rock(petra) was Christ* (1 Corinthians 10:4) is so hard for you to understand?

And since when is the CHURCH the Rock of offense?

That also trashes your argument, because if *petra* here means *church* then it DOESN’T mean Peter.

Kudos for trying but you need to seriously get over your brainwashing.

[metmom]

Petra being feminine can’t mean Peter either then because Peter is a man, so by saying that Christ is going to build His church on *petra*, cannot mean Peter, a man.

Jesus used *petros*, masculine, to identify Peter, a man.

[Salvation]

petra is the feminine form or petros. It would not be used in that way.

[metmom]

And being the feminine form, denotes a different object than *petros*, as already been clearly explained to you, with links.

You’ll do better when you stop twisting Scripture to fit your theology and have your theology fit Scripture.

Tell me, exactly why does Peter have to be the rock on which Christ’s church is to be built? Why build His church on a man, and not Himself?

[Salvation]

petra is the feminine form of petros

[Salvation]

Christ knew he wasn’t going to be around physically. So he passed on the authority of the Church to Peter as he head of the other apostles.

[daniel1212]

But this simply illustrates my point that submission to the pope in one century as understood as plainly stated, can mean something the opposite in another. Want examples?

No, because your interpretation of any thing you post is your view. You of course are entitled to your view, but you are not an expert on Catholic Doctrine

That is my point. What i can post are things RCs debate about, and while your anonymous "expert[s] on Catholic Doctrine" do not settle the issues either.

in my view, you are “likely” an ex-Catholic who thinks he knows Catholic Doctrine and now as Protestant is trying to frame it from your new found Protestantism,

It is the job of RCs to prove that i am not rightly representing RC doctrine, but go search my postings and see how often that charge has held up. Instead i often educates RCs, and find them engaging in misrepresentation.

which I “predict”, will be a different strand of Protestantism before you die.

Since one should grow toward perfection, i hope so.

Now, more to the subject at hand, there are different levels of Catholic teaching,

I know that, and also that some clergy divide them into 4, while they do not know which parts of the CCC are stating infallible teaching, or even how many total they are and what they all are. And some RCs say most of what RCs believe and practice has never been stated infallibly.

There have been Papal Bulls on Slavery that indicated some Popes wanted to end Slavery going back as far as the 14th century, there were some that tolerated it, but put parameters on it, etc, etc.

Yes, very consistent, coherent and clear moral guidance.

On all those matters, we are not talking about the Nicene or Apostles Creed, the Canon of Scripture, the Sacraments, the Primacy of the Church and Bishop of Rome, etc.

Of course; i know that, and which avoids the issue of the room or need for interpretation among RCs. 20th century Evangelicalism itself began due to a shared contention for such basic commonly held Truths..

This term Super RC, I don’t know of such term in Catholic Canon Law. Do you have a source on that?

Do not act ignorant or insolent. It is right next to "cafeteria Catholic" in Catholic Canon Law. In context it refers to just the RCs you described, who make themselves more Catholic than the Pope is.

Again, I am not interested in what an internet Catholic guy says if he or she is spouting off things that have no basis in official Catholic teaching

That was never brought up, but that of RCs who disagree about what official Catholic teaching is and means. Do you even have an infallible complete list of what level each teaching belongs to, and an official commentary on all the Bible?

My argument is that while RCs attack SS adherents as having no infallible interpreter for their supreme standard, and relying on their fallible human reasoning and fallible men, neither do RCs have an infallible interpreter for their supreme standard, and must also rely on their fallible human reasoning and fallible men. And that what they can and do disagree on is extensive.

And that the church did not begin under the premise of assured magisterial infallibility of the stewards of Scripture.

[daniel1212]

The testimony you cite are Catholic Historical critics, I am well aware of them all. The point of the question is when did it become clear of a single Bishop of Rome.

Not in Scripture.

The earliest evidence of it is 140AD.

A debated Opinion.

Again, the debate here does not negate the passage from Mt 16:16-18. In fact, the Keys is another significant part of the passage and is a fulfillment of Isiah 22:22.

And where is Isiah 22:22 infallibly or "officially" interpreted as meaning that, since you want to avoid the interpretive problem. I can argue for that not teaching perpetuation and that Christ being the direct fulfillment is what best corresponds to the prophecy of Isaiah. For upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house”, for “in Jesus Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9) And who “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7)

However, Scripture is not your supreme authority, but it rendered a servant to support Rome.

. The fact that Christ is indeed the Rock which the Apostles were connected to does not mean that Christ can also refer to Peter as rock as well.

Nowhere does in the rest of the NT is Peter called the rock upon which the church is built. For in contrast to Peter, that the LORD Jesus is the Rock (“petra”) or "stone" (“lithos,” and which denotes a large rock in Mk. 16:4) upon which the church is built is one of the most abundantly confirmed doctrines in the Bible (petra: Rm. 9:33; 1Cor. 10:4; 1Pet. 2:8; cf. Lk. 6:48; 1Cor. 3:11; lithos: Mat. 21:42; Mk.12:10-11; Lk. 20:17-18; Act. 4:11; Rm. 9:33; Eph. 2:20; cf. Dt. 32:4, Is. 28:16) including by Peter himself. (1Pt. 2:4-8)

In any case, the Peter of Scripture stands in radical contrast to that of Rome with his supposed successors.

[daniel1212]

And Saint Thomas Aquinas Interpretation of John 21, the other important Petrine text, with references to Saint Augustine and Saint John Chrystosem, also indicate Saint Peter’s singular and unique role among the Apostles.

And who must perversely understand Scripture as supporting that,

there are unbelievers who at some time have accepted the faith, and professed it, such as heretics and all apostates: such should be submitted even to bodily compulsion, that they may fulfil what they have promised, and hold what they, at one time, received". — Living Tradition, Organ of the Roman Theological Forum, http://www.rtforum.org/lt/lt119.html

[Salvation]

If these people would just read the Daily Readings thread and the reflections from experts there, explaining history, the connection with the First Reading that the Gospel has, etc.

Then we wouldn’t have all these questions. LOL!

[daniel1212]

I asked the question with Peter and the first apostles. That did not include Paul.

But which is an absurd revision. . Why exclude Paul? He disproves your argument in principle, as the most mentioned denotes primacy.

Thanks for your research. You proved my point.

Wrong. You "point" was the most mentioned denotes primacy. Which leaves Peter second and Mary marginalized.

Peter is always deferred to by the other 11 apostles,

And whom Paul publicly rebuked, and did not defer to his judgment by example, while James was dead by Acts 25, and nowhere is any successor named.

always mentioned first in lists,

Wrong. The Holy Spirit lists Peter second in his list of those who "seemed to be pillars" in Gal. 2

speaks at the Council of Jerusalem with authority. Converts 3000 on the Feast of Pentecost. And the list goes on and on.

The point here is cannot merely that peter was the initial leader among the 12, but the leader all the church looked to as its supreme exalted infallible head, the first of a succession, all of which is simply not what is manifested. And James is the one who gave the final decree in Acts 15, confirmatory of Peter's recommendation and Paul's doctrine.

[daniel1212]

There are all kinds of resources and search engines for that for free on the web. You have no excuse.

The excuse is that Paul spoils the parade and should be eliminated.

[CTrent1564]

daniel212:

And again, all thoust opinions of thoust Daniel212 are thoust personal opinions.

And it is not my job to do a darn thing, if you are going to spout about Catholic Doctrine, you should state I am not a Catholic expert and am only making at best and educated guess as to what it means. It is more your job to try to represent Catholic Doctrine accurately if you are going to constantly post about it. Unlike you, I don’t have the hubris to think I am an expert in Protestant(s) theology whereas you think you are an expert at Catholic Doctrine.

It is quite clear what are non-negotiable teachings of the faith. The Trinity, Christological Doctrines, Creedal statements, seven sacraments. Scripture commentaries are just that, commentaries. The Church has Doctrines that are defined, to say that every scripture passage can be defined exactly is itself nonsense. Scripture has many levels. Yes, there are some passages which are definitively defined as having 1 clear meaning, other than those few, the Church recognizes that scripture can speak different things, yet all true, but it can’t contradict the Faith of the Church. When one begins to read scripture outside of the Defined teachings of the Church, then they have gone astray.

As for Papal Bulls on slavery, it was part of the human condition well before Christ and to be fair, Saint Paul did not say much about it either, only to say that Slave or Free all had access to God’s Grace. He never said anything about freeing slaves. Gradually, the Church reflected on the fact that Christ himself in essence destroyed slavery in that slavery was seen as a visible sign of man’s sinfulness, thus the ancient Israel’s crossing the red sea from and escaping Egypt is a prefigurement of Baptism and the Baptized Christian being baptized into Christ death and resurrection. Thus, as Saint Thomas Aquinas posited, slavery is against natural law and itself a consequence of orginal sin, thus while no NT writer clearly denounced slavery, Saint Paul again looked at as sort of status quo, some Popes began to look at Christ life and being to teach against Slavery, some not as much, but over the time period starting in the 1400’s, there was a gradual development of Catholic Doctrine that began to chip away at slavery. Here is the first such papal statement on the subject of slavery. Note that this was in 1435. Of course, not everyone listened to him, and this was not an attempt to define something like a Creedal statement but it does represent the Pope’s attempt to challenge Christendom at the time to move away from Slavery. Of course, not many listed to him and 100 years later, both Catholics and Protestants were not listening. Sublimeus Dei was issued in 1537 again rejected the enslavement of non-Christians, although it forbid arms trade with the enemies of Christendom, eventually, the Spainish and Portugese Kings protested that the Protestants had no such restrictions and the Pope allowed the enslavement of Muslims captured and put into ships as rowers, which was similar to the treatment of Christians captured. It did forbid the enslavement of other Christians, even Protestants, LOL.

So if you are going to pick a fight at the various Papal Bulls on Slavery, then perhaps you need to pick one with Saint Paul, or show me which Calvinist theologians argued against Slavery, in fact, Calvinism and its Divine election used Calvinism to its hyper doctrine of election and double predestination to justify slavery.

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Eugene04/eugene04sicut.htm

http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Paul03/p3subli.htm

So some Popes were more forceful on using papal bulls to restrict Slavery, some were not. But the fact is as far back as the 14th century, there was indeed a development of a doctrine in the Catholic Church to chip away at slavery. On that point, even the likes of you must concede that point.

[daniel1212]

You should find this interesting on this issue. http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/11/built-on-sinking-sand-scriptural.html

[CTrent1564]

The Muratorian Fragment was and is the earliest canonical list of the New Testament and was part of the Church at Rome’s Tradition. It dates from around 180AD. Even the Reformed Historian Schaff concedes as much.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/wace/biodict.Muratorian_Fragment.html

The evidence in the text itself speaks of the reason why the Shepherd of the Hermas, which some Churches, held to be canonical and were read in the Liturgy of the Church was not be read in Rome. The reason, because the work was written at the time when Pius held the Chair of the Church of Rome. When was Saint Pius I Bishop of Rome, well from 140 to 155 AD. So the date 140AD is indeed accurate and is evidence that by 140AD, the Church of Rome had a Single Leader as Bishop. This would be consistent with NT practice itself as the Acts of the Apostles clearly state that James was the “Leader of the Church of Jerusalem”. And Saint John’s theology of Bishop clearly impacted the Eastern part of the Church as all the Churches that he wrote too and cared for, Philadelphia, Ephesus, Smyrna, had single Bishops by the end of the 1st century, as indicated in the writings of Saint Ignatius of Antioch and Saint John’s pupil, Saint Polycarp, Bishop of Smyrna.