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

[Springfield Reformer]

“that save favor or grace” should be “ that same favor or grace.” Sorry.

[PeterPrinciple]

Finally, let’s return to the title of this post: “If no one is Pope, EVERYONE is pope!”

---

What is interesting is that according to Catholic Doctrine everyone is pope (at least according to Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_priesthood_(doctrine)

Thus, the Catholic Church accepts the ‘priesthood of all believers’ doctrine – it is not the exclusive domain of Protestantism.[7][8] This is exemplified in ‘chaplet of divine mercy’ prayer, in which the individual Christian declares: “Eternal Father, I offer you the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity, of your dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, in atonement for our sins...” The primary difference between the teachings of the Catholic Church and those of the (non-Anglican) Protestant churches that reject the ordained priesthood is that the Catholic Church believes in three different types of priests:
1.first, the priesthood of all believers (1 Peter 2:5–9);
2.second, the ordained priesthood (Acts 14:23, Romans 15:16, 1 Timothy 5:17, Titus 1:5, James 5:14-15); and
3.third, the high priesthood of Jesus (Hebrews 3:1).[9][10][11]

[daniel1212]

Again, see earlier post and you never delt with the question I posed which was not posed you to start with.

Really? You made this ambiguous assertion before, and i showed you what you need to deal with, while if i am to deal with a question which was not even posted to me to start with, learn to link to it rather than making me guess.

Go grind your axe somewhere else.

It was you who began the exchange with me by responding to a post to someone else, and now that you have manifest that you effectively have invalidated the NT by your contrary basis for assurance of Truth, you wish i would go away. Sorry, but as long as you want to get involved in defending and promoting your elitist cultic org which misleads souls, then you must face the heat of the kitchen. If not, then it is you who must leave.

[daniel1212]

Except Saint Jerome, who new Greek better than you Mr Internet self professed ex Catholic theologian and he indeed translated the passage as “Ava Maria plena gratia”. So did Jerome not understand the nuances of the style of Greek that the NT was written in and it took Protestants, and in particular, American protestants 1,600 years to figure it out.

This simply is another example of the problem. As the RC must support Rome, so he/she uncritically follows men when they do so, and resorts to ad hominems and the unScriptural premise that unlettered men cannot be correct refuting scholars.

Yet i have already exposed Jerome as wresting Scripture to support his denigration of marriage (Gn. 2: "two is not a good number because it destroys unity, and prefigures the marriage compact. Hence it was that all the animals which Noah took into the ark by pairs were unclean. Odd numbers denote cleanness"), while it remains that in the Greek "full of grace" would be "plaras karitos" but i in Luke 1:28 it is "kexaritomena" which means "highly favored one," or graced, which the DRB inconsistently but rightly uses in Eph 1:6.

And evidently the translators of the official Catholic NAB Bible also thought they knew Greek better than Jerome, as they also render Lk. 1:28 as "Hail, favored one!"

,In contrast, the only one (though Stephen in Acts 6:8, in some mss) said to be full of grace is the Lord Jesus, "full ("plērēs) of grace (charis) and truth," (Jn. 1:14) using "plērēs," which denotes "full" 17 other places in the NT

Do not be like the scorning Pharisees, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?" (John 7:47-48)

[daniel1212]

Again, I don’t care what your views or on the matter. .

Once again, that is your fundamental flaw. So once again, seeing as you affirm that an assuredly (if conditionally) infallible magisterium is essential for determination and assurance of Truth;

And that being the historical instruments and stewards of Divine revelation (oral and written) means that such is that assuredly infallible magisterium, so that those who dissent from the latter are in some form of rebellion to God,

How could both men and writings of God be established as being so without an assuredly infallible magisterium? And how could laity be right in following an itinerant preacher in the desert who ate insects, seeing as he reproved and disagreed with the magisterium who sat in the seat of Moses, as being the historical magisterium and stewards of Scripture?

As well as another itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and invoked the baptism of the first itinerant preacher when challenged to name who gave Him His authority? (Mk. 11:27-33)

Consistent with the "who are you to disagree with the historical magisterium" premise of RCs, then all should have followed those who sat in the seat of Moses. But if the church began with common people being right, and the magisterium being wrong, and Truth claims being established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.) versus your premise of the assured veracity of Rome, then you and your church are operating out of a foundationally contrary premise than the NT began under.

You elevate yourself to sole interpreter of scripture.

Resorting again and again to this fallacious charge, akin to saying i am making myself a pope, speaks of desperation, or an inability to deal with refutation, which i have shown you before. Again, appealing to the weight of wholly inspired Scriptural substantiation as the basis for credibility is not the same as presuming personal infallibility, which is your basis via reliance upon Rome which presumes this.

With respect to Luke 1:28, the commentary of the Patristics on this passage is supportive of the Catholic position

There is nothing wrong with seeking help, but an RC cannot objectively examine a text in order to ascertain its veracity, but the the Lord did not expect 1st c. Hebrew souls to always follow the traditional interpretation of their magisterium.

Meanwhile, there is actually nothing said by the two "fathers" listed in Lk. 1:28 besides Jerome, who, as with Gn. 2, examples how he can read into a verse what the text simply does not say. Even if what he makes this text say was true (that Mary uniquely was full of grace, which Scripture says the Lord was), yet it remains that this is not what the Greek words mean.

)Saint Jerome, the greatest biblical scholar of the Church

Which presumes much if meant of all time, and which does not translate into faithful rendering (the devil knows more). I have already shown how Jerome could read into Scripture what He wanted it to say in exegesis, and some cite evidence to his views on women doing likewise in his translation (though i certainly uphold the headship of men in the church and home).

And as Leslie J. Hoppe, O.F.M. writes ,

One problem was the character of Latin. In Jerome’s day, it was a fixed language that resisted new vocabulary. But Latin did not have words that corresponded to some of the religious language of the Bible. This required adopting Greek words into Latin or forcing Latin words to bear new meanings.

The principle that Jerome used as he translated was not “word for word” but “sense for sense.” Today the type of translation that Jerome favored is called “dynamic equivalence..” (http://www.americancatholic.org/messenger/Sep1997/feature2.asp)

This “dynamic equivalence..” which the poor NIV also uses, means you are more likely to read what the translators think a word or phrase should say rather than what it does say.

in Luke 1:28 is the only place in the entire Bible where an angel addressed someone by a title rather than personal expression.

Another invention. ,Hail, "highly favoured" is not a title, but a greeting which describes what she is, like as Daniel who is called by the angel, "greatly beloved," (Dan. 10:11) and unlike where the Lord does give people a new title/name, the Holy Spirit never uses this sppsdly new title again - or gives her other titles in stark contrast to the approx 900 of Catholicism - but continues to call her Mary.

Saint Luke could have translated the passage as pleres Charitos, as he did in Acts 6:6 with respect to Saint Stephen yet he used a different expression in Luke 1:28 for Mary [kecharitomene] that is more revealing than the other rendering as it indicates God has already Graced Mary previous to this point, making her a vessel who has been and is now filled with Divine Life.

The issue is not whether Mary was graced, even before the salutation, bu whether Lk. 1:28 states was uniquely full of grace. And this attempt to force Scripture to support Rome is actually another argument against her. The reason "plērēs is not used in Lk. 1:28 is because that actually does denote "full" 17 other places in the NT., and thus it is used of the one who was/is unmistakably full of grace and Truth. And which was unmistakably previous to this point.

Nor does kecharitomene (one form of the verb "charitoo") being a perfect passive participle translate into meaning a "a perfection of grace," or distinctively a past action, in distinction to echaritosen (another form of the verb "charitoo") used in Eph. 1:6, as there also it refers to a present state based upon a past action, "To the praise of the glory of his grace, wherein he hath made us accepted [echaritosen] in the beloved." (Ephesians 1:6)

If Mary was perfectly full of grace as bearing Christ then it would say she was full of grace, as Christ was, (plērēs charis).

Alternative translations like “favored one” or “highly favored” are possible but inadequate.

No, only to souls who want to think of mortals "above that which is written," (1Cor. 4:60 and which this is part of. We must respect the Spirit's silence as well as statements, and Mary was a holy women chosen to be the instrument for the Christ who created her, yet she is mentioned in a rather marginal degree, while far more press is given to the apostle Paul describing his suffering for Christ and labor, and righteousness under severe testing, but who is very marginal to Caths compared with Mary.

Saint Augustine, Saint Ambrose and Saint Augustine’s commentaries linked earlier, support the Catholic Position. The 16th century protestant rebels support your view.

And the church began with rebels against those whom RCs would follow, consistent with their unBiblical basis for determining Truth. You can have them as Hell will also. May God grant you repentance.

[daniel1212]

Please do not take offense at this, but I have to point this out. That is a circular argument. You are concluding, in advance, that the text supports your position, therefore the "best" translation is the one that supports the conclusion you've already chosen though other means, patristics, tradition, what your priest told you, whatever. That's not how you do Biblical translation. If you want to know what it means to be your own pope, that is the very example of it, predetermining a conclusion then insisting the inspired text conform to that conclusion.

Indeed, but stand by for the same response

[daniel1212]

These are the words of God. This is holy ground. It demands respect. We cannot come to this ground and tell God what to say. Instead we must sit and respectfully listen to the words He has given us as He gave them to us.

True whether we do so or not. As i pointed out, the church began because the laity saw the Truth while the leadership did not/would not.

White debates this issue here and gets into detail with the Greek. (The fact that the Roman Catholic Church has to attempt to build such a complex theology on the form of a participle in a greeting should say a great deal in and of itself.)

And Swan stated ,

I was though pleased recently to hear Roman Catholic Magisterium interpreter Jimmy Akin say of Luke 1:28 on the word kecharitomene: "This is a Greek term that you could use in that exact grammatical formation for someone else who wasn't immaculately conceived and the sentence would still make sense." He then gives the example of using the term of Mary's grandmother. He also stated, "This is something where I said previously, we need the additional source of information from tradition and we need the guidance of the magisterium to be able to put these pieces together." This is a frank admission that the text does not plainly support the Roman Catholic interpretation and needs to be supplemented by another ultimate authority. In other words, the IC must be read into Luke 1:28.

[af_vet_1981]

He was also being separated from his mentor and friend.

I don't look at it that way. When I read 2 Kings 2 I see Elisha in awe of Elijah's power with the LORD God of Israel. I don't try to fit it into today's culture. I just take it as it is. I remember that it was Moses and Elijah that Jesus brought to the Mount of Transfiguration where the Father spoke from heaven. And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart, And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him. Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias. While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.

I look in Revelation 11 and see the two witnesses performing the miracles that Moses and Elijah performed. And there was given me a reed like unto a rod: and the angel stood, saying, Rise, and measure the temple of God, and the altar, and them that worship therein. 2 But the court which is without the temple leave out, and measure it not; for it is given unto the Gentiles: and the holy city shall they tread under foot forty and two months. 3 And I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth. 4 These are the two olive trees, and the two candlesticks standing before the God of the earth. 5 And if any man will hurt them, fire proceedeth out of their mouth, and devoureth their enemies: and if any man will hurt them, he must in this manner be killed. 6 These have power to shut heaven, that it rain not in the days of their prophecy: and have power over waters to turn them to blood, and to smite the earth with all plagues, as often as they will.

So no, I don't think of Elijah the prophet as Elisha's friend and mentor. I think of him more like Elisha did, And Elisha saw it, and he cried, My father, my father, the chariot of Israel, and the horsemen thereof.

In light of these, I'm also reminded of Malachi 4 (Jesus quoted Malachi 3 in reference to John the Baptist, not Malachi 4), where both Moses and Elijah are again mentioned. Remember ye the law of Moses my servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, with the statutes and judgments. 5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.

I perceive Moses and Elijah sitting on two of the twenty-four thrones mentioned in Revelation, And round about the throne were four and twenty seats: and upon the seats I saw four and twenty elders sitting, clothed in white raiment; and they had on their heads crowns of gold.

[CTrent1564]

We are not talking about marriage, we are talking about Luke 1:28 an the other verses that deal with Mary. I provided the Saint Thomas Aquinias Patristic commentary “Catena Aurea” which has all the patristic commentaries on Luke Chapter 1. None, not one had an interpretation that fits Calvin, Knox, or Zwingli. Again, I gave you the theological commentaries on Luke Chapter 1 and it is not only Jerome’s views that are consistent with what I posted, Ambrose, Augustine, Basil and all the others as well.

Good day to you and please don’t post to me again. I have tried to remain as charitable as I can be towards you even though you have thrown the loaded term “cult” numerous times. So again, lets just be done here and please don’t post to me again. I will respond in kind.

[daniel1212]

We are not talking about marriage, we are talking about Luke 1:28 an the other verses that deal with Mary. I provided the Saint Thomas Aquinias Patristic commentary “Catena Aurea” which has all the patristic commentaries on Luke Chapter 1. None, not one had an interpretation that fits Calvin, Knox, or Zwingli. Again, I gave you the theological commentaries on Luke Chapter 1 and it is not only Jerome’s views that are consistent with what I posted, Ambrose, Augustine, Basil and all the others as well.

That is much another argument from silence, as besides the eisegetical Jerome i found nothing on Lk. 1:28 asserting "full of grace" is what the Greek meant, which it does not. Nor are ECFs always in agreement with each other and or Rome, but it remains that your premise is that Rome must be right and cannot be wrong as the historical steward of Scripture, if she does say so herself, by which reasoning you invalidate the church.

Good day to you and please don’t post to me again. I have tried to remain as charitable as I can be towards you even though you have thrown the loaded term “cult” numerous times

Using straw men such as accusing me of being like a pope is not charitable but ignorance or dishonesty, which the fact remains that both cults and Rome operate out of the same sola ecclesia premise, that their magisterium is the supreme authority, not Scripture, and all your conclusions are driven by that, contrary to objectively examining the evidence in order to ascertain the veracity of RC teaching. To do so would be to doubt the assured veracity of Rome which she claims for herself, and by which you have your assurance. That is cultic, unless Rome is God.

So again, lets just be done here and please don’t post to me again. I will respond in kind.

You have tried this more than once in the past , and it's your call, but don't assume you can respond and expect me to be silence, and you started this by responding to a post that was not to you.