Christ Did NOT make Peter the head of the church

[KathleenGee]

Steve…I do not think the major NW seminary will have someone teaching falsehoods…

In our earlier class, we studied how the papacy developed…I don’t have my notes handy but two early popes made decrees, one an excommunication of a bishop, and the entire Christiandom accepted this.

From what I had studied years ago under Archbishop Levada, who then took former Cardinal Ratzinger’s position…that God alone is Truth.

In the human dimension, the first degree of truth is the Church found in its councils. The Church is the interpreter of faith. The second degree of truth is our Catholic Church Catechism. And the third degree of truth are papal encyclicals, but not all are equal in truth.

This aspect will be discussed next month…and hopefully will address the clarity Vatican II provided to some ambiguity or lack of clarity from Vatican I.

The bottom line is infallibility is the pope working within the Church at service for the Church.

If the Garden People had won…those who thought that as everything is running fine, why change anything and make the Pope a living infallible person on his own whose entire being dictates our own lives…but the Church is not like that. We have our bishops…all to be in communion with the Holy Father. There are the Prophets who want the Church to go forward and to not be too bogged down with such a claim of infallibility.

Regarding defining…it also is addressing discipline.

Prior to Vatican I, the Pope served primarily in a pastoral way, disciplining, and funding missions as well as that within the scope of the greater Church’s mission.

Councils come out of alot of trevail within society. we all have different takes on things…and thus we cannot predict the future.

In December 1994 or 1995, it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who made a definitive statement that women could not become priests…his position overseeing the Congregation of Faith entitled him to do so, under the authority of John Paul II. I remember the event, being in a class with feminists, the instructor very upset, was openly considering moving into the Episcopalian Church to become a priest…and saying a definitive statement had been made…No concern or upset or surprise that it was not the Pope but the Cardinal.

In the history of the papacy, the authority of Peter has been there…but not defined as such until Vatican I…in the face of a world now wanting self-determination and not the monarchy or anyone dictating to them who they should become or how they should live.

The final point is that the Church is as a living sacrament…we do not find our live in the Pope alone in Christ, but the communion we all share with him, the bishops and faithful throughout the world, as our first mission in life is communion with the Holy Trinity…not of this world.

 

[benhur]

Archbishop Manning of Westminster, used excessive language of the pope such as “the incarnation of the Holy Spirit.”

Thanks for sharing. I have been trying to verify a quote from a "mystery writer’ with no success. The writer alleges Cardinal Manning penned these words for a papal lecture, “I acknowledge no civil power; I am the subject of no prince. I am more than this. I claim to be supreme judge and director of the conscience of men: of the peasant who tills the field, and the prince who sits upon the throne; of the household that lives in the shade of privacy, and the legislator that makes laws for the kingdom. I am sole, last, supreme judge of what is right or wrong.” Seems kind of strong but Manning was a “Garden” man to say the least. Appreciate any reference/(name removed by moderator)ut.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Steve…I do not think the major NW seminary will have someone teaching falsehoods…

In our earlier class, we studied how the papacy developed…I don’t have my notes handy but two early popes made decrees, one an excommunication of a bishop, and the entire Christiandom accepted this.

From what I had studied years ago under Archbishop Levada, who then took former Cardinal Ratzinger’s position…that God alone is Truth.

In the human dimension, the first degree of truth is the Church found in its councils. The Church is the interpreter of faith. The second degree of truth is our Catholic Church Catechism. And the third degree of truth are papal encyclicals, but not all are equal in truth.

This aspect will be discussed next month…and hopefully will address the clarity Vatican II provided to some ambiguity or lack of clarity from Vatican I.

The bottom line is infallibility is the pope working within the Church at service for the Church.

If the Garden People had won…those who thought that as everything is running fine, why change anything and make the Pope a living infallible person on his own whose entire being dictates our own lives…but the Church is not like that. We have our bishops…all to be in communion with the Holy Father. There are the Prophets who want the Church to go forward and to not be too bogged down with such a claim of infallibility.

Regarding defining…it also is addressing discipline.

Prior to Vatican I, the Pope served primarily in a pastoral way, disciplining, and funding missions as well as that within the scope of the greater Church’s mission.

Councils come out of alot of trevail within society. we all have different takes on things…and thus we cannot predict the future.

In December 1994 or 1995, it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who made a definitive statement that women could not become priests…his position overseeing the Congregation of Faith entitled him to do so, under the authority of John Paul II. I remember the event, being in a class with feminists, the instructor very upset, was openly considering moving into the Episcopalian Church to become a priest…and saying a definitive statement had been made…No concern or upset or surprise that it was not the Pope but the Cardinal.

In the history of the papacy, the authority of Peter has been there…but not defined as such until Vatican I…in the face of a world now wanting self-determination and not the monarchy or anyone dictating to them who they should become or how they should live.

The final point is that the Church is as a living sacrament…we do not find our live in the Pope alone in Christ, but the communion we all share with him, the bishops and faithful throughout the world, as our first mission in life is communion with the Holy Trinity…not of this world.

That is correct, it was on October 28, 1995.

Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

RESPONSUM AD PROPOSITUM DUBIUM
CONCERNING THE TEACHING
CONTAINED IN “ORDINATIO SACERDOTALIS”

Dubium: Whether the teaching that the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women, which is presented in the Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis to be held definitively, is to be understood as belonging to the deposit of faith.

Responsum: Affirmative.

This teaching requires definitive assent, since, founded on the written Word of God, and from the beginning constantly preserved and applied in the Tradition of the Church, it has been set forth infallibly by the ordinary and universal Magisterium (cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church Lumen Gentium 25, 2). Thus, in the present circumstances, the Roman Pontiff, exercising his proper office of confirming the brethren (cf. Lk 22:32), has handed on this same teaching by a formal declaration, explicitly stating what is to be held always, everywhere, and by all, as belonging to the deposit of the faith.

The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Reply, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published.

Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the Feast of the Apostles SS. Simon and Jude, October 28, 1995.

Joseph Card. Ratzinger
Prefect

 

[steve_b]

Steve…I do not think the major NW seminary will have someone teaching falsehoods…

It doesn’t mean it will happen but any seminary can have a problem in this area. And when bishops are on guard, they move to replace people that need replacing. That’s all I’m implying ncronline.org/news/people/surprise-resignation-stuns-california-seminary-students-faculty
K:

In our earlier class, we studied how the papacy developed…I don’t have my notes handy but two early popes made decrees, one an excommunication of a bishop, and the entire Christiandom accepted this.

From what I had studied years ago under Archbishop Levada, who then took former Cardinal Ratzinger’s position…that God alone is Truth.

In the human dimension, the first degree of truth is the Church found in its councils. The Church is the interpreter of faith. The second degree of truth is our Catholic Church Catechism. And the third degree of truth are papal encyclicals, but not all are equal in truth.

This aspect will be discussed next month…and hopefully will address the clarity Vatican II provided to some ambiguity or lack of clarity from Vatican I.

The bottom line is infallibility is the pope working within the Church at service for the Church.

If the Garden People had won…those who thought that as everything is running fine, why change anything and make the Pope a living infallible person on his own whose entire being dictates our own lives…but the Church is not like that. We have our bishops…all to be in communion with the Holy Father. There are the Prophets who want the Church to go forward and to not be too bogged down with such a claim of infallibility.

Regarding defining…it also is addressing discipline.

Prior to Vatican I, the Pope served primarily in a pastoral way, disciplining, and funding missions as well as that within the scope of the greater Church’s mission.

Councils come out of alot of trevail within society. we all have different takes on things…and thus we cannot predict the future.

In December 1994 or 1995, it was then Cardinal Ratzinger who made a definitive statement that women could not become priests…his position overseeing the Congregation of Faith entitled him to do so, under the authority of John Paul II. I remember the event, being in a class with feminists, the instructor very upset, was openly considering moving into the Episcopalian Church to become a priest…and saying a definitive statement had been made…No concern or upset or surprise that it was not the Pope but the Cardinal.

are you referring here to the same seminary you’re taking classes from now?
K:

In the history of the papacy, the authority of Peter has been there…but not defined as such until Vatican I…in the face of a world now wanting self-determination and not the monarchy or anyone dictating to them who they should become or how they should live.

People have been fighting over authority and who has it, from the beginning of time.
K:

The final point is that the Church is as a living sacrament…we do not find our live in the Pope alone in Christ, but the communion we all share with him, the bishops and faithful throughout the world, as our first mission in life is communion with the Holy Trinity…not of this world.

Look around. Do you find people overly managed by the pope?

 

[KathleenGee]

Thanks for clarifying the time, Isaiah…remember the event very well.

Will bring it up in December…if I am not or they snowed in…like last February when everyone was awaiting this talk on Vatican I. Ask the teacher the process in how then Cardinal Ratzinger made the definitive statement.

I also read that he helped John Paul put together…encyclicals, letters…?..will find more out hopefully.

 

[KathleenGee]

The classes I took way back then were not at the seminary regarding the feminist instructor.

We would stay in the same classroom, then the head of the institute would come in and talk about orthodoxy…finally some students went in to report…the feminist teacher thought may be I was one of them as I would ask or make challenging comments…that she said raised her blood pressure…that she would like to be my friend some day but not then.

Later another student and myself in the next term, laughed alot about her funny comments and (name removed by moderator)ut on some things. She is still around, a Catholic sister and I hope over the woman priest thing.

My archdiocesan seminary was the first thing to shut down way back then…way back then, rosaries thrown out the window…etc., etc., etc…I thin we are out of all of that now from waht I can see.

About popes managing people…and I stated in my classes way back then that I am a papal Catholic…you would have to go back to the times before the Reformation. I also heard that Pope Pius XII pretty much single handedly managed and taught the Church during WWII. I pray for his canonization…

Anyway, God willing, I will hear more in depth of how Vatican II clarified some cloudy areas of infallibility.

God bless!

 

[KathleenGee]

Benhur…yes, Cardinal Manning…I remember reading one of his phrases that I myself have repeated elsewhere in cyberspace…‘When a culture becomes obsessed with sex, it has lost its faith in God’.

We also heard about Manning’s great love, Caroline, who died very early on in their marriage. He conveyed to Bishop Neumann that he had to keep on working constantly as he had been in great grief…He became Catholic and then a priest…

Both were graduates of Oxford and they fell head first into converted Catholics, more Roman than the Romans, wearing cassocks and Roman collars.

You cannot take Catholic priests too seriously. My pastor told us one time, listen to what I teach, but do not look at me!’ You look at people and clerics too much, you lose your faith.

The key is to keep our eyes on Christ at all times…a life long conversion feat.

 

[KathleenGee]

SteveB…naming saints, upholding sacred tradition as in the case of women priests…popes in the past drew on tradition…naming saints drew on ascetism…

I will ask next time around…The mystery theologian makes his voice heard…and i think I can even write him these questions of yours…

Bulls are for clergy and conciliar…so you have to look at the context…Mystery theologian says Catholicism is all about context, context, context…of the times in which people live and he relishes getting into all sorts of melodrama of the times in which he teaches…

 

[TheSeeker2014]

I am not about to read this whole thread… but!
I have heard from some protestants the reason why they believe Peter was not the first Pope was because the first ‘rock’-Peter- mentioned was a different greek word than the second ‘rock’ mentioned.
The first ‘rock’-Peter- meaning ‘little rock’
While the second ‘rock’ meaning large rock or foundation’

biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-18.htm

“Thou art the Christ,” so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known - the former meaning “a rock,” the latter “a piece of rock,” or “a stone.” But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42).
biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

Personally I have no opinion on the topic… I am just open to learn.I would also love to hear a good Catholic Rebuttal on this because I have been very curious about this script.

 

[SteveVH]

I am not about to read this whole thread… but!
I have heard from some protestants the reason why they believe Peter was not the first Pope was because the first ‘rock’-Peter- mentioned was a different greek word than the second ‘rock’ mentioned.
The first ‘rock’-Peter- meaning ‘little rock’
While the second ‘rock’ meaning large rock or foundation’

biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-18.htm

“Thou art the Christ,” so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known - the former meaning “a rock,” the latter “a piece of rock,” or “a stone.” But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42).
biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

Personally I have no opinion on the topic… I am just open to learn.I would also love to hear a good Catholic Rebuttal on this because I have been very curious about this script.

This has been discussed about 30 million times on this forum.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

This has been discussed about 30 million times on this forum.

ok… well i suppose I shall start the long process of reading then… do you happen to know what page?

 

[SteveVH]

ok… well i suppose I shall start the long process of reading then… do you happen to know what page?

I would start with the thread entitled “Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward” by Randy Carson. I just bumped it up to the top so that you can find it easily. This is only one of many.

God bless.

Steve

 

[spina1953]

I would start with the thread entitled “Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward” by Randy Carson. I just bumped it up to the top so that you can find it easily. This is only one of many.

God bless.

Steve

Hi Steve: I agree but remember there are always those who have not read some of these threads and also are here for the first time so it is always good to refresh what we know to those who don’t or wanting to learn.

 

[adrift]

I am not about to read this whole thread… but!
I have heard from some protestants the reason why they believe Peter was not the first Pope was because the first ‘rock’-Peter- mentioned was a different greek word than the second ‘rock’ mentioned.
The first ‘rock’-Peter- meaning ‘little rock’
While the second ‘rock’ meaning large rock or foundation’

biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-18.htm

“Thou art the Christ,” so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known - the former meaning “a rock,” the latter “a piece of rock,” or “a stone.” But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42).
biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

Personally I have no opinion on the topic… I am just open to learn.I would also love to hear a good Catholic Rebuttal on this because I have been very curious about this script.

Try this
catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve: I agree but remember there are always those who have not read some of these threads and also are here for the first time so it is always good to refresh what we know to those who don’t or wanting to learn.

Yeah, you’re right. I just don’t have the energy nor the inclination to recreate the whole thing again right now. At any moment I will be pulled away from CAF (work) so feel free to expound.

 

[spina1953]

Yeah, you’re right. I just don’t have the energy nor the inclination to recreate the whole thing again right now. At any moment I will be pulled away from CAF (work) so feel free to expound.

Hi Steve: I understand it is up to us to try whenever we can. Its not recreating the whole thing again but bring new ways of understanding to those who are need of it. Thanks for your reply.

 

[TheSeeker2014]

Try this
catholic.com/tracts/peter-the-rock

Thank you much… so it really means what Catholics say it means… so interesting…

Now how does it go from Peter to the line of Popes?

 

[SteveVH]

Hi Steve: I understand it is up to us to try whenever we can. Its not recreating the whole thing again but bring new ways of understanding to those who are need of it. Thanks for your reply.

 

[guanophore]

I am not about to read this whole thread…

Weenie.



but!

I have heard from some protestants the reason why they believe Peter was not the first Pope was because the first ‘rock’-Peter- mentioned was a different greek word than the second ‘rock’ mentioned.
The first ‘rock’-Peter- meaning ‘little rock’
While the second ‘rock’ meaning large rock or foundation’

biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/16-18.htm

You can search the thread for the word “rock” and just read the relevant posts.

The bottom line is that this argument is irrelevant, since Matthew was written first in Aramaic, and Kepha is the only word used in both places.

“Thou art the Christ,” so I say unto thee, etc. Thou art Peter (Πέτρος, Petrus), and upon this rock (πέτρα, petra) I will build my Church. In classical Greek, the distinction between πέτρα and πέτρος is well known - the former meaning “a rock,” the latter “a piece of rock,” or “a stone.” But probably no such distinction is intended here, as there would be none in Aramaic. There is plainly a paronomasia here in the Greek; and, if our Lord spoke in Aramaic, the same play of words was exhibited in Kephas or kepha. When Jesus first called Peter to be a disciple, he imposed upon him the name Cephas, which the evangelist explains to be Peter (John 1:42).
biblehub.com/matthew/16-18.htm

You are Kepha, and upon this Kepha…
TheSeeker2014;12502404:

Personally I have no opinion on the topic… I am just open to learn.I would also love to hear a good Catholic Rebuttal on this because I have been very curious about this script.

It is a really good thread…

 

[steve_b]

Thank you much… so it really means what Catholics say it means… so interesting…

1st we can establish with evidence, that it’s the Catholic Church Our Lord established, from the beginning. Here’s a quick 400 year history #34 open up all the internal links for great context
TS:

Now how does it go from Peter to the line of Popes?

In the above link, it’s interesting, Irenaeus, (see the internal links, 2nd Irenaeus link in particular) who himself is 1 man away from John the apostle, gives 12 bishops by name, in the line of popes of Rome, from Peter, down to his day. One has to ask, why do that unless lineage from an apostle is important, and particularly 1 apostle that gives the Church of Rome “pre=eminent authority” over all other Churches.

It’s already taught at this early date, that the bishop of Rome occupies Peter’s see. Pope Francis is the 267th successor to Peter.