HiI would like to start by quoting Matthew 16:15-19 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father. And so I say to you, you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” In this passage, many say that we must look at Peter’s statement about who Jesus is and that this is the “rock’ that Jesus’ was talking about. But, if you look at the language that Jesus would have been speaking it would have been Aramaic. The word that Jesus would have used would have been “Kapa” meaning rock or peter and translated into the Greek Kaphas. Therefore, Jesus would have said I say to you, you are Kapa (rock) and upon this kapa (rock), I will build my Church. He than gave Peter the Keys to Heaven, which would have given Peter the power to hand down His authority.
Yes. Many bishops were silenced in 1870.One must be careful to acknowledge that reading Holy Scripture can lead to quite different interpretations. Perhaps Christ wanted Apostl Peter to be the foundation of the Church. But it is a not clear what is the “Petrin” role of bishop of rome. This especialy needs to be discussed since many Catolics bishops were forbidden in 1870 from discussing this at First Vatican Council. Special attention must be given now to discuss this issue which were not discussed under the Bishop of Rome Pius IX.
Yes. The ultra-montanists won the day.Strenuous objections were voiced at the First Vatican Council regarding the lack of freedom of discussion of infallibility on the agenda. Things which at Trent had been left in the hands of the Fathers - settlement of claims to take part in the Council, appointment of officials, regulation of procedure, etc. - were all now fixed by the personal act of the Pope. All anti-infallible proposals or postulations were made to be submitted to a special Congregation, nominated by the Pope, for dealing with such postulates, to consider them and report its advice to the Pope.
Interesting.Denying the validity of the 1st vatican Council, Archbishop Peter Richard Kenrick of American St Louis refused to speak at any of the general sessions after June 4th, 1870.
Thank you for this information. Not many are aware of the details of this council.In spite of Pius IX’s using the power and prestige of his office, there was still a large number - eighty-eight bishops - who voted against Papal Infallibility, which was enshrined in the constitution, Pastor Aeternus. Sixty-two bishops, many of whom were de facto opponents, voted with reservations, with only four hundred and fifty-one giving a clear yes - this is less than half of the one thousand and eighty-four prelates with voting privileges and less than two-thirds of the seven hundred bishops in attendance at the commencement of the Council. Over seventy-six bishops in Rome abstained from voting and fifty-five bishops informed the Pope that while maintaining their opposition to the definition that out of filial piety and reverence, which very recently brought our representatives to the feet of your Holiness, do not allow us in a cause so closely concerning Your Holiness to say non placet (it is not pleasing) openly in the face of the Father.30 This statement alone speaks volumes for the subservience that these bishops had for the totalitarian power of Pius IX - a power of Bishop of Rome unknown in the councils of the Early Church.
Hence, the great schism was widened.Thus lacking a moral unanimity or even a clear two-thirds majority, Papal Infallibility was now elevated as an article of faith equal to the Holy Trinity and the Incarnation.
Amen.This is not to say we cannot agree on some better understanding or Petrine role of Bishop of Rome. I pray that we will and Catolics and Orthodox will again be to communion together.
What do you mean by this statement? It looks as though you are separating Christ’s humanity from His divinity.Isnt Peter the only human being other than Jesus Christ’s humanity ever recorded in all of history to actually Walk on water?