Protestants Rejecting Catholicism

[Padres1969]

And so it is not literally true. I’m not sure the claim was to literalism.
Which passages of the bible do you know by heart? Which do you not? Do you really know “the whole book of the bible”?

At the Mass we have the living Word of God. Everyday the Catholic Church has a scripture study in a context that can be had nowhere else on earth.
Everyday we have scripture, OT and NT. Psalms, Revelation. Hosana.
The Mass is one long tour of Scripture, but in the only context that matters, that of Christ himself.
No other Church has the living Word of God, body blood soul and divinity.

Except of course at Orthodox, Anglican or Lutheran churches as well… All of their masses/services include the same OT, NT, Psalm, etc… Also on a cycle.

And as for no other church having the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ present, even Catholics don’t believe that as they acknowledge the Orthodox also have the same. (And Anglicans and Lutherans would argue they have it as well )

 

[benhur]

In Gal 2, Paul wanted confirmation he was not running in vain with his teaching. As Paul put it “by revelation” iow he was sent by the HS to seek confirmation his teaching was correct

Hi steve,

yes , this was twelve years later. The gospel was being challenged by the judaizers, and the Spirit told paul it needed to be quelched by the other person who had direct revelation of gentile righteousness, Peter . it was rightly dealt with by all the church at Jerusalem, along with James, and the source or “home/heart” of the judaizers.

The "vanity " for Paul was not that he might be wrong with his message , but that the judaizers could undo the ministry and its fruits.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

I just wanted to avail myself of the opportunity to remark that I enjoy reading your posts and that upon which you comment. I find your interventions well presented as well as thoughtful in content.

thank you Don…encouraging…blessings to you also.

 

[benhur]

benhur,

Yes we are reading this differently.

I’ve added the Greek words for context behind Jesus statement to the apostles . Jesus was gentle but direct. He confirmed ** one** of them is to be all of this. There was no equalization of positions here among the apostles. No hint that they are considered all equal to each other in authority. Just look at the language used.

(links are operational)

ἡγούμενος , στήρισον

Lk 22:
24A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules ἡγούμενος like the one who serves. 27For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves. 28You are those who have stood by me in my trials. 29And I confer on you a kingdom, just as my Father conferred one on me, 30so that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
31“Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. 32But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen στήρισον your brothers.”

1. 
   *]Did Jesus confirm one would rule? Yes
   *]Did He say anyone else would rule? No
   *]Did Jesus promise to pray especially for one who would rule and strengthen the others? Yes
   *]Did Jesus name or pray for anyone else in that position He names? No
   *]Who is this one He names to rule, and that Jesus is going to pray for? Peter.
   *]the one who rules ἡγούμενος , open the link and see the explanation. Part of the understanding of that word is, hence Peter deserves cooperation by those who are led by him
   
   that said,
   
   for Peter then to do the job Jesus commanded of him, all must be willing to be led by Peter. In extension, those who do this are cooperating with the will of Jesus.
   
   With respect, If all are equals, why is one made to be στήρισον and commanded to στήρισον the others?
   
   Servants yes. But one is the leader. ἡγούμενος , who is also to στήρισον
   the others
   BTW one of the titles of the pope is “servant of the servants of God” which takes nothing away from his authority
   
   Yet Jesus made one of them the chief over the others ἡγούμενος
   and the one who is the leader. ἡγούμενος , also is to στήρισον
   the others
   
   Yet one of them is to be over all the others ἡγούμενος
   
   Jesus established the papacy.
   
   Various fictions however, come from this subject
   
   Fiction 1 - Peter was not the first Pope
   Fiction 2 - The Pope cannot be the Successor of Peter
   Fiction 3 - The Papacy is a medieval invention

1. 
   Hi steve,
   
   I think my last quote sums up the answers to your previous rebuttals.(agreed that they will not be equal in reward, of gifting, or servant hood /leadership, save they are all twelve our foundation as per Revelations, and all will rule/judge Israel (no mention of a special seat for Peter in those two instances)
   
   So yes Peter can be a leader amongst leaders, per the Greek word, yet also applied to all twelve, including Paul, and a council. (Paul is mentioned in at least one bishop of Rome list, and is mentioned more than Peter in Bible). From here agreement falls off in the papal succession (not in bishop(s) of Rome, or succession of leaders in any/all other big city or province of the time, as per Iraneus). Succession of geographical church leadership yes, but succession as one head bishop of Rome/Italy (most bishops for 2 millenia were Italian), no.
   
   Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

I think my last quote sums up the answers to your previous rebuttals.(agreed that they will not be equal in reward, of gifting, or servant hood /leadership, save they are all twelve our foundation as per Revelations, and all will rule/judge Israel (no mention of a special seat for Peter in those two instances)

benhur, it’s good we’re having this discussion

Peter has that special position, chief steward over all the house, via receiving the keys of the kingdom from Jesus. The one who has the keys is a huge issue. People dismiss the realities of this
bh:

So yes Peter can be a leader amongst leaders, per the Greek word,

He is not just “a” leader among many but he is THE leader over the other leaders.
bh:

yet also applied to all twelve, including Paul, and a council.

yet none of them holds the office Peter holds.
bh:

(Paul is mentioned in at least one bishop of Rome list, and is mentioned more than Peter in Bible).

Actually, there can only be one valid pope at a time.

and actually Peter is mentioned more than anyone in the NT. That’s not from me but from the following

"The names of Peter, which include Simon and Cephas, are mentioned more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle.
“Of Peter the most is known. Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the other Apostles combined are only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references.”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, “Life of Christ”, page 106.

The name James, is mentioned a total of 38 times and of that number there were 2 persons, James the Greater, and James the Less. So if James the Less is said to have the primacy, then why is he mentioned so few times compared to Peter?

Every time the names of the Apostles are listed, except for Gal 2:9, his name appears first. In Mt 10:2 it even says that Peter is first, “Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,…”. See also Mk 3:16, Lk 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13.
Peter’s name appears first also when 3 or 4 of the Apostles are listed: Mt 17:1, Mk 5:37, Mk 9:2,
Mk 13:3, Mk 14:33, Lk 5:8-10, Lk 8:51, Lk 9:28.
As for Gal 2:9, it was customary then, as it is to this very day, to name the Bishop of the Diocese first. If the Pope visited a Diocese, the Bishop would be named ahead of him as it is the proper protocol. In Gal 2, Peter was visiting Jerusalem, as verses 1-8 show.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who deny the Primacy of Peter, will invariably point to this one and only verse where Peter is named second and will completely ignore the many verses which list his name first. If James held the primacy as some would like us to believe, then why is he mentioned first in only one single verse?

Throughout our salvation history, GOD has always provided a ‘Father Figure’ to guide His people. Some examples are, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and Peter and the succession of Popes."

taken from thecatholictreasurechest.com/prim.htm
bh:

From here agreement falls off in the papal succession (not in bishop(s) of Rome, or succession of leaders in any/all other big city or province of the time, as per Iraneus). Succession of geographical church leadership yes, but succession as one head bishop of Rome/Italy (most bishops for 2 millenia were Italian), no.

Blessings

could you expand on what your question is?

 

[benhur]

benhur, it’s good we’re having this discussion

Peter has that special position, chief steward over all the house, via receiving the keys of the kingdom from Jesus. The one who has the keys is a huge issue. People dismiss the realities of this

He is not just “a” leader among many but he is THE leader over the other leaders.

yet none of them holds the office Peter holds.

Actually, there can only be one valid pope at a time.

and actually Peter is mentioned more than anyone in the NT. That’s not from me but from the following

"The names of Peter, which include Simon and Cephas, are mentioned more times in the New Testament than any other Apostle.
“Of Peter the most is known. Peter is mentioned 195 times, the rest of the other Apostles combined are only 130 times. The one mentioned next in frequency to Peter is John, to whom there are 29 references.”
Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen, “Life of Christ”, page 106.

The name James, is mentioned a total of 38 times and of that number there were 2 persons, James the Greater, and James the Less. So if James the Less is said to have the primacy, then why is he mentioned so few times compared to Peter?

Every time the names of the Apostles are listed, except for Gal 2:9, his name appears first. In Mt 10:2 it even says that Peter is first, “Now these are the names of the twelve Apostles: first Simon, who is called Peter,…”. See also Mk 3:16, Lk 6:13-14, and Acts 1:13.
Peter’s name appears first also when 3 or 4 of the Apostles are listed: Mt 17:1, Mk 5:37, Mk 9:2,
Mk 13:3, Mk 14:33, Lk 5:8-10, Lk 8:51, Lk 9:28.
As for Gal 2:9, it was customary then, as it is to this very day, to name the Bishop of the Diocese first. If the Pope visited a Diocese, the Bishop would be named ahead of him as it is the proper protocol. In Gal 2, Peter was visiting Jerusalem, as verses 1-8 show.
It never ceases to amaze me that those who deny the Primacy of Peter, will invariably point to this one and only verse where Peter is named second and will completely ignore the many verses which list his name first. If James held the primacy as some would like us to believe, then why is he mentioned first in only one single verse?

Throughout our salvation history, GOD has always provided a ‘Father Figure’ to guide His people. Some examples are, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, David, Solomon, and Peter and the succession of Popes."

taken from thecatholictreasurechest.com/prim.htm

could you expand on what your question is?

Hi steve,

Again, the Greek word used to denote Peter as "head’ is also used for other apostles, and Paul and the council. Then if you rely on "keys’’ ok , but it seems other apostles also used them. And Paul/Saul is mentioned more than Peter (over 215 times), not that it matters that much. But yes Peter was leader , special key holder/user of the original twelve.

As to succession, yes God provides us leaders, and disagree that a college of cardinals is infallible in that appointment in head leader. Indeed Christ chose the twelve , even Peter. Christ definitely chose Paul for his destiny also. It is speculative to say that every bishop of Rome is then head of the church as specifically appointed by Christ thereafter.

Blessings

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

Again, the Greek word used to denote Peter as "head’ is also used for other apostles, and Paul and the council. Then if you rely on "keys’’ ok , but it seems other apostles also used them.

The keys come from Jesus to Peter alone. With those keys then, Peter is over the entire house. That’s the importance of the keys

Using different examples, Jesus talking directly to Peter

Event 1

Luke 12:39-44 “But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would have been awake and * would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.” Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward οἰκονόμος oikonomos]whom his master will set καθίστημι kathistēmi make ruler] over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions”.
Definition οἰκονόμος oikonomos]steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs

Definitions
καθίστημι kathistēmi] = make ruler
οἰκονόμος oikonomos] = steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has entrusted the management of his affairs

**Event 2 **

Jesus singled out Peter from the others, to lead and strengthen the others

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Who was Jesus referring to? Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? NO. Did He say one would NOT (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No, He confirmed that one would be the greatest among them and rule ( hegeomai). It was Peter

definitions
Hegeomai

1)to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
2) to consider, deem, account, think

Ever hear of Peter being called prince of the apostles? Ever wonder where it came from?

Event 3

After the resurrection and before the Ascension, Jesus in front of ALL the apostles, AGAIN, singled out Peter, and told Peter to feed and rule my sheep (poimaino IS the Greek word used there which means rule) [Jn 21:16]

Scripturally, Jesus didn’t use

keys with anyone else other than Peter, and Jesus didn’ use
rule with anyone else other than Peter.

simply said, Jesus is going to make Peter the “ruler over His household”, “over all His possessions” when He changed Simon’s name to Rock, & gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of Heaven, and told him to feed, tend and rule his flock.
bh:

And Paul/Saul is mentioned more than Peter (over 215 times), not that it matters that much.

As an aside, did you also use Simon, & Cephas as search terms as well for Peter? I looked at 3 popular Protestant translations, and Peter/Simon/Cephas, was still mentioned more than Paul/Saul. Could I ask, what translation did you use?
bh:

But yes Peter was leader , special key holder/user of the original twelve.

And just as importantly, that goes for his successors as well.
bh:

As to succession, yes God provides us leaders, and disagree that a college of cardinals is infallible in that appointment in head leader. Indeed Christ chose the twelve , even Peter. Christ definitely chose Paul for his destiny also. It is speculative to say that every bishop of Rome is then head of the church as specifically appointed by Christ thereafter.

Blessings

It’s interesting, that was covered specifically by Irenaeus in his work “Against Heresies”

 

[benhur]

The keys come from Jesus to Peter alone. With those keys then, Peter is over the entire house. That’s the importance of the keys

Using different examples, Jesus talking directly to Peter

Event 1

Luke 12:39-44 “But know this, that if the householder had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would have been awake and * would not have left his house to be broken into. You also must be ready; for the Son of man is coming at an unexpected hour.” Peter said, “Lord, are you telling this parable for us or for all?” And the Lord said, “Who then is the faithful and wise steward οἰκονόμος oikonomos]whom his master will set καθίστημι kathistēmi make ruler] over his household, to give them their portion of food at the proper time? Blessed is that servant whom his master when he comes will find so doing. Truly, I say to you, he will set him over all his possessions”.
Definition οἰκονόμος oikonomos]steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has intrusted the management of his affairs

Definitions
καθίστημι kathistēmi] = make ruler
οἰκονόμος oikonomos] = steward, manager, superintendent (whether free-born or as was usually the case, a freed-man or a slave) to whom the head of the house or proprietor has entrusted the management of his affairs

Hi steve,

It sure sounds like He specified Peter in Luke if one is already predisposed to a “pope”, but also for someone who sees Peter as the apostles "leader’’, butas per description "b " as "one who goes before"as I do

The Luke text can be seen otherwise though . Peter specifically only has two groups:"us’’ (apostles), or “all” (the disciples)… (Jesus was speaking a crowd of followers at the time). Jesus did not correct the groupings, in fact emphasizes them between servants and stewards. Jesus does not say it is between Peter in group one, and the rest of the apostles in group 2. Again, all twelve in due season will get their just meats, for their part in ruling over the "church’’ kingdom . It is your assumption that Christ speaking in singular (servant/steward) has tossed aside Peter’s original assertion of plural (us or all). The following parable also sheds light on the answer to Peter. That a bad steward will be “cut asunder”, will be sleeping, or drunken, to beaten with stripes. “To whom much is given , much will be required” can apply to all stewards, from a preacher to a prophet to an apostle to a bishop/priest / even a pope. Again do not see singular “steward” warning hear. Do not see Jesus warning just future popes, but all bishops etc…

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Jesus singled out Peter from the others, to lead and strengthen the others

Lk 22:
24 a dispute arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. 25 Jesus said to them, "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. 26But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the onewho rules (hegeomai) like the one who serves.

Who was Jesus referring to? Did Jesus say one of them would NOT be considered greatest? NO. Did He say one would NOT (hegiomai) be the one to lead/have authority over/ rule? No, He confirmed that one would be the greatest among them and rule ( hegeomai). It was Peter

definitions
Hegeomai

1)to lead
a) to go before
b) to be a leader
to rule, command
2) to have authority over
3) a prince, of regal power, governor, viceroy, chief, leading as respects influence, controlling in counsel, overseers or leaders of the churches
4) used of any kind of leader, chief, commander
5) the leader in speech, chief, spokesman
2) to consider, deem, account, think

Ever hear of Peter being called prince of the apostles? Ever wonder where it came from?

]His steve,

yes we have been over this one before. It is you assumption that Jesus is only talking of a papal paradigm.

I agree that one could be the greatest . That is, I really doubt that there would be a "tie’ between one , two or three of the apostles , hence by default one would be greater. I am also not doubting Peter would be the greater servant (went before, led the charge so to speak) . As I stated earlier , Jesus is giving a new paradigm for being “great”, and inviting all the apostles to run that race. He did not rebuke the apostles for forgetting he gave the keys to Peter either . He did not insist it was Peter in this occasion.

Blessings

 

[goout]

]
I agree that one could be the greatest .

How could one not be the greatest?
We are talking about human beings, each given various gifts by God.
Each human being is unique. God gives us unique charisms, unique vocations, unique roles of service, unique talents, personalities, etc…

**Equality in dignity before God is not at odds with uniqueness. ** This has become particularly hard to understand in our time when equality is so misunderstood.

Observe: Christ could have been born of a spirit-egg, and no one human being is needed to be uniquely fruitful in the Spirit. His humanity could have been spread uniformly across the whole of humanity.
But that is not God’s way. God recognizes the uniqueness of one woman, and one woman only, to be the God-bearer.
Christ is incarnate in a specific and unique body, and born of a unique woman. He does not come in a vague and homogenous humanity.

This must say something specific about the uniqueness of the charism given to Peter. It is part of our human fabric to recognized the unique gifts given to each of us and not homogenize them and rob them of God-given power.

 

[benhur]

How could one not be the greatest?
We are talking about human beings, each given various gifts by God.
Each human being is unique. God gives us unique charisms, unique vocations, unique roles of service, unique talents, personalities, etc…

**Equality in dignity before God is not at odds with uniqueness. ** This has become particularly hard to understand in our time when equality is so misunderstood.

Observe: Christ could have been born of a spirit-egg, and no one human being is needed to be uniquely fruitful in the Spirit. His humanity could have been spread uniformly across the whole of humanity.
But that is not God’s way. God recognizes the uniqueness of one woman, and one woman only, to be the God-bearer.
Christ is incarnate in a specific and unique body, and born of a unique woman. He does not come in a vague and homogenous humanity.

This must say something specific about the uniqueness of the charism given to Peter. It is part of our human fabric to recognized the unique gifts given to each of us and not homogenize them and rob them of God-given power.

Hi g,

With a quick reading I agree with your style and point. I do also love the beauty of God’s working as He pleases in mankind, with glorious results. Quite humbling. But that is exactly why I am at odds with then making such workings, election, God’s choosing, so artificial or “institutional” , as is the election of future “greatest” after Peter (college of cardinals, choosing mostly Italian descendants, etc.)

Blessings
.

 

[Wannano]

Hi g,

With a quick reading I agree with your style and point. I do also love the beauty of God’s working as He pleases in mankind, with glorious results. Quite humbling. But that is exactly why I am at odds with then making such workings, election, God’s choosing, so artificial or “institutional” , as is the election of future “greatest” after Peter (college of cardinals, choosing mostly Italian descendants, etc.)

Blessings
.

You have raised a terrific point, even the CC points out that there have been evil Popes.

 

[rcwitness]

You have raised a terrific point, even the CC points out that there have been evil Popes.

Yes. The greatest of position is not the same thing as the greatest of faith.

 

[adf417]

You have raised a terrific point, even the CC points out that there have been evil Popes.

And the list is much shorter of popes who are canonized saints than those not…
huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/24/popes-saints_n_5205270.html

Peace!!!

 

[goout]

Hi g,

With a quick reading I agree with your style and point. I do also love the beauty of God’s working as He pleases in mankind, with glorious results. Quite humbling. But that is exactly why I am at odds with then making such workings, election, God’s choosing, so artificial or “institutional” , as is the election of future “greatest” after Peter (college of cardinals, choosing mostly Italian descendants, etc.)

Blessings
.

You missed the point that it is not artificial.
The Church is institutional, as is the Incarnation. The Incarnation makes charisms real, so to speak. These unique gifts are in Christ, they are not a matter of artifice, workings, or merely human election.

Christ’s words mean something real. His laying on of hands means something. These are not spiritualized symbols.
His gracing of the Church and it’s leadership really happened in time and space.
They are institutional, by nature.

 

[steve_b]

Hi steve,

As to succession, yes God provides us leaders, and disagree that a college of cardinals is infallible in that appointment in head leader. Indeed Christ chose the twelve , even Peter. Christ definitely chose Paul for his destiny also. It is speculative to say that every bishop of Rome is then head of the church as specifically appointed by Christ thereafter.

Blessings

benhur, for clarification

the Church doesn’t say that happens either. Not sure where you may have heard that, but it’s one of those myths / fictions that get invented and circulated by who knows who. “Infallibility” is defined very specifically. …when it happens and how it occurs

For example

Papal infallibility is clearly defined how and when it happens

.

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
        
        papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
        http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
     A pope therefore, must
     • define a doctrine,
     • it must be on faith and morals, (not anything else)
     • it must be held as a belief by the entire Church.
     *If those conditions are not met then there is no issue of infallibility. *
     And note: that infallibility comes to the pope by " the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, "
     
     in extension, Benedict XVI resigned his papacy due to health reasons. Pope Francis succeeded him. Benedict no longer holds the office of pope therefore, papal infallibility ceased to apply for him looking forward the moment he resigned the papacy.

 

[steve_b]

Hi g,

With a quick reading I agree with your style and point. I do also love the beauty of God’s working as He pleases in mankind, with glorious results. Quite humbling. But that is exactly why I am at odds with then making such workings, election, God’s choosing, so artificial or “institutional” , as is the election of future “greatest” after Peter (college of cardinals, choosing mostly Italian descendants, etc.)

Blessings
.

benhur,

before the foundation of the world, The Son of God knew Peter. Jesus knew what He was going to do for Peter, and in extension He knows all his successors, in time, …IN ADVANCE. whether good or bad.

Just like He knew Judas and all the Judas’s that will ever be.

Know that Jesus will keep … EVERY one of His promises. Yes that goes for the office of Peter till the end of time

 

[benhur]

You missed the point that it is not artificial.
The Church is institutional, as is the Incarnation. The Incarnation makes charisms real, so to speak. These unique gifts are in Christ, they are not a matter of artifice, workings, or merely human election.

Christ’s words mean something real. His laying on of hands means something. These are not spiritualized symbols.
His gracing of the Church and it’s leadership really happened in time and space.
They are institutional, by nature.

HI g,

Quickl,y I can only give you an example. Peter and the apostles chose a replacement for Judas, Matthias. Jesus appointed Saul of Tarsus…

Generally speaking, whom God has chosen as leader(s) becomes apparent, even to the church , and the church then promotes them. It is rarer I think for the “office” to make the
man.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

You have raised a terrific point, even the CC points out that there have been evil Popes.

Hi W,
thank you…blessings

 

[benhur]

benhur, for clarification

the Church doesn’t say that happens either. Not sure where you may have heard that, but it’s one of those myths / fictions that get invented and circulated by who knows who. “Infallibility” is defined very specifically. …when it happens and how it occurs

For example

Papal infallibility is clearly defined how and when it happens

.

1. 
   *
   • we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that
   • when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
   • that is, when,
     1. **in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians, **
     2. **in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority, **
     3. **he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church, **
     4. he possesses,
     5. by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
     6. that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
     7. Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable.
        
        papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
        http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Councils/ecum20.htm
     A pope therefore, must
     • define a doctrine,
     • it must be on faith and morals, (not anything else)
     • it must be held as a belief by the entire Church.
     If those conditions are not met then there is no issue of infallibility.
     And note: that infallibility comes to the pope by " the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter, "
     
     in extension, Benedict XVI resigned his papacy due to health reasons. Pope Francis succeeded him. Benedict no longer holds the office of pope therefore, papal infallibility ceased to apply for him looking forward the moment he resigned the papacy.

1. • 
     Hi steve,
     
     I am not saying the CC says they appoint popes infallibly. I am saying that is how it can be interpreted from the "outside " looking in (from a P and perhaps O view). That is, would the CC say that the pope is not whom God intended for head leader at any given point in time ? That is, is God bound by what the CC chooses for pope over all Christendom, that the "office’’ binds Him to honor it, whereby there can be no real error of consequence, and no other to follow at any given time ( a type of infallibility) ?
     
     Blessings