L
Lib_Christian
Guest
That may be how they seem to you. Peace.
- Status
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
The number of priests involved is a tiny fraction of the total number of priests, and the majority of the cases were not involving children but post-adolscent teenagers. Thus, while the problem is COMPLETELY inexcusable, it is more UNDERSTANDABLE when you consider that sex with a teenage male who is old enough to understand what is happening is a very different matter from sex with a minor who is unable to process.
Since abuse occurs at a higher rate among Protestant clergy (to whom we must also attribute the problems of adultery and divorce that are not found among Catholic priests) and in society at large, I think it would be wise for you to remove the plank from your own eye first so that you can see this fact more clearly.
Unless, of course, you also want to discuss Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and Ted Haggard and countless others…
L
Lib_Christian
Guest
If that’s what you believe, that’s fine.
I never said I have authority over God’s Holy Spirit. But you’re very welcome
L
Lib_Christian
Guest
We have indeed spoken at great length on Matt.16/19The question remains unanswered. B]
And in truth it and everything else will not be unanswered definitively until our Lord comes again and we meet with Him in heaven. Till then. Faith.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I apologize for coming into this discussion a bit late, but this post caught my eye, and I think I can answer this question. I hope you don’t mind, but a good question deserves a good answer…so this will take a moment to explain.
Would you agree that Jesus is the Good Shepherd? Of course. And yet, we see that Jesus, just prior to His return to Heaven establishes Peter as the Shepherd of the flock. Here, take a look:
In John 21:15-19, the resurrected Christ, commands Simon Peter three times to “feed my lambs” and “tend my sheep.”
15When they had finished eating, Jesus said to Simon Peter, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me more than these?” “Yes, Lord,” he said, “you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Feed (bosko)* my* lambs.” 16Again Jesus said, “Simon son of John, do you truly love me?” He answered, “Yes, Lord, you know that I love you.” Jesus said, “Take care of (poimanao) my sheep.” 17 The third time he said to him, “Simon son of John, do you love me?” Peter was hurt because Jesus asked him the third time, “Do you love me?” He said, “Lord, you know all things; you know that I love you.” Jesus said, "Feed (bosko)my sheep.
In this passage, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Who feeds, tends and cares for sheep? A shepherd!
Unfortunately, many non-Catholics object to the Catholic understanding that Peter was given this unique leadership position, and they cite a passage from earlier in this same Gospel wherein Jesus presents Himself as the Good Shepherd, and says there is to be but “one flock and one Shepherd.” (John 10:11-16) Therefore, the immediate question springs to mind: If Christ is the Good Shepherd, why can’t He “feed” and “tend” His own sheep?
Of course, Jesus is God, and He is clearly capable of taking care of His own flock – even after He ascends to heaven. So, why does He appoint Peter to this role? Obviously, all sheep belong to Christ, and they do not cease to belong to Jesus after the ascension. Yet, Peter is told to “feed” and “tend” them. Jesus commissions Peter to act as His “stand-in” or “vicar” after the ascension. Jesus will remain the one Shepherd, yet Peter will “feed” and “tend” the sheep, in the sense that Jesus will not be physically present to do it. Thus, Peter will be the visible, vicarious shepherd of the flock.
Because of the implications of this earthly authority and the unique Catholic claims for the papacy, non-Catholics seek alternative explanations for Jesus’ words. One attempt is to claim that Peter simply has the same authority to care for the flock of Christ that all of the other apostles had. However, this argument fails for two reasons.
First, the extent of the authority Jesus gave to Peter can be seen quite clearly in the original Greek. For example, the word which is used for “feed” in John 21 is bosko – a word which the Jewish historian Philo of Alexandria, and other 1st Century writers, use to denote “spiritual nourishment.” Similarly, the word “tend” is poimanao – the same Greek word which is translated as “rule” in passages such as Matt 2:6, Rev 2:27, Rev. 12:5, and Rev. 19:15, where it is applied to Jesus Himself. Peter, like Jesus, is to “rule” over the sheep, and to “supply them with spiritual nourishment.” Thus, Peter is established as the vicarious shepherd (i.e., “supreme pastor”) of the Church in Christ’s physical absence.
While it may be argued that any shepherd would have similar responsibilities for his sheep and that the Bible is full of passages using the relationship between sheep and shepherd as a metaphor for our relationship with God, in the context of the New Testament, only Peter received this unique appointment directly from Christ Himself. Jesus took great care to identify Peter’s new responsibility as head of the Church with His own role as Head of the Body, the Church. No other Apostle received this focus.
Second, in Luke’s Last Supper account, we see quite clearly that Peter was singled out to play the role of a leader and unifier among the Apostles. The passage is as follows:
Luke 22:31-32
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your own faith may not fail; and once you have turned back, you must strengthen your brothers. 33But he replied, “Lord, I am ready to go with you to prison and to death.” 34Jesus answered, “I tell you, Peter, before the rooster crows today, you will deny three times that you know me.”
In Luke 22:31-32, Satan sought to destroy all of the Apostles, but Jesus prayed for Simon Peter alone that Peter might strengthen all of the other Apostles whose faith would be shaken, as well. Clearly, Peter is not merely “one Apostle among others.” Rather, he is also responsible for the welfare of all. That is a special ministry – the ministry of the vicarious shepherd. No other Apostle is given the responsibility for caring for the Twelve in this way, and this assignment is all the more significant when we consider that in the following verses (v. 33-34), Jesus predicts Peter’s three-fold denial. Despite Jesus’ foreknowledge of Peter’s denials, Jesus prays for and assigns to Peter the task of caring for the others.
(cont.)
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
This brings us to the refutation of another non-Catholic argument against Peter’s position as leader of the Christian Church: Jesus was simply re-instating Peter in John 21 by mirroring Peter’s three denials with three questions, “Do you love me?” Yet, we see from Luke 22:31-34, that Peter’s three-fold denial is contrasted, not with Peter’s apostleship, but rather with Peter’s special ministry to strengthen and unify the other Apostles …and this before he denies Christ three times. Thus, if Peter is restored to anything in John 21, it must include the commission he was given in Luke 22:31-32 – namely, to be the one to strengthen those other Apostles whose faith was flagging.
In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.
In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church. Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
Finally, if Jesus took care to make sure that someone was in charge of the flock upon His departure, wouldn’t Peter do the same thing when his own death was near?
Of course, and he alludes to this in one of his epistles. This is Apostolic Succession.
In Luke 22:31-32 and John 21:15-19 Peter is commissioned, and then re-commissioned, as the vicarious shepherd over the entire flock in Christ’s physical absence.
In summary, we know that Jesus is the Good Shepherd and that there is one Shepherd and one flock (cf. John 10). Yet, in the passage from John 21, we can see that Jesus leaves Peter in charge of feeding, tending and caring for His sheep. Peter becomes the shepherd who will lead the flock after Jesus’ ascension. Therefore, while Jesus is forever our Good Shepherd reigning from heaven, He has made provision for us by naming someone else to stand in His place, to be His vicar, here on earth. The Vicar of Christ established by Jesus is the Pope of the Catholic Church. Not only does Peter (and his successors, the Popes) hold the keys to the kingdom of God (cf. Mt 16:18, Is. 22:22), but he holds the shepherd’s crook or crozier, as well.
Finally, if Jesus took care to make sure that someone was in charge of the flock upon His departure, wouldn’t Peter do the same thing when his own death was near?
Of course, and he alludes to this in one of his epistles. This is Apostolic Succession.
L
Lib_Christian
Guest
And Lapey to you as well on your walk. But we don’t need luck. We have Christ. Peace.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Very good post Janet. Jesus is my rock and my salvation.
L
Lib_Christian
Guest
Was related to whether Christ would actually install leaders in the hierachy who would cover up such sins, knowing ahead of time they would do so. Yeah I know all about Judas and Peter denying. Not exactly the same as sexually abusing a child, moving abusers from parish to parish where they potentially could abuse another young child and then covering it up. But that’s me. You can believe who you want.We were - until you threw out the “pedophile priest” tactic. If you wish to continue on topic, then please behave accordingly in your responses.
Then don’t forget how we got sidetracked by ppl denying who their Church believes is a Catholic. But nevertheless, carry on.
L
Lib_Christian
Guest
Mine too
I read through this thread (quite a task, this is a long one) and am quite certain that you have repeatedly claimed your faith as such.
So which is it?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Great! All Catholics can say the same thing.
However, we can also say that Peter was the rock that Jesus was referring to in Matthew 16:18. After all, we know that Peter is called Cephas (Aramaic Kepha) throughout the New Testament. For example:
John 1:42
And he brought him to Jesus. Jesus looked at him and said, “You are Simon son of John. You will be called Cephas” (which, when translated, is Peter ).
So, why does John record the fact that Jesus renamed Simon “Cephas”?
Because 60 years earlier, John had witnessed Jesus saying, “You are Kepha, and on this Kepha I will build my church” (Mt. 16:18).
Jesus the rock of our salvation, and Peter is the rock upon which our Church is built - just as Jesus promised.
T
tweetymom
Guest
Which is what?
L
Lib_Christian
Guest
Under 18 still a child the last I checked. But oh brother you forget how much power these men wielded over the teens. We aren’t discussing the others. We are discussing the RCC.
I would not presume to know the mind of God concerning the seriousness of any given sin.
J
Javl
Guest
Again your anti-Catholic bias is very evident. And again, as usual, you err.
The only Maximos IV that I know of was Maximos IV Saygh. He was Patriarch of the Greek Catholic Church ( in communion with Rome ) and a Cardinal. And, he died in 1967. So how, then, could he have made such a statement as late as 1984? And even if it was before his death, he would never have made such a statement since it would be against all that he accepted and believed in as a Catholic. You may have meant Maximos V, who would also be averse to making such a statement.
As for Fr, Victor Herbert. I have searched through all my books, references, etc. and find nothing pertaining to him. The only Victor Herbert I know of was a musical composer who died in 1924. He was not even Catholic.
And, papal primacy was “flourishing” long before 1054. Try during Pope Cornelius’ time, in 251-253. Please make sure of all your facts before you make any, or present any, statements.
FYI: The split between East and west was political and not spiritual or theological ( even though the term “filioque” has been used as a reason ) and it occured before 1054. It was primarily by the east as to not to accept papal authority. Since the seat of government of the Roman Empire was in the east, the heirarchy of the east wanted ( or should I say, demanded ) pre-emminence in all Church matters, including councils. There were attempts at reconcilliation and some succeeded for a while, but the final split did come in 1054. Since then some independent Churches have agreed to, and accepted, the primacy of the pope and are in full communion with Rome. They keep their own Liturgy, Traditions, and Customs.
PAX DOMINI
Shalom Aleichem
L
Lib_Christian
Guest
Interesting considering mortal and venial
Well, when it is convenient in the argument, you continually claim it is your faith that is being referred to in Mathew 16:18.
Other times you claim it to be Peter’s faith.
And at other times you claim Jesus himself.
So which of your statements am I to believe?
All three cannot be true at the same time.
How so?
They are two different classifications given to sins based upon the specific circumstances of any given sin.
L
luckyfredsdad
Guest
If I have erred, you have yet to show where!
Regarding my anti-catholic bias, I am a Catholic and follow the teaching of the fathers. Further, I do not usually, or knowingly, quote protestant opinion. Not because I dismiss it out of hand, as is usually done on these forums, but because I know they would be rejected. .But you Do raise a point! If something is said by a protestant scholar that goes against the view taken by Rome, is that man or women’s contribution to be dismissed! Is Protestantism, the answer to all your problems? In fact, I usually read Orthodox sources, they claim, as you do," to be the only catholics and that the others, including R.C’s, are protestants, but they do not reject the scholarship!
I mean no such thing
**You are right about the name, but don’t go overboard he was the man who said it. he also made the point, “Bishops are rulers in their own dioceses.” Roman Bishops are not!
**
{
**Again, you only see what agrees with your premise.Fr,V.L. Herbert is described as ,’ the outspoken and frank columnist of *The Byzantine *Catholic World of Pittsburg.
**
I like that latter statement about making sure! I didn’t know you made jokes?
**As for the previous part of your little homily!
Steven and Cornelious were only doing their jobs as Bishops and Patriarchs of the Western Church! That they made a pigs ear of it,as some do say, is another matter. But take note, they were rejected by the east and told to think again by their own Western friends. Their authority as Patriarchs did not stem from the Petrine Claims, but from authority given by the Church in Council and the fact that the Roman Bishop’s See was a dept, of the Western Empire and the Emperor allowed the Bishops to use the stasi in pursuit of Rome’s ends.**
Quotes are from: Papal Infallibility.S.John of Kronstadt Press.
- Status