Vatican announces death of Pope John Paul II

[blaise]

franko said:

Nor likely (Blaise) a left-leaning one. ;D

A recent poll inquired about whether faith has a place in politics. Some 62% of Republicans replied in the affirmative compared with 27% of Democrats. I prefer thoughtfulness to dogma in politics. Politicians who quote the bible instead of analyzing situations are not fit to serve in government.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Discussion is great, even in anonymity!
Hi franko.
I am no theological scholar conversant and well versed in all aspects of history, the development of doctrine, and every hour of the last two thousand years but it is my understanding that Cathokic church became the the Roman Catholic Church specifically because it was where the seat of ultimate authority was to be found. Even in the time of the apostles, others were claiming to be the one true church established by Christ.

I quite obviously do think that the plain and obvious meaning of Christ's words to Peter is (no offence intended, ) the plain and obvious meaning. I have always thought it a little odd that those who quote scripture a lot and often quite literally, do not attempt to employ the literal meaning to "the keys" bit.

When Jesus was talking to Peter, he was specifically talking to Peter. " I would further hold that if Jesus who promised to send the holy spirit to guide the church to all truth did in fact permit the church to fall into fundamental error as is held obviously by Protestantism, i.e. serious errors in her sacramental life and doctrinal teaching on faith and morals. thenm Christ would have failed in His promises and ipso facto, was not divine.
I actually first heard that argument advanced by a protestant who joined the Catholic Church on the simple strength of it.

If I thought the pope was wrong tomorrow on a fundamental issue and in clear contradiction of the sense of faith , I would call him up and try to persuade him otherwise. If I was right and he wrong and he ultimately agreed with me and changed his mind, do you think that would make me the pope's equal or superior or grant me some special status or worth? Not in the least. Would that have any bearing upon the doctrine of infallibility when the pope speaks ex catherdra (from the chair of Peter) as the vicarious head of the church? Nope. Maybe I just got him before his morning expresso. That does not reflect the nature of either doctine .

I am quite familiar with the passages you refer to and you are quite right, that the development of doctrine involved discussion, argument and inspiration, just like electing a new pope. Just as sacred scripture is not a case of automatic writing, neither is the development of doctrine. John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote a pretty good book on the subject.

The following is Just a quote I found on a site where a Catholic and Protestant debate the role of the papacy. I'll try to capture the link I googled.

JW> 9) You wrote: "Sometime around A.D. 90, St. Clement of Rome, who was (let us not forget) the Bishop of Rome, issued an epistle to the Corinthian church." Where does this epistle name Clement as bishop of Rome? Where does it say that Rome had a monarchical episcopate at this time? >>

James, you know very well that the Epistle itself does not name Clement as the bishop of Rome. Yet, why does it have to? The ancients knew very well who Clement was.

For example, shortly after Clement's death, St. Ignatius of Antioch makes reference to him in Chapter IV of his Epistle to the Philadelphians, writing:

"Virgins, have Christ alone before your eyes, and His Father in your prayers, being enlightened by the Spirit. May I have pleasure in your purity, as that of Elijiah, or as of Joshua the son of Nun, as of Melchizedek, or as of Elisha, as of Jeremiah, or as of John the Baptist, as of the Beloved Disciple, as of Timothy, as of Titus, as of Evodius, as of Clement, who departed this life in perfect chastity."

Here, Ignatius lists Clement along with Evodius, who was Ignatius' own predecessor as the monarchical bishop of Antioch. In the same list, we find Timothy, who was the monarchical bishop of Ephesus (e.g. 1 Tim 5:19-22) and Titus, who was the monarchical bishop of Crete (Titus1:5). And, even if you wish to dispute this, what cannot be denied is that, like Timothy, Titus, and Evodius, Clement was clearly a renowned and universally-known figure....or else Ignatius could not have cited him as an example to be imitated.

Similarly, Ireneaus of Lyon (the disciple of Polycarp, a contemporary of Ignatius and Clement) and Dionysius of Corinth (a contemporary of Ireneaus) both independently cite Clement as the author of the epistle and make reference to his fame.

In this, Ireneaus directly names Clement as the bishop of Rome, and Dionysius compares Clement's instructions to his native Corinthian church to those given by Soter, Bishop of Rome. Indeed, it is clear from the context of Dionysius' letter to Soter that Clement's epistle to the Corinthians was a cherished book in the Corinthian canon; and that the Corinthians were still using it some 80 years after it was sent to them. Do you honestly think they did this without knowing who Clement was??? :-)

And Ireneaus is not the only one to list Clement as the bishop of Rome. Thirty years earlier, Clement is independently named by Hegesippus in his list of the Roman succession. Hegesippus was yet another contemporary of Polycarp, and on intimate terms with both the Roman and the Corinthian churches. He writes:

"And the church of the Corinthians remained in the true Word when Primus was bishop in Corinth; I made their acquaintance during my journey to Rome, and remained with the Corinthians many days, in which we were refreshed with the true Word. And when I was in Rome, I made a

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Nor likely (Blaise) a left-leaning one. ;D

I assume you never read Pius's X or XI comments on capitalism...Leo XII on the rights of workers or John Paul II's "Laborem Exercens" (On Human Work)" which the CLC, (Canadian Labour Congress) uses as a source document . A phrase that comes to mind is his criticism of "economistic" thinking and such terms as the work "force" and other similar reductionist terminology.

John Paul II was a more courageous, consistent and authentic defender of authentic human rights liberal than any public figure who readily comes to mind.

Pope Benedict XVI is also a defender of the social justice doctrine of the church, which of course he too helped to develop. Laborem Exercens was the clearest and most logically consistent document I have ever read on a complex and subtle subject.

Social Democrats pale by comparison.

[Toronthab]

Habs_fan_in_LA said:

A sense of humor as sick as mine, I like it!

As I told the Pope, don't let the Cardinals in on your plans, keep it under your hat.

Paparatzy?

[Toronthab]

Discussion is great, even in anonymity!
found this "Pope Fiction" on the net. I think the Pope Joan story is cute. It may outsell the Da Vinci code.

Pope Fiction: Answers to Five Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy PATRICK MADRID

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

Fiction 4 - Pope Joan

Fiction 5 - The Pope is the Beast of Revelation 13


There is one thing we do know. A lot of people dislike, even hate, Pope John Paul II, not because of his personality or ethnicity or whatever, but because they don’t like the Catholic Church. The pope is the flesh-and-blood reminder of that Church and its teachings — he personifies Catholicism — and for some this is particularly offensive. Some make their dislike for the papacy felt in articles, tracts and videos, calculated not merely to refute Catholic teaching, but to undermine the trust Catholics have in the Church and the pope.

FICTION 1

Peter was not the first “pope.” He didn’t have any special primacy or jurisdiction over the other apostles or other early Christians. In fact, he denies this by referring to himself as merely a “fellow presbyter” )1 Peter 5:1) — an office lower than an overseer (bishop). If anything, Paul had a greater authority than Peter.

Although St. Peter never called himself “pope” in Scripture, he did indeed have a special apostolic primacy and jurisdiction. The Scriptural evidence for this is substantial and explicit.

Of the Twelve Apostles, St. Peter is by far the one mentioned most often in Scripture. He appears 195 times. The next most often mentioned Apostle was St. John, who comes in at a whopping 29 times. St. James the Greater is mentioned 19 times, St. Philip 15, and the numbers dwindle rapidly for the others. Does this in itself prove St. Peter’s primacy? No, but it does shed considerable light on his importance. What does that light reveal?

Among other things, we see that when the Twelve Apostles are listed by name (Matt. 10:2-5; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-17, and Acts 1:13), St. Peter’s name is always first — and Judas Iscariot is always listed dead last. Far more commonly, though, the New Testament refers to simply “Peter and the Twelve,” as if to say that the tempestuous fisherman signified in himself the unity of the whole apostolic college.

There are many other biblical signs of St. Peter’s preeminence among the Apostles. He is the only one who receives a name change from Christ. He was Simon, but Christ calls him “Rock” (Matt. 16:18). Name changes given by God that we read about in Scripture have huge significance and imply an elevation in importance and a special mission given to that person by God (e.g. Abram to Abraham, Jacob to Israel). He is also singled out by Christ to receive the keys of the kingdom of heaven and is promised, “Whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you (singular) bind on earth will be bound in heaven” (Matt. 16:19).

St. Peter is the lone Apostle Christ calls out of the boat to walk on water (Matt, 1:28-29). At the tomb of Christ, St, John waits to allow St. Peter to enter ahead of him (John 20:6). It is to him among the Apostles that God first reveals the Resurrection (Mark 16:7). The risen Christ appears to him first, before the other Apostles (Luke 24:34). Christ preaches the gospel to the crowds from St, Peter’s fishing boat (Luke 5:3). St. Peter is told by Christ, “Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) faith may not fail. And once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brethren” (Luke 22:31-32).

Christ makes St. Peter the shepherd of His Church (John 21:15-17). In Acts 1:13-26, St. Peter leads the other Apostles in choosing Matthias as successor to Judas, and he leads the Apostles in preaching on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:14). He performs the first Pentecost miracle (Acts 3). He speaks in the name of all the Apostles and for the whole Church when the Twelve are brought before the Sanhedrin for a trial (Acts 4). It is to St, Peter alone that God sends the revelation that gentiles are to be allowed into the Church (Acts 10), and he is the Apostle who first welcomes them into the Church (Acts 11). St. Peter’s dogmatic pronouncement is accepted, and causes all disputes to cease at the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15). After his conversion and healing from blindness, St. Paul visits St, Peter to have his teachings confirmed by him (Gal. 1:18).

Having said that, what should we make of St, Peter’s reference to himself in 1 Peter 5:1 as a “fellow presbyter” ? Does this signal that he was unaware of his special role as chief of the Apostles? The answer is found in the same passage, “Clothe yourselves in humility in your dealings with one another,” he says, “for God opposes the proud but bestows favor on the humble. So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God, that He may exalt you in due time” (1 Peter 5:5). Since he was cautioning his Christian audience to be humble, it makes perfect sense that he would take his own advice and, setting an example for them, speak of himself in humble terms. And in doing so, he was following Christ’s command, “Whoever wishes to be great among you shall be your servant, whoever wishes to be first among you shall be your slave” (Matt, 20:26-27). But this humility shouldn’t blind us to the substantial body of biblical evidence showing that he did receive a special apostolic preeminence and authority from Christ — evidence that critics of the papacy often ignore or strain to explain away.

St. Paul, like St. Peter was also humble when referring to himself. He was by far the most prominent and prolific New Testament writer, responsible for about half of the New Testament, but he said, “I am the least of the apostles, not fit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the Church of God” (1 Cor. 15:10), and, “To me the very least of all the holy ones, this grace was given” (Eph, 3:8). On numerous occasions he called himself a mere deacon, the very lowest level of ordained ministry in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 3:5, 4:1; 2 Cor. 3:6, 6:4, 11:23; Eph. 3:7; Col. 1:23, 25). But clearly, St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a deacon.

As with St. Peter, these examples of St. Paul’s humility are balanced St. Paul had an authority far greater than that of a right to order you to do what is proper, I rather urge you out of love” (Phil, 8-9), and, “Although we were able to impose our weight as apostles of Christ. Rather, we were gentle among you, as a nursing mother cares for her children” (1 Thess. 2:7).

St. Peter’s calling himself a “fellow presbyter” doesn’t disprove his primacy any more than St. Paul’s habit of calling himself a “deacon” proves he had no authority greater than a deacon’s.

[franko]

Blaise said:

A recent poll inquired about whether faith has a place in politics. Some 62% of Republicans replied in the affirmative compared with 27% of Democrats. I prefer thoughtfulness to dogma in politics. Politicians who quote the bible instead of analyzing situations are not fit to serve in government.

Pierre Pettigrew would agree with you. However, it depends on your idea of the place of spirituality (slash religion) in a persons life. If it is one little compartment (say, between 11:00 and 12:00 on a Sunday morning) you are right. But if it is a determining factor in the life; that is, central, then it cannot but influence the whole of a person's life.

[M. Beaux-Eaux]

Blaise said:

I prefer thoughtfulness to dogma in politics.

Better keep an eye on those dogmatic atheists then.

Politicians who quote the bible instead of analyzing situations are not fit to serve in government.

Those who do both are very fit.

[franko]

Again, the caveat: I am not Catholic (big “C” – I believe that when the Apostles Creed speaks of the holy catholic church it refers to the church universal. The original creed [c. 340] mentions only the holy church). Nor, really, am I a Protestant. I come from the Anglican tradition (a Wesleyan Methodist). I do admit that Henry’s reasoning behind separating himself from the Roman Church was poor, and definitely self-serving . . . but I am still a follower of Christ.

On then . . .

Toronthab said:

franko said:

I am no theological scholar conversant and well versed in all aspects of history, the development of doctrine, and every hour of the last two thousand years but it is my understanding that Cathokic church became the the Roman Catholic Church specifically because it was where the seat of ultimate authority was to be found. Even in the time of the apostles, others were claiming to be the one true church established by Christ.

Nor am I any sort of theological or historical scholar, though I enjoy history. I would have to dig up my History of Western Civ notes to remind me properly of historicity and dates, but if I recall correctly Christianity was a persecuted religion until the fourth century when Constantine had his vision and vanquished his foes. The seat of political power was Rome in the early days of the church; Christianity’s base was Jerusalem.

I quite obviously do think that the plain and obvious meaning of Christ's words to Peter is (no offence intended, ) the plain and obvious meaning. I have always thought it a little odd that those who quote scripture a lot and often quite literally, do not attempt to employ the literal meaning to "the keys" bit.

Then the plain and obvious meaning was lost on many people . . . including Augustine, who felt that in this play on words (Petros means rock) Jesus referred to Himself as the cornerstone/bedrock of the church and that Peter has a special place because he was the first one to identify Jesus as Messiah. This is the only such mention of the possibility of Peter as divinely appointed leader of the church in the New Testament . . . one should take great care of basing a theology or doctrine on one verse of Scripture.

As to the keys, Peter was indeed given a special responsibility in/for the earthly Kingdom of God. I would suggest that these responsibilities were not ecclesiastical but salvific, as evidenced by Pentecost.

When Jesus was talking to Peter, he was specifically talking to Peter. " I would further hold that if Jesus who promised to send the holy spirit to guide the church to all truth did in fact permit the church to fall into fundamental error as is held obviously by Protestantism, i.e. serious errors in her sacramental life and doctrinal teaching on faith and morals. thenm Christ would have failed in His promises and ipso facto, was not divine.
I actually first heard that argument advanced by a protestant who joined the Catholic Church on the simple strength of it.

Is this Blaise speaking? If man is given free will then ecclesiastical leadership is allowed to err. And does. The fundamental error that Protestantism was so opposed to began as opposition to the sale of indulgences for forgiveness of sin, which is in direct conflict with the teachings of Jesus who strongly said that the grace of God is available to all men, and the leaders of the early church said is the free gift.

Here, Ignatius lists Clement along with Evodius, who was Ignatius' own predecessor as the monarchical bishop of Antioch. In the same list, we find Timothy, who was the monarchical bishop of Ephesus (e.g. 1 Tim 5:19-22) and Titus, who was the monarchical bishop of Crete (Titus1:5).

You’ll need to help me out here. Monarchical bishop? What does that mean? The term is a development from “church overseer” or “presbyter”. Monarchical bishop speaks of a highly developed church hierarchy, though since these letters were written 30 years after the resurrection of Christ in a time of severe persecution. I can’t see it. But again, I have my non-Catholic blinders on.

Therefore, since 1) Hegesippus, 2) Ireneaus, 3) Hippolytus, 4) Tertullian, 5) Jerome, 6) the Africanus ap. Eusebium, 7) Augustine, 8) the ap. Epiphanium, 9) Optatus, and 10) the Roman canon ALL identify Clement as the bishop of Rome, who are you to deny this? Can you cite any ancient source which disputes that Clement was bishop of Rome or identifies him as something else? If not, then you haven't a leg to stand on.

Admittedly, the ecclesiastical ladder was developing. But the disagreement is to whether or not Peter is the first and appointed Pope.

No offence, but that Peter was married is not news to anyone.

No offence taken.

You perhaps missed my implied point re the putative "Pope Joan". For an ordination to be valid all conditions of a valid ordination must be met, (..e.g. the "married only once" injunction re bishops and so on. Assuming the person you affirm as having existed in fact did exist and further assuming that some such putative person somehow found themselves sitting in the chair of Peter. then unless Joan was a transvestite, male, in short, there could be no valid ordination to the papacy.

You’re right – I did miss it. You are saying that while such a person may have existed and actually ascended the throne (is that the term?), she did it under false pretences and as such her “Popeishness” (forgive me) is illegitimate.

The papacy was a political football for some considerable time, and in fact supplies for me one argument confirming papal infallibility, in that despite Alexander VI and other instances when the church was in peril of falsehood and travail, the gates of hell as promised, did not prevail against her.

And the non-Catholic take: that the gates of hell would not prevail against Christianity, not the Catholic Church.

Looks like it would be fun to research however, and if such nonsense did in fact occur I would not be the least surprised that pastors of the flock would be moved to dump the memory. Thanks for the tip.

As I said, who knows about a “Pope Joan”? Interesting to think about. I’d rather (if it were indeed true) that the church admit to a mistake and to being taken in. But that can’t be, because it would suggest that women are indeed capable leaders within the church. Better to paint her as a Jezebel, or at the least another trickster Eve.

But this side of heaven we’ll never know

[franko]

Toronthab said:

Discussion is great, even in anonymity!
found this "Pope Fiction" on the net. I think the Pope Joan story is cute. It may outsell the Da Vinci code.

It won't -- not enough of a conspiracy. The book I mentioned earlier was a quick read . . . and may include some interesting historical data that has not been twisted to prove a point and destroy a church, unlike Brown�s book.

Pope Fiction: Answers to Five Myths and Misconceptions About the Papacy PATRICK MADRID

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

Fiction 4 - Pope Joan

Fiction 5 - The Pope is the Beast of Revelation 13

Unfortunately, there are many anti-Papists who do indeed see the hand of the devil behind the Roman Catholic Church and her leadership. I don't. I disagree with some theology and doctrine (we haven't touched on the primacy of Mary yet ). I would posit that fiction 1 is not fiction, that fiction 4 may not be fiction, that I would need to know more about what fiction 2 actually means, and that fictions 3 and 5 are not fiction.

Of the Twelve Apostles, St. Peter is by far the one mentioned most often in Scripture. He appears 195 times. The next most often mentioned Apostle was St. John, who comes in at a whopping 29 times. St. James the Greater is mentioned 19 times, St. Philip 15, and the numbers dwindle rapidly for the others. Does this in itself prove St. Peter�s primacy? No, but it does shed considerable light on his importance. What does that light reveal?

This argument is questionable. Not only are the numbers re: Peter and John wrong, John wrote one of the Gospels, and often referred to himself as "The disciple whom Jesus loved" or "the other disciples" rather than naming himself.

Far more commonly, though, the New Testament refers to simply "Peter and the Twelve," as if to say that the tempestuous fisherman signified in himself the unity of the whole apostolic college.

It would more likely refer to "Peter and the Eleven" (once!) or "Peter and the [other] disciples" (never!). Zero for "Peter and the twelve" as well.

There are many other biblical signs of St. Peter's preeminence among the Apostles.

Some answered elsewhere; lets just say I disagree with some of the interpretations given and leave it at that, unless you really want me to go on (and on and on . . . )

St. Peter is the lone Apostle Christ calls out of the boat to walk on water (Matt, 1:28-29). At the tomb of Christ, St, John waits to allow St. Peter to enter ahead of him (John 20:6). It is to him among the Apostles that God first reveals the Resurrection (Mark 16:7). The risen Christ appears to him first, before the other Apostles (Luke 24:34). Christ preaches the gospel to the crowds from St, Peter's fishing boat (Luke 5:3). St. Peter is told by Christ, "Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that your (singular) faith may not fail. And once you (singular) have turned back, you (singular) must strengthen your brethren" (Luke 22:31-32).

Peter is the most impulsive of the disciples. He isn't invited to walk on the water as much as he asks to; John doesn't wait for him at the tomb as much as he isn't brash as Peter but is more cautious; Jesus reveals Himself to the women (can you believe it� women!) before anyone else [Matthew 28:9, Mark 16:9, John 20:11] (in Mark Peter is told first only because of his brashness); the Luke 22:21-32 passage refers to a fallen Peter being forgiven, not called to be the head of a new religious order.

There is no doubt that Peter took a leadership role in the formation of the early church. I disagree with the idea that he was anointed to become what is now known as the title "Pope" by Jesus.

[franko]

Toronthab said:

I assume you never read Pius's X or XI comments on capitalism...Leo XII on the rights of workers or John Paul II's "Laborem Exercens" (On Human Work)" which the CLC, (Canadian Labour Congress) uses as a source document . A phrase that comes to mind is his criticism of "economistic" thinking and such terms as the work "force" and other similar reductionist terminology.

You assume correctly. Though I have read much of the censure many Catholic priests received for their involvement in Liberation Theology. Perhaps a different matter. Perhaps.

But I was only trying to be flippant.

[blaise]

franko said:

Pierre Pettigrew would agree with you. However, it depends on your idea of the place of spirituality (slash religion) in a persons life. If it is one little compartment (say, between 11:00 and 12:00 on a Sunday morning) you are right. But if it is a determining factor in the life; that is, central, then it cannot but influence the whole of a person's life.

I woulod like to be protected by the constitution and the law. The "faithful" who refuse to sell morning-after pills or contraceptives are not observing the constitution or the law. Same for those who block access to reproductive facilities and laboratories and harass the families of obstetricians?

And what about bishops who withhold communion from politicians who disagree with them? I would remove the tax exempt status of their churches, that's what I would do.

[blaise]

M. said:

Better keep an eye on those dogmatic atheists then.


Those who do both are very fit.

I'm a deist, not an atheist. And my criteria include upholding the law and the constitution, not seesawing between them and the officeholder's religious beliefs. Can't have it both ways.

[franko]

Blaise said:

I woulod like to be protected by the constitution and the law. The "faithful" who refuse to sell morning-after pills or contraceptives are not observing the constitution or the law.

Not sure about that -- how is a small business owner who chooses what to seel or not sell breaking the law or ignoring the constitution? Free enterprise means just that. He may pay the price in the long run for not offering services, but it is still his choice (much like lottery tickets, or tobacco products, or . . .).

Same for those who block access to reproductive facilities and laboratories and harass the families of obstetricians?

Different situation. And I agree with you. I may be pro-life, but the obstruction of facilities and the killing of abortionists is just plain wrong. If you are going to protest, give a viable alternative: open your home to a pregnant young girl and help her raise the child. Put feet to your concern.

And what about bishops who withhold communion from politicians who disagree with them?

Are you suggesting that someone can say "I disagree with what you believe -- let me particiapte in the symbolic ritual that is central to what you believe?"

I would remove the tax exempt status of their churches, that's what I would do.

That's probably coming sooner than later.

[Toronthab]

I'm going to try that "quote" thing that M.BoZo so kindly demonstrated for my poor self.

franko said:

Again, the caveat: I am not Catholic (big “C” – I believe that when the Apostles Creed speaks of the holy catholic church it refers to the church universal. The original creed [c. 340] mentions only the holy church). Nor, really, am I a Protestant. I come from the Anglican tradition (a Wesleyan Methodist). I do admit that Henry’s reasoning behind separating himself from the Roman Church was poor, and definitely self-serving . . . but I am still a follower of Christ.

On then . . .

I hope that worked. No argument, re Catholicism meaning universal, all mankind..that was the vision Peter had. Henry died I've heard, considering himself a Roman Catholic in good standing. A wife or three demurred as I recall.

any sort of theological or historical scholar, though I enjoy history. I would have to dig up my History of Western Civ notes to remind me properly of historicity and dates, but if I recall correctly Christianity was a persecuted religion until the fourth century when Constantine had his vision and vanquished his foes. The seat of political power was Rome in the early days of the church; Christianity’s base was Jerusalem. [/qote]

I'm going to stop after this note to see if I am getting the quote thing down. My pont was intended to support the idea that it became the Roman Catholic church not because of Constantine's adoption, a mixed blessing, but because of the authority of the bishop of Rome, as argued by my post on part 1 of "pope fiction".

The plain and obvious meaning was lost on many people . . . including Augustine, who felt that in this play on words (Petros means rock) Jesus referred to Himself as the cornerstone/bedrock of the church and that Peter has a special place because he was the first one to identify Jesus as Messiah. This is the only such mention of the possibility of Peter as divinely appointed leader of the church in the New Testament . . . one should take great care of basing a theology or doctrine on one verse of Scripture.

As to the keys, Peter was indeed given a special responsibility in/for the earthly Kingdom of God. I would suggest that these responsibilities were not ecclesiastical but salvific, as evidenced by Pentecost.

"Rome has spoken, the cause is finished". St Auguistine

"After much debate had taken place, Peter got up and said to them, 'My brothers, you are well aware that from early days God made his choice among you that through my mouth the Gentiles would hear the word of the gospel and believe...' " Immediately after Peter gives his decision we are told "The whole assembly fell silent..."

I found these two quotes at the following site.

members.aol.com/johnprh/pquestions.html#5.%20%20Does%20Paul’s

I'll see if I'm quoting well now.

I last looked into this critical issue many years ago, and am enjoying the revisit, and if you find me engaging in "triumphalism" some time, I am well reminded that I took a very long time before I was one hundred percent certain that this Italian deal was the real deal. Unlike Groucho Marx, I was very glad that they'd accept any kind of jerk.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

You assume correctly. Though I have read much of the censure many Catholic priests received for their involvement in Liberation Theology. Perhaps a different matter. Perhaps.

But I was only trying to be flippant.

I am more than a little enthralled that you would have to mention the latin American dressing down as if it were indicative of something reactiionary. It is about Marxism and a phenomenon known as process theology.

Am I to gather, that you do not believe that the apostles had a specific authority and (as I must say is unarguable historically) appointed successors, including Saint Augustine who exercised and exercise legitimate, ....God-given authority? I mus t be misreading you in this,

As to the quick retort, the flip, it's a common cultural misapprehension. No problem at all.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

It won't -- not enough of a conspiracy. The book I mentioned earlier was a quick read . . . and may include some interesting historical data that has not been twisted to prove a point and destroy a church, unlike Brown�s book.

Well ..I missed the quote thing .....again.

Just a couple of points to begin with.

One . The institution of the Bishop of Rome as head of the Christian church is far from a light issue or question. So. as quite a bit more than one's own credibility is concerned, I will for sure trouble to "go on" a bit more. This will doubtless bore the hell out of a few and for this I apologize. and if it was only you involved I would in fact respect your implicit request to drop it. That really is ok with me.

But (Ain't there always a but.)

You have not only raised some questions and made some statements about Roman Catholicism, and the papacy and Saint Peter, not to mention the novel you read of the legend of the supposed "pope" "Joan", but have also seen fit to dispute some of my statements and present counter arguments. Simple jsutice, for those who espouse such moral principles as absolutes to be followed (like Socrates, Jesus and Jean Beliveau) demands a hearing.

I believe I owe it to God, you, the German Shepherd, one point one billion Catholics with a large "C", Jean Beliveau, the Rocket, and Claude Provost for whom my sister used to babysit for to set the record straight or at least attempt to.

I do not insist (though it woud be quite fair to insist) that you, personally , read my replies.

I will source others who are considerably better informed than I in a few instances.


Your casually offering the supposed "Pope Joan" as if she were real, would if it were true present the world's one point one billion Catholics as a most gullible lot indeed. It rather makes us and by extension Chritainity as something laughable and ridiculous. The church (large"C" and small "C", has always had and will continue to have more than enough human weakness and fallibility dare I say to last an eternity. ( That use of the term eternity is misleading, it isn't a LOOOOONG time., but I digress)

So I will include a well-reasonned (not that this gets one very far) response to this ninth century legend that popped up some 400 years later for the credulous. Some Catholics bought in too by the way, so don't feel too bad. It has as I stated in an earlier post even less behind it than The Celestine Prophecies and The Da Vinci horseship.

THe Catholic sacraments from the last supper on through the sacrament of reconciliation are not "symbolic rituals". They make real the action of God in history in a unique way.

Im sure or at least hope you were just speaking lightly whid is again, just fine, but this is far too central to Christianity to skip over as if insignificant. The mass, or " meal" re-presents the "body and blood" of Christ.

You contested the figure I read of what 195 instances where St Peter is referred to in the new testament, vs what sixty something for John. You said the figures were incorrect. I have not counted them myself, and rather doubt that you have either. Well and good, but one could easily be left with what I suspect is the erroneous conclusion that Saint Peter is not mentionned many. many times more often than any other apostle. Fair comment requires some clarity, especially in rebuttal.

You likewise reference Saint Augustine as a counter to my 'face value" reference to the quotation "Thoud art Peter...etc. Augustine was completely in support of the overseeing authority of the Bishop of Rome as per my quote.

You pass over the significance of the name change,,,Abram to Abraham .. for example when a special role is being confirmed. Modern investigations have concluded that there are indeed the bones of a sturdily built man who was crucified on the Vatican hill exactly where Saint Peter was claimed to be crucified in

In short you dismiss them in a somewhat cacvalier manner and I see no grounds for so doing.

End of pro-papal rant.

I will now put up the Pope Fiction Two arguments which, again are at the very least I submit, worthy of honest invsetigation. No one has any advantage in a belief that is false and that is true of the authority of the church.

Pope Fiction 2

The bishop of Rome can't be the "successor to Peter," since Peter was never in Rome. The Bible nowhere says he went there, and Paul, who did go there, never mentions Peter being in Rome. If Peter were the "pope," he certainly would have mentioned it.


Trying to prove St. Peter did not go to Rome and die there is a lot like trying to prove that St. Matthew didn't write the Gospel of Matthew. True, the Bible doesn't explicitly say he went to Rome, but the surrounding historical evidence is more than sufficient to prove that he did.

But first, we should ask, "If St. Peter didn't go to Rome, where did he go? Where did he die?" We'd expect to find plenty of evidence in the writings of the early Church telling us where this prominent Apostle carried out his final years of ministry, if it were some place other than Rome. But the historical record contains no hint that he ended his days anywhere but Rome. No other city except Rome ever claimed to possess the site of his martyrdom or his tomb (and early Christians were extraordinarily diligent about making and proving such claims). No other city — not even Antioch, where he resided for a time during his apostolate — claimed he ended his days among them. No Church Father or Council or any other early Church record indicates that he finished his days anywhere but in Rome.

That's the lack of evidence side of the coin. The flip side is the mountain of evidence proving he did go to Rome. Everyone everywhere in the early Church agreed that St. Peter went to Rome, ministered there for more than two decades, and suffered martyrdom by inverted crucifixion in A.D. 65, under the persecution of Emperor Nero. Given the grave danger to the early Church from a hostile Roman government, it makes perfect sense that St. Paul would not mention St. Peter's whereabouts in his letters. He didn't want to draw unfriendly attention. It's also quite possible that St. Peter had not yet arrived in Rome when St. Paul was writing. We even see St. Peter himself making what seems to be a cryptic reference to his presence in Rome when he says "The chosen one at Babylon sends you greetings, as does Mark, my son" (1 Peter 5:13). "Babylon" was a commonly used code word for Rome among Christians, because its pagan decadence and opposition to Christ was reminiscent of the idolatrous wickedness associated with ancient Babylon.

But once St. Peter had been martyred, the testimonies of his sojourn in Rome with St. Paul poured forth in a flood from the early Christian writers. Perhaps the most detailed of these early accounts came from St. Irenaeus of Lyons (d. 200) in his apologetics work, Against Heresies. He gave a detailed account of succession of the bishops of Rome, from St. Peter down to his own day. He referred to Rome as the city "where Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel and founded the Church." Other notable early examples were St. Ignatius of Antioch (d. 107), who referred to the Church at Rome as "the Church of Peter and Paul" (Letter to the Romans); St. Cyprian (d. 251), who described Rome as "The place of Peter" (Epistle 52); and St. Jerome (d. 420), who called Rome "the See of Peter" (Epistle 15, to Pope Damasus). Around A.D. 166, Bishop Dionysius of Corinth wrote to Pope Soter, "You have also, by your very admonition, brought together the planting that was made by Peter and Paul at Rome . . ." (quoted in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 2:25).

Besides the vast amount of historical evidence showing that St. Peter went to Rome, modern archaeology has cinched the case even tighter by a definitive scientific demonstration that his bones (studies showed that they are of a powerfully built elderly man who died of crucifixion) are interred directly beneath the high altar in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome, several levels down, where the original first century Vatican hill sloped away toward the Tiber River. This was just outside the walls of what was once Nero's Circus — precisely where all the early Christian and even non-Christian records say St. Peter was crucified and buried.

[franko]

Toronthab said:

The institution of the Bishop of Rome as head of the Christian church is far from a light issue or question. So. as quite a bit more than one's own credibility is concerned, I will for sure trouble to "go on" a bit more. This will doubtless bore the hell out of a few and for this I apologize. and if it was only you involved I would in fact respect your implicit request to drop it. That really is ok with me.

I do not insist (though it woud be quite fair to insist) that you, personally , read my replies.

You misread me - it wasn't a request to drop it, but an "are you sure you want to go on?". As to those who this would bore . . . they'll look to other threads that interest them. And of course I'll read the replies, and even respond in kind!

Your casually offering the supposed "Pope Joan" as if she were real, would if it were true present the world's one point one billion Catholics as a most gullible lot indeed. It rather makes us and by extension Chritainity as something laughable and ridiculous. The church (large"C" and small "C", has always had and will continue to have more than enough human weakness and fallibility dare I say to last an eternity. ( That use of the term eternity is misleading, it isn't a LOOOOONG time., but I digress)

So I will include a well-reasonned (not that this gets one very far) response to this ninth century legend that popped up some 400 years later for the credulous. Some Catholics bought in too by the way, so don't feel too bad. It has as I stated in an earlier post even less behind it than The Celestine Prophecies and The Da Vinci horseship.

Ah, but I also admitted to the possibility/probability of myth/urban legend. I've read the pros and the cons . . . if it is true, it merely points to the fallibility of the institution; if false, it points to the way legends go on and on and on. Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. I find it much more likely than the Da Vinci rot, which is a spurious conjecture at best, and deliberately misleading at worst, and is rot regardless.

THe Catholic sacraments from the last supper on through the sacrament of reconciliation are not "symbolic rituals". They make real the action of God in history in a unique way.

Im sure or at least hope you were just speaking lightly whid is again, just fine, but this is far too central to Christianity to skip over as if insignificant. The mass, or " meal" re-presents the "body and blood" of Christ.

Huh? This came out of left field. I don't recall mentioning anything about the sacraments, especially that of the Lord's Supper/Holy Communion (in my tradition) and the Mass (in yours). But you are right - I see them as symbols of Christ's Passion that as you say make real the action of God in history in a unique way. If you'd like we can argue transubstantiation and consubstantiation and whatever, but in the end I don't see the elements of the Mass as turning into the actual blood and body of Christ; you do.

You contested the figure I read of what 195 instances where St Peter is referred to in the new testament, vs what sixty something for John. You said the figures were incorrect. I have not counted them myself, and rather doubt that you have either. Well and good, but one could easily be left with what I suspect is the erroneous conclusion that Saint Peter is not mentionned many. many times more often than any other apostle. Fair comment requires some clarity, especially in rebuttal.

The joys of Bible software! In the King James Version (I'm sure in any version!) Peter is referenced 158 times. John is referenced appreciably fewer times. It may be that Peter is mentioned more often because he was the one most outspoken, the one most brash . . . perhaps even the one most daring. It is suggested that the gospel of Mark is Peter's gospel; that is, that Peter told the story and that Mark wrote it down. The other gospels took their cues from Mark. It would stand to reason then that if he is mentioned most often in Mark he would be in the other gospels as well.

There is no disputing that Peter was a leader. But the leader? The early church - in fact today's church -followed Paul more than Peter.

You likewise reference Saint Augustine as a counter to my 'face value" reference to the quotation "Thoud art Peter...etc. Augustine was completely in support of the overseeing authority of the Bishop of Rome as per my quote.

OK.

You pass over the significance of the name change,,,Abram to Abraham .. for example when a special role is being confirmed.

I just didn't want to be tedious . . . but since you insist

This is indeed significant. Peter is heaped with high praise in the name change . . . it is a great compliment. And what is meant by it is not without controversy (as seen in this discussion!). At the very least it is a play on words (as my previous post: Petros/Peter to Petra/Rock; Cephas [the Aramaic for Peter also means rock]).

The passage in question (for those who may be following with disinterest) is Matthew 16:16-18: Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Augustine's assertion was that Jesus is the rock. Peter says You are the Christ. Jesus answers Upon this rock (My Messiahship, Myself) the church will be built. Iffy.

I like the thought that Peter is indeed a special stone, in that he is the first one whose eyes were opened to Jesus as Messiah; he is a foundational stone to the church being built, but all who believe are stones as well. Passages that speak of the cornerstone speak of Jesus.

The passage is not without controversy, even within the Catholic Church, especially since, as cited, this is the lone passage in the Bible that mentions the primacy of Peter (and again, it is tenuous to build a theology on one verse), and the fact That Jesus intended to establish a living, perpetual institution is questionable. The word "church" appears only twice in Matthew and not at all in the other Gospels. (C. Milo Connick) If Jesus were the Jewish Messiah as claimed, then He was merely a restorer of religion to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. His rejection (and the rejection/ouster of the first Messianic Jews from the synagogue) led to the formation of the new religious entity - first called "Christian" in Antioch, where Paul was leading (Acts 11:26)

Modern investigations have concluded that there are indeed the bones of a sturdily built man who was crucified on the Vatican hill exactly where Saint Peter was claimed to be crucified in

In short you dismiss them in a somewhat cacvalier manner and I see no grounds for so doing.

I do not deny that God used Peter in the early Christian era. I do not deny that Peter was martyred for his faith. I do not deny that Catholics see Peter to be all you claim him to be - I just think that he has been deified beyond what he should be, and that the Catholic Church does not have pre-eminence over the rest of Christendom.

As to Pope Fiction 2, The bishop of Rome can't be the "successor to Peter", I had said that

franko said:

I would need to know more about what fiction 2 actually means,

You gave it:

The bishop of Rome can't be the "successor to Peter," since Peter was never in Rome. The Bible nowhere says he went there, and Paul, who did go there, never mentions Peter being in Rome. If Peter were the "pope," he certainly would have mentioned it.

Rather than rehash and go point by point, let me just say that

1. This is an argument from silence: you can't prove that Peter was never in Rome; therefore he must have gone to Rome. Doesn't hold water. Doesn't mean he wasn't their; doesn't mean he was; doesn't mean either way that he is foundational to Christianity.

2. However, for the record, it is pretty obvious that Peter was indeed martyred in Rome. Some suggest a "double martyrdom", alongside Paul (cf: Tertullian). It also seems fairly obvious that Peter did not found the church at Rome, as Peter was still in Jerusalem at the time of the council you mentioned (AD 50); the "church" (that is, the body of believers meeting in hiding) was already extant before AD 49.

I had never heard this "fiction" before. An aside: I take umbrage with the whole term fiction - it implies dismissal without discussion. I realize that this Mr. Madrid's word so I'm not going to let it get to me

We've already touched on issues (much better word) 1, 2, and 4; I'm in agreement with his thoughts that issues 3 and 5 are misconceptions, or better, wrong.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

You misread me - it wasn't a request to drop it, but an "are you sure you want to go on?". As to those who this would bore . . . they'll look to other threads that interest them. And of course I'll read the replies, and even respond in kind![\quote]

Too right Franko, I did misread you, and later I will publish what the "Pope Fiction" guy has to say about the old legend the mitre mama, Joan. You may well end agreeing that it has even less, much less than the Da Vinci whacko (The alliteration is better if you do Vinci as "Winky".)

And thanks for the helpful pointers on quotes. M. BoZo did show me once but I forgot it.

I see as well that in citing Augustine, I only forgot to cite Augustine on the papacy who said "Rome has spoken, the cause is finished". He was one of those pushing St Gregory to further define the special charism of the papacy.

I can see your sources for the number of times Peter is mentinned being a little off mine, but did yours perhaps leave out the "Simons" , or title. And impetuosity might carry a little weight, but it is apparently the case that the references always had "Simon and the twelve" and always had Peter first in listings and Judas last. If the latter is predictable, that puts more weight on the former.

The successor to Peter, Clement, the bishop of Rome, also instructed and ordered another bishop. I'm not saying persuaded, but ordered. A regular bishop could not do that.

Your point about basing a case upon a single reference is of course a good precautionary principle, but some are less ambiguous than others. A play upon words can call attention to and reinforce the apparent sense of a sentence. I was in Andelusia, Spain a few years ago driving a road through mile after mile of what looked like a cast lake with the occasional building jutting out. The rain in Spain does indeed fall mainly on the plain.

I won't debate Augustine (or a whole big other list of people!) , but his above citation on the role of the bishop of Rome is unambiguous in the context of his opinions.

I woulld state again, that human institutions all over have someone who presides, chairs, etc. A divine institution should be wise about such, methinks.

As to iinfallibility and the pope vis-a-vis free will, I think that that's a very good subject to discuss. You do agree, however that the at least the church is infallible. It too is made up of humans with free wills.

In big C catholicism, papal infallibility is seen as a negative safeguard, more or less. I paraphrase, and that is dangerous, but nothing that is taught by the visible head of the
church when speaking "ex cathedra' (from the chair of Saint Peter) will negatively, lead to serious error. My take of history including very dangerous times for Christ's church, is that Christ's promise is thusfar fulfilled.

As I recall might actually have been another, in fact it was who referenced symbol and ritual with good intent, and I just wanted to clarify a well -intended point. Thanks for pointing that our too.

Along with the historical record, which is good for folks like us there is of course the self-understanding of the church which is quite direct. Iraneus----Polycarp----John the Apostle.
Direct.

History gives us the hope of making reasonable deductions. As I would tell anyone including the goofs at the "Jesus Seminar" who actually vote on what is supposedly true, what you have to believe to believe something other than that Jesus was the real deal staggers credulity. Eleven of the apostles were martyred testifying to having seen the risen Christ. The bible is the sacred and inspired book of the church. It is not the church, and it is the church that recieved the commission and authority to testify to this.

Catholics stress this obvious fact.

As you know, lots of Westerners think that Christianity believes in a six day creation and that the book of Revelation written by John on Patmos, is some kind of a paper chrystal ball for the end of the world. He was of course most likely referring to Rome of his day and the emperor Domitaian. Cartoonsville.

This is another reason, why I believe in the obvious need for authoritive authority in the church. The last word on the Word as it were.

Huh? This came out of left field. I don't recall mentioning anything about the sacraments, especially that of the Lord's Supper/Holy Communion (in my tradition) and the Mass (in yours). But you are right - I see them as symbols of Christ's Passion that as you say make real the action of God in history in a unique way.

Apology above

I just didn't want to be tedious . . . but since you insist

This is indeed significant. Peter is heaped with high praise in the name change . . . it is a great compliment. And what is meant by it is not without controversy (as seen in this discussion!). At the very least it is a play on words (as my previous post: Petros/Peter to Petra/Rock; Cephas [the Aramaic for Peter also means rock]).

The change of name always initiated a radical transition. Him "rock me "pebble".
What I'm claiming is no power to bind on heaven and earth, marry you indissoluably in God, teach on my own authority, or settle disputes between bishops, and settle them once and for all.

The passage in question (for those who may be following with disinterest) is Matthew 16:16-18: Simon Peter answered and said, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Jesus answered and said to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jonah, for flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. And I also say to you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build My church, and the gates of Hades shall not prevail against it.

Augustine's assertion was that Jesus is the rock. Peter says You are the Christ. Jesus answers Upon this rock (My Messiahship, Myself) the church will be built. Iffy.

I like the thought that Peter is indeed a special stone, in that he is the first one whose eyes were opened to Jesus as Messiah; he is a foundational stone to the church being built, but all who believe are stones as well. Passages that speak of the cornerstone speak of Jesus.

Augustine held the bishop of Rome to have the final authority in disputes of church doctrine. This was not an unusual belief in the living church of people. e.g. Clement, Per's successor.

The passage is not without controversy, even within the Catholic Church, especially since, as cited, this is the lone passage in the Bible that mentions the primacy of Peter (and again, it is tenuous to build a theology on one verse), and the fact That Jesus intended to establish a living, perpetual institution is questionable. The word "church" appears only twice in Matthew and not at all in the other Gospels. (C. Milo Connick) If Jesus were the Jewish Messiah as claimed, then He was merely a restorer of religion to the God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph. His rejection (and the rejection/ouster of the first Messianic Jews from the synagogue) led to the formation of the new religious entity - first called "Christian" in Antioch, where Paul was leading (Acts 11:26)

If one wasn't there and doesn't know much about what the people who were there following this guy for three years, then anything is questionnable. If one knows absolutely nothing about anything, then by definition EVERYTHING is questionnable.

What is of interest to a creature with the spiritual faculty of reason (a teaser), is of course what is plausible and reasonable.

Like the good putative "pope" Joan, you cannot prove completely that there is not a little guy on the far side of the moon who runs the universe and who has the further uncanny capacity to disguise himself as a moon rock at will. This is of course why he has escaped detection so far. He travels in chariots of the Odds.

Elvis really is dead and Bush really was maniacally wrong and unbelievably irresponsible in heading off to kill people in Iraq on the basis of "fighting terrorism". He kept Amurrica "free" of truth as best he could. He has really lied about it ever since. This cannot be refuted with integrity. My little moon guy, the Celestine Prophecy, Da Winky wonkiness
and Joan the mitred mama have even less crediblity. They require real credulity. And it abounds.

To suppose that everyone present after the resurrection, and as stated, eleven of twelve let themselves be killed testifying to us, to suppose that the totality of the "Christian" revelation, lived and alive written and being written, with Saint Peter's, John Paul II's and Judas's and pagans who carve babies out of wombs for money and those who try to save the next generation of children, to suppose that it was all a slight misunderstanding, not of ours, but of those poor dupes who were there AFTER the crucifixion, this is also a fine example of an extremely naive credulity fed by an indifferent and confused cultural milieu that since Descartes thinks senselessly. Literally.



Now I'm going to look for a publisher!

Keep up the good work Franko

[Toronthab]

Nice to see your lesson on how to quote wasn't lost on me, eh?

And to think they let me drive.....fast.

[franko]

Toronthab said:

Too right Franko, I did misread you, and later I will publish what the "Pope Fiction" guy has to say about the old legend the mitre mama, Joan. You may well end agreeing that it has even less, much less than the Da Vinci whacko (The alliteration is better if you do Vinci as "Winky".)

Problems with Brown's Da Vinci conspiracies include the fact that there is just enough truth in it to confuse, and that there is just truth in it to sound plausible, whereas the Pope Joan theory is more easily dismissible.

=I see as well that in citing Augustine, I only forgot to cite Augustine on the papacy who said "Rome has spoken, the cause is finished". He was one of those pushing St Gregory to further define the special charism of the papacy.

In some ways, that's my point. The interpretation of the verse is made by mere mortals, who say "we need to define our interpretations better".

I can see your sources for the number of times Peter is mentinned being a little off mine, but did yours perhaps leave out the "Simons" , or title. And impetuosity might carry a little weight, but it is apparently the case that the references always had "Simon and the twelve" and always had Peter first in listings and Judas last. If the latter is predictable, that puts more weight on the former.

The count included "Simon Peter" as one - after all, it was just one mention. He is not referred to as Simon unless the context is as Peter. (23 times in the Gospels; 6 times outside the Gospels).

There is never mention of "Simon and the twelve" - it is always Jesus and the twelve (7 times).

Simon is linked with "the disciples" 3 times.

Indeed, Simon is listed first and Judas is listed last. Not surprising, though, as Simon was the most impetuous. There is no denying that Simon got the most attention. The issue is whether or not Jesus appointed Peter pre-eminent in the Christian church. I say no, you say yes; I say potato, you say potato.

The successor to Peter, Clement, the bishop of Rome, also instructed and ordered another bishop. I'm not saying persuaded, but ordered. A regular bishop could not do that.

Again, speaks to a hierarchical ordered structured church, which is debated (albeit outside Catholic circles).

I won't debate Augustine (or a whole big other list of people!) , but his above citation on the role of the bishop of Rome is unambiguous in the context of his opinions.

As above.

I woulld state again, that human institutions all over have someone who presides, chairs, etc. A divine institution should be wise about such, methinks.

Of course. Divine instruction and guidance is necessary in all parts of life, institutional and personal. The question is the primacy of one institution above all others, and whether it is divine guidance after the fact for what became a religious institution or whether it was pre-ordained appointment. Herein lies the root of our discussion.

As to iinfallibility and the pope vis-a-vis free will, I think that that's a very good subject to discuss. You do agree, however that the at least the church is infallible. It too is made up of humans with free wills.

Ah, but I do disagree. The church is merely an institution made up of fallible mortals - how can it be infallible? Mistakes and errors can indeed be made.

In big C catholicism, papal infallibility is seen as a negative safeguard, more or less. I paraphrase, and that is dangerous, but nothing that is taught by the visible head of the
church when speaking "ex cathedra' (from the chair of Saint Peter) will negatively, lead to serious error. My take of history including very dangerous times for Christ's church, is that Christ's promise is thusfar fulfilled.

I am not qualified to remark on this, other than to wonder: what do you define "serious" error. And if "unserious error" is made, does that not indicate fallibility?

History gives us the hope of making reasonable deductions. As I would tell anyone including the goofs at the "Jesus Seminar" who actually vote on what is supposedly true, what you have to believe to believe something other than that Jesus was the real deal staggers credulity. Eleven of the apostles were martyred testifying to having seen the risen Christ. The bible is the sacred and inspired book of the church. It is not the church, and it is the church that recieved the commission and authority to testify to this.

Ah, the Jesus Seminar. Still going at it. I don't think they'll finish their work until they discredit the whole of the Gospel and Gospels. They're just a hundred years behind the times in the search for the historical Jesus. Their thesis: the Bible may be a sacred and inspired book, but something was lost in the transmission generation to generation - let's find it.

There is disagreement as to how many of the Apostles were martyred for their faith (Clement doesn't mention Peter's martyrdom); I know that the Catholic church also includes John, who died of old age and was not actually killed for his faith. My recollection is that 6 of the 12 were killed for their faith and are identified as such; that Judas hung himself; that John died of old age, and there isn't conclusive evidence of the other 4 (I note that Fox's Book of Martyrs lists 10, plus Paul, plus Steven and others).

As you know, lots of Westerners think that Christianity believes in a six day creation and that the book of Revelation written by John on Patmos, is some kind of a paper chrystal ball for the end of the world. He was of course most likely referring to Rome of his day and the emperor Domitaian. Cartoonsville.

Interesting . . . Matthew 16 is literal and because of that the Catholic Church can decide how the other Scriptures can be interpreted/if they are literal or not. Hmmm.

That being said, there is no doubt the Revelation is apocalyptic literature. It can be read in many different ways, though, and may have been pointing to the future as well as to its present (the persecutions of the day and the persecution of the church to come). I note that there is thought even from the Catholic Church that prophetic utterance is still accepted . . . and that Benedict might be the second last Pope before final Apocalypse The Prophecies of St Malachy

This is another reason, why I believe in the obvious need for authoritive authority in the church. The last word on the Word as it were.

Our interpretation is better than yours - because we interpret Jesus to say so?

Augustine held the bishop of Rome to have the final authority in disputes of church doctrine. This was not an unusual belief in the living church of people. e.g. Clement, Per's successor.

A Catholic bishop believed that the Catholic church was right. Not a stretch at all.

Elvis really is dead and Bush really was maniacally wrong and unbelievably irresponsible in heading off to kill people in Iraq on the basis of "fighting terrorism". He kept Amurrica "free" of truth as best he could. He has really lied about it ever since. This cannot be refuted with integrity. My little moon guy, the Celestine Prophecy, Da Winky wonkiness
and Joan the mitred mama have even less crediblity. They require real credulity. And it abounds.

To suppose that everyone present after the resurrection, and as stated, eleven of twelve let themselves be killed testifying to us, to suppose that the totality of the "Christian" revelation, lived and alive written and being written, with Saint Peter's, John Paul II's and Judas's and pagans who carve babies out of wombs for money and those who try to save the next generation of children, to suppose that it was all a slight misunderstanding, not of ours, but of those poor dupes who were there AFTER the crucifixion, this is also a fine example of an extremely naive credulity fed by an indifferent and confused cultural milieu that since Descartes thinks senselessly. Literally.

I think I need an explanation of what you are trying to say here. I think I agree - but I'm just not following!

[Toronthab]

Problems with Brown's Da Vinci conspiracies include the fact that there is just enough truth in it to confuse, and that there is just truth in it to sound plausible, whereas the Pope Joan theory is more easily dismissible.


In some ways, that's my point. The interpretation of the verse is made by mere mortals, who say "we need to define our interpretations better".

The pope Joan idiocy is indeed too stpid for words.As for Brown's Da Vinci Crap, he was informed of the ridiculous and fraudulent nature of his book about a year before it was pubihed. He is just another fraudulent liar.

The count included "Simon Peter" as one - after all, it was just one mention. He is not referred to as Simon unless the context is as Peter. (23 times in the Gospels; 6 times outside the Gospels).

There is never mention of "Simon and the twelve" - it is always Jesus and the twelve (7 times).

Simon is linked with "the disciples" 3 times.

Indeed, Simon is listed first and Judas is listed last. Not surprising, though, as Simon was the most impetuous. There is no denying that Simon got the most attention. The issue is whether or not Jesus appointed Peter pre-eminent in the Christian church. I say no, you say yes; I say potato, you say potato.

It occurs to me that you might well be reading a King James version of the bible. I have difficulty believing that either your program or the source for my argurments are at all likely to make a mistake in basic arithmetic.

As the sources for the texts referrenced by catholic sources are well before the reformation and Henry VIII is it just possible that this particular translation, has left out about 40 references to Simon Peter, and the regular reference to "Peter and the Apostles". I am hard pressed to come up with another possible explanation, because, the source documents are a matter of historical record in Greek and Aramaic.

I don't know how many times they did the listings. Presumably it was at different times and different places. Was "impetuosity" that big a deal with the early church...odd.

Again, speaks to a hierarchical ordered structured church, which is debated (albeit outside Catholic circles).

Outside Catholic ahurches are the orthodox churches and the anglicans. I personally find it impossible to read the documents of the early church (which by the way, I have not done extensively but only intermittantly) but the history and record of the church speaks for itself.

Of course. Divine instruction and guidance is necessary in all parts of life, institutional and personal. The question is the primacy of one institution above all others, and whether it is divine guidance after the fact for what became a religious institution or whether it was pre-ordained appointment. Herein lies the root of our discussion.

The Catholic church is not above all others. I would argue that it is just true. That from Peter and the apostles and their successors, the church has been the recipient of the gifts promised to the church by Christ. Christ said he would "send the paraclete" to guide her to all truth. How can you NOT believe that the church is anything but infallible in her teachings. He didn't say I am a way, a questionalble proposition, and a shadow. Authority was clearly given and clearly passed on, including Clement the direct successor to Peter, who claimed and exercised authority over other churches. This is the record. These guys didn't just pop up out of nowhere and say "Let's try this" St Paul himself went to St Peter to have his teaching confirmed by him. These persons were tested and instructed. By the apostles. The church was and is a living body of communicating members. Daily.

Ah, but I do disagree. The church is merely an institution made up of fallible mortals - how can it be infallible? Mistakes and errors can indeed be made.

I would argue that this is a partial truth. The sacraments are the core of the church. The church is "the mystical body of Christ". That is why the church speaks with confidence and why, despite all the (quite way the hell overemphasized) failings of her members, she remains at her core, perfect. Don't misusnderstand what I just wrote. She is instituted by Christ, not people. The office of the pope is preserved from error in matters of faith and morals. How could it possibly be otherwise? Popes are sinners too. They have confessors and spiritual guides.

There is disagreement as to how many of the Apostles were martyred for their faith (Clement doesn't mention Peter's martyrdom); I know that the Catholic church also includes John, who died of old age and was not actually killed for his faith. My recollection is that 6 of the 12 were killed for their faith and are identified as such; that Judas hung himself; that John died of old age, and there isn't conclusive evidence of the other 4 (I note that Fox's Book of Martyrs lists 10, plus Paul, plus Steven and others).

I of course have no idea, but heard during the funeral of pope John Paul II, and I think it was the Canadian Fr. Rusico who stated that 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred for their fait. Again. this is a very pronounced difference. I don't know to what extent scholars disagree on such matters and on what grounds.

Interesting . . . Matthew 16 is literal and because of that the Catholic Church can decide how the other Scriptures can be interpreted/if they are literal or not. Hmmm.

No Mathew 16 is literal because it was literal. I have no problem with Augustine's view that Christ spoke of this "rock" as either faith in him or his person. But, apparently when he said "I give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven", the "you" was singular. This view has been consistent with the church for almost 2000 years. It was accepted by Augustine as well.

It is considered likely that the beatitudes are a compiliation of sayings or teachings, and likely not a stenographic record. Mathew 16 is not disputed by anyone as to being a direct and critical quote. It is most assuredly the 2000 year history of the church from day one that the church teaches authoritively and does indeed, as commanded by Christ from day one teach, baptize, marry and proclaim the gospel to he who has ears. "He who hears you, hears me."

Protestantism, after 1500 years or so, encouraged by the evident corruption of the inheritors of Christ's church pronounced in effect that this could no longer be the case.
If true, then Christ was wrong and he did not fulfill his promises to the church vis-a-vis 'leading to all truth", 'gates of hell.." . "hears you..hears me.. "I give you (Peter) the keys to the kingdom of heaven" "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them" "What you bind on earth is bound in heaven"

Are you saying Jesus renegged?I have heard many times the claim that, no indeed, Jesus kept his word, but it was protestantism that picked up where catholicism left off.

This of course means that Jesus did INDEED reneg on virtually all of the above promises. It would mean that the church was NOT guided to all truth, that what was bound on earth, was NOT bound in heaven, that the" gates of hell DID prevail against her. The living church failed if the thesis of protestantism is correct. Of course this means in effect that the truth of action of God depends upon the indefectability of the persons of the church.

If Jesus had let the 1500 year od church fail, He would have failed in his promises and would therefore not be divine. i see no way to avoid this conclusion.

being said, there is no doubt the Revelation is apocalyptic literature. It can be read in many different ways, though, and may have been pointing to the future as well as to its present (the persecutions of the day and the persecution of the church to come). I note that there is thought even from the Catholic Church that prophetic utterance is still accepted . . . and that Benedict might be the second last Pope before final Apocalypse The Prophecies of St Malachy


Our interpretation is better than yours - because we interpret Jesus to say so?

Of course the apostles had the authority to bind and loose, to teach with the promised quidance of the Holy Spirit. How could it possibly be anything else? The inconsistency is with the idea that somehow, after 1500 years it was suddenly all wrong. If Christ is divine, that is impossible. I of course hold that that is impossible. As to the specifics of interpreting Revealtion, it is of course the same responsibility of the church. Who else could it be.

A Catholic bishop believed that the Catholic church was right. Not a stretch at all.

In the mattrer of the leadership of Saint Peter, you didn't like my face value acceptance of the specifics of Jesus' words to Peter. You mentionned Augustine's comment re the "rock" being Jesus. That's fine. But a person could conclude from this that Augustine whose thinking guided western civilization fro the fourth to eleventh century, did not think that the passage established the primacy of Peter. My point is that that conclusion cannot be deduced from that.

In and around that century I read how the Bisop of Rome threatened to excommunicate a number of bishops who were part of a group of more than three hundred at that time. Not a single bishop of the three hundred disputed or protested that the successor of Peter in Rome did not have that authority to excommunicate a BISHOP.

The same authority is exercised today, as of course it should be.

Goodnight. After golfing and now watching Farenheit 9/11, I'll be shutting down soon.


I think I need an explanation of what you are trying to say here. I think I agree - but I'm just not following!
[/quote]

[franko]

Toronthab said:

The pope Joan idiocy is indeed too stpid for words.As for Brown's Da Vinci Crap, he was informed of the ridiculous and fraudulent nature of his book about a year before it was pubihed. He is just another fraudulent liar.

Yet the discussion goes on . . . article in today's Citizen (which I'm not going to quote, as it is just more of the same).

It occurs to me that you might well be reading a King James version of the bible. I have difficulty believing that either your program or the source for my argurments are at all likely to make a mistake in basic arithmetic.

As the sources for the texts referrenced by catholic sources are well before the reformation and Henry VIII is it just possible that this particular translation, has left out about 40 references to Simon Peter, and the regular reference to "Peter and the Apostles". I am hard pressed to come up with another possible explanation, because, the source documents are a matter of historical record in Greek and Aramaic.

No. The search in any of the versions in the search reference "Peter"; the search for "Simon" reference Simon Zealots as well.

Go to the Greek New Testament and you'll discover that the Gopsels (nor the letters) were written with headings, so if headings are included it is wrong. No dispute -- Peter's name is mentioned more than any other disciple. The dispute is over interpretation as to whether or not he is preeminent in the church, and of the meaning of "keys of the kingdom" (and further -- why not -- by whose authority is he to pass them on?).

Outside Catholic ahurches are the orthodox churches and the anglicans. I personally find it impossible to read the documents of the early church (which by the way, I have not done extensively but only intermittantly) but the history and record of the church speaks for itself.

As does the lack of unanimity in the discussions.

The Catholic church is not above all others. I would argue that it is just true. That from Peter and the apostles and their successors, the church has been the recipient of the gifts promised to the church by Christ. Christ said he would "send the paraclete" to guide her to all truth. How can you NOT believe that the church is anything but infallible in her teachings. He didn't say I am a way, a questionalble proposition, and a shadow. Authority was clearly given and clearly passed on, including Clement the direct successor to Peter, who claimed and exercised authority over other churches. This is the record. These guys didn't just pop up out of nowhere and say "Let's try this" St Paul himself went to St Peter to have his teaching confirmed by him. These persons were tested and instructed. By the apostles. The church was and is a living body of communicating members. Daily.

Be careful citing "the gifts" . . . I don't believe the church practises all of them (tongues, for example)

The paraclete is given to indiviudal believers, not just the leadership.

A church is merely the collection of believers. Believers are human. Humans are fallible.

Jesus is the way; a church isn't the way. A/the church is merely a gathering of like-minded individuals attempting to follow the teachings of Jesus.

Paul, actually, went to Peter to be endorsed by him because he (Paul) had been a persecutor). later, Paul rebuked Peter for his legalism. As to a previous statement in this regard, it was not Peter who led the Jerusalem council, but James . . . and in fact James (the brother of Jesus) was initially looked at as the leader of the evolving church.

It is considered likely that the beatitudes are a compiliation of sayings or teachings, and likely not a stenographic record. Mathew 16 is not disputed by anyone as to being a direct and critical quote. It is most assuredly the 2000 year history of the church from day one that the church teaches authoritively and does indeed, as commanded by Christ from day one teach, baptize, marry and proclaim the gospel to he who has ears. "He who hears you, hears me."

There is indeed dispute. And by the way, just for information's sake Christ did not instruct the church to marry.

Protestantism, after 1500 years or so, encouraged by the evident corruption of the inheritors of Christ's church pronounced in effect that this could no longer be the case.

Evident corruption? What do you call the sale of indulgences?

Are you saying Jesus renegged?I have heard many times the claim that, no indeed, Jesus kept his word, but it was protestantism that picked up where catholicism left off.

I merely say that the church (even mine) is a man-made institution, with human interpretations on matters of doctrine. "The faith" remains.

This of course means that Jesus did INDEED reneg on virtually all of the above promises. It would mean that the church was NOT guided to all truth, that what was bound on earth, was NOT bound in heaven, that the" gates of hell DID prevail against her. The living church failed if the thesis of protestantism is correct. Of course this means in effect that the truth of action of God depends upon the indefectability of the persons of the church.

No, it mearely means that God has such faith in His creation that He allows us to search for Him without having a direct/hands-on say in the ways of men (free will). He didn't/doesn't fail; we did/do.

[quoteIf Jesus had let the 1500 year od church fail, He would have failed in his promises and would therefore not be divine. i see no way to avoid this conclusion. [/quote]
This has nothing to do with His divinity. By extension, God is not divine because He let the Jewish religion "fail". Poppycock!

Of course the apostles had the authority to bind and loose, to teach with the promised quidance of the Holy Spirit. How could it possibly be anything else? The inconsistency is with the idea that somehow, after 1500 years it was suddenly all wrong. If Christ is divine, that is impossible. I of course hold that that is impossible. As to the specifics of interpreting Revealtion, it is of course the same responsibility of the church. Who else could it be.

you continue to define the church narrowly, to mean "Roman Catholic", as if this organization has rights and privileges no other believers in Jesus have -- ownership of spiritual truth, so to speak. Is this what you mean?

In the mattrer of the leadership of Saint Peter, you didn't like my face value acceptance of the specifics of Jesus' words to Peter. You mentionned Augustine's comment re the "rock" being Jesus. That's fine. But a person could conclude from this that Augustine whose thinking guided western civilization fro the fourth to eleventh century, did not think that the passage established the primacy of Peter. My point is that that conclusion cannot be deduced from that.

And vice versa.

In and around that century I read how the Bisop of Rome threatened to excommunicate a number of bishops who were part of a group of more than three hundred at that time. Not a single bishop of the three hundred disputed or protested that the successor of Peter in Rome did not have that authority to excommunicate a BISHOP.

And in my denomination today not a minister disputes that our leadership has the authority to disbar one of them. Leadership has that right. It does nothing to prove derived Papal authority.

A Billy Preston song is rolling around in my head: "Will It Go Round In Circles?". It is. Shall we continue to discuss this topic or move on to another?

[Cranky]

YIKES! Practically a SeminaryRus!

I am amazed into how much detail you guys are getting into. Completely LOST. My Greek Orthodox origins didn't even begin to get into this much detail.

If I read the entire thread, will I be converted?

[franko]

Mr. said:

YIKES!

I am amazed into how much detail you guys are getting into. Practically a SeminaryRus!

If I read the entire thread, will I be converted?

Though I do not deny the power of God, some things are just to miraculous to comprehend ;D

[Cranky]

franko said:

Though I do not deny the power of God, some things are just to miraculous to comprehend ;D

LOL!

By any chance, do you have a grinder? Got'to get rid of dem horns!

Are you guys watching Revelations on TV? It's got my attention big time.

[franko]

Mr. said:

LOL!

By any chance, do you have a grinder? Got'to get rid of dem horns!

Gotta go to ExorcismsRus for that!

Are you guys watching Revelations on TV? It's got my attention big time.

Naw . . . read the book instead.

Actually, not a good night for TV watching for me (besides, I'm too busy researching to see that the Pope is the Anti-Christ. Just Kidding! ).

I have read most of the end-times Left Behind series. Good adequate fiction. Loosely based on the book; a protestant-pentecostal-evangelical perspective . . . about thirty years too late. Watch A Thief in the Night for a 70's flashback end times story.

[blaise]

Mr. said:

YIKES! Practically a SeminaryRus!

I am amazed into how much detail you guys are getting into. Completely LOST. My Greek Orthodox origins didn't even begin to get into this much detail.

If I read the entire thread, will I be converted?

More likely bored to death.

[Toronthab]

Mr. said:

LOL!

By any chance, do you have a grinder? Got'to get rid of dem horns!

Are you guys watching Revelations on TV? It's got my attention big time.

Haven't caught it. Is it about the Book of Revelation?

[Toronthab]

Frsnko..here is a brief treatment of the idea of the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven and Saint Peter and successors. I Included it seaparately for space reasons, though its not too long


POWER OF THE KEYS

TEXTThe expression "power of the keys" is derived from Christ's words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19).

The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaias 22, in which "the key of the house of David" is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda.

Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church. For a consideration of the text in its dogmatic bearing, see POPE; PRIMACY. In the present article our sole purpose is to give a brief historical account of the meaning attached to the expression by ecclesiastical writers.

I. THE FATHERS

(1) In the Fathers the references to the promise of Matthew 16:19, are of frequent occurrence. Almost invariably the words of Christ are cited in proof of the Church's power to forgive sins. The application is a natural one, for the promise of the keys is immediately followed by the words: "Whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth", etc. Moreover, the power to confer or to withhold forgiveness might well be viewed as the opening and shutting of the gates of heaven. This interpretation, however, restricts the sense somewhat too narrowly; for the remission of sins is but one of the various ways in which ecclesiastical authority is exercised. We have examples of this use of the term is such passages as August., "De Doctrina Christi", xvii, xviii: "Quid liberatius et misericordius facere potuit. . .nisi ut omnia donaret conversis. . .Has igitur claves dedit Ecclesiae suae ut quae solveret in terra soluta essent in coelo" (How could He [Christ] have shewn greater liberality and greater mercy. . .than by granting full forgiveness to those who should turn from their sins. . .He gave these keys to His Church, therefore, that whatever it should remit on earth should be remitted also in heaven) (P.L., XXIV, 25; cf. Hilary, "In Matt.", xvi, P.L., IX, 1010).

It is comparatively seldom that the Fathers, when speaking of the power of the keys, make any reference to the supremacy of St. Peter. When they deal with that question, they ordinarily appeal not to the gift of the keys but to his office as the rock on which the Church is founded. In their references to the potestas clavium, they are usually intent on vindicating against the Montanist and Novatian heretics the power inherent in the Church to forgive. Thus St. Augustine in several passages declares that the authority to bind and loose was not a purely personal gift to St. Peter, but was conferred upon him as representing the Church. The whole Church, he urges, exercises the power of forgiving sins. This could not be had the gift been a personal one (tract. 1 in Joan., n. 12, P.L., XXXV, 1763; Serm. ccxcv, in P.L., XXXVIII, 1349). From these passages certain Protestant controversialists have drawn the curious conclusion that the power to forgive sins belongs not to the priesthood but to the collective body of Christians (see Cheetham in "Dict. Christ. Antiq.", s.v.). There is, of course, no suggestion of this meaning. St. Augustine merely signifies that the power to absolve was to be imparted through St. Peter to members of the Church's hierarchy throughout the world.

Some few of the Fathers, however, are careful to note that the bestowal of this power upon St. Peter alone, apart from the other Apostles, denoted his primacy among the twelve (Optatus, "De Schism. Don.", vii, 3, in P.L., XI, 1087). Origen dilates at length on this point, but teaches erroneously that the power conferred upon the Twelve in Matthew 18:18, could only be exercised within certain restrictions of place, while that conferred upon St. Peter in Matthew 16:18, was of universal extent (Comm. in Matt., P.G., XIII, 1179).

(2) Occasionally, though infrequently, Christ's promise is not restricted to signify the power to forgive sins, but is taken in the fuller meaning of the gift of authority over the Church. Thus St. Gregory in his letter to the Emperor Maurice, after quoting Christ's words in Matthew 16:18-19, writes: "Behold he [Peter] received the keys of the kingdom of heaven, the power of binding and loosing is committed to him, the care of the whole Church and its government is given to him [cura ei totius Ecclesiae et principatus committitur (Epist., lib. V, ep. xx, in P.L., LXXVII, 745)]. St. Maximus in a sermon on the feast of Saints Peter and Paul (P.L., LVII, 403) says that to St. Peter was given the key of power (clavis potentioe), to St. Paul the key of knowledge (clavis scientioe). The idea of a key of knowledge is clearly derived from Christ's words to the Pharisees, Luke 11:52: "You have taken away the key of knowledge." This distinction of the clavis potentioe and clavis scientioe recurs frequently in the medieval writers, though without reference to St. Paul.

II. THE SCHOLASTICS

By the Scholastic theologians the precise significance of the term was closely analysed.

(1) The view which is now universally accepted is exposed at length by Suárez (De Poenit., disp. xvi). According to him, the phrase as employed by Christ in His promise to St. Peter denotes the gift of ecclesiastical authority in its widest scope. This authority was to be in a sense peculiar to St. Peter and his successors in the chief pastorate; for they alone were to possess it in its fullness. But it was to be exercised in due measure by the other members of the Divinely instituted hierarchy according to their several degrees. Thus understood, the potestas clavium includes

the power of order, namely power exercised in regard to sacrifice and sacrament,
the power of jurisdiction, and
the power to define in questions of faith and morals.
The various powers thus conferred upon the Church were held to belong either to the clavis potentioe or to the clavis scientioe, the latter of these two being understood to signify the power to teach, while the other departments of authority pertained to the clavis potentioe. The distinction is, however, a theological refinement, and is not involved in the expression itself. As Suarez urges, Christ, when using the plural form, did not intend to indicate that the gift was twofold.

(2) The meaning attached to the term by the older Scholastics was, however, different from this. They followed the patristic tradition, and confined its significance to the judicial authority exercised in the Sacrament of Penance. The power of the keys, St. Thomas tells us (Summa Theologica Supp:17:2, ad 1um), is a necessary consequence of the sacerdotal character. It is, in fact, identical in essence with the power to consecrate and to offer the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. The one sacerdotal gift is applied to different ends in the different sacraments. Such, too, appears to be the teaching of Pope John XXII in a well-known passage dealing with this subject (Extravag., tit. xiv, De verborum signif., c. v, Quia quorundam). The definition, "Clavis est specialis potestas ligandi et solvendi qua judex ecclesiasticus dignos recipere et indignos excludere debet a regno" (The keys are a special power of binding and loosing by which the ecclesiastical judge should receive the worthy [into the kingdom of heaven] and exclude the unworthy therefrom), generally accepted in the Scholastic period (Pet. Lomb., "Sent.", IV, dist. xviii; John XXII, loc. cit.; St. Thomas, loc. cit.), might seem indeed to include jurisdiction in the external as well as in the internal forum. But in point of fact it was not so understood. The distinction between the clavis potentioe and the clavis scientioe was employed here. By the clavis scientioe was understood the priestly authority to interrogate the penitent and thus obtain cognizance of the facts of the case; by the clavis potentioe, the authority to grant or refuse absolution.

The view just exposed is inadmissible as an interpretation of Christ's words. For it is plain that He desired to confer by them some special prerogative on Peter, while, according to this interpretation, the potestas clavium is common to all priests.

(3) Hence there were not wanting theologians who narrowly restricted the scope of the gift, and asserted that it denoted the special prerogatives appertaining to St. Peter and his successors, and these alone. Thus Cardinal Cajetan (Opusc., I, tract. iii, De Rom. Pont., c. v) held that while the power of binding and loosing belonged to all priests, the power of the keys -- authority to open and shut -- was proper to the supreme pontiff; and that this expression signified his authority to rule the Church, to define dogma, to legislate, and to dispense from laws. A similar opinion would seem to have been held by the Franciscans whose views are rejected by John XXII (loc. cit.). They contended that the popes held a clavis scientioe and a clavis potentioe; and that, though in the case of the clavis potentioe a decision arrived at might be reversed be a subsequent act, no reversal was possible where the clavis scientioe had been employed.

(4) Macedo in his treatise "De Clavibus Petri" (Rome, 1660), attributes to certain theologians and canonists the opinion that the keys denote the supreme authority in the civil and ecclesiastical spheres, and that Christ conferred upon the pope a direct supremacy over both orders. We have, however, been unable to verify this statement. Indeed the writers who attributed to the pope an indirect authority only, in regard to civil governments, found an argument for their views in this very passage. They pointed out that it was the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and not of the kingdoms of this earth, which Christ bestowed upon His vicar.

[Toronthab]

franko said:

Gotta go to ExorcismsRus for that!

Tha was good