If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope – A Homily for the 21st Sunday of the Year

Archdiocese of Washington ^ | 8/23/2014 | Msgr. Charles Pope

[HarleyD]

Then the term “father” or “papa” or “Pope” doesn’t fit any one circumstance, now does it?

Logic!

[stonehouse01]

Also - yours is a mistranslation;

countless guides??

I don’t think so.

The vulgate says; for if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many Fathers.

It is important to get the correct tanslation. KJV and protestants edited words - they have a fear of the Father word ... be aware.

[CTrent1564]

HarleyD:

No actually, it is you that are more like them. They claim the Church went off the rails at the end of the 1st century, many Fundie Protestants use to claim it happened when Constantine made the Roman Catholic Church the state church [except he did no such thing], some now claim it was Emperor Theodosius, who did make it that, some claim it was Pope Damasus, some claim when Leo the Great was Pope, etc.

The Catholic Church claims 100%, Christ the Word made Flesh came into the world at a point of history and history has forever been changed and that he indeed found a Church to be a visible sign of his presence in the world for the rest of time and the Holy Spirit was sent to guide that Church down thru the centuries. The notion that Christ would become Incarnate, found a Church let if go off the rails doctrinally till the arrival of Mormonism, or JW, or Adventist or modern Pentecostalism is inconceivable and of course all these guys have their dates when the Catholic Church went off the railroad tracks, yet none of them can give you the precise date and all of them come up with some doctrines that are say well “????????”

I was on a blog called Called to Communion [as observer, not posting, although I have posted there before], run by Catholics who were once Reformed [some Anglican-Reformed, some Presbyterian, etc] and some of the Protestants that post there now claim it was Saint Augustine who caused the Catholic Church to go off the rails because of his faulty understanding of Hebrew, thus he did not get the nuances of it when he did his Theological writings in Latin [that is the readers digest version of it].

I don’t believe Christ came into the world, founded a Church, and then would not guide it to preserve and defend the authentic doctrine he left to the Apostles and for that Church which received it, in the form of a seed, would come to a fuller understanding of it as it faced challenges from unorthodox groups, etc.

[HarleyD]

No actually, it is you that are more like them. They claim the Church went off the rails at the end of the 1st century...I don’t believe Christ came into the world, founded a Church, and then would not guide it to preserve and defend the authentic doctrine

Actually the Church started down the wrong road around 600AD when it accepted both John Cassian's (free will) and Augustine's (grace) views to be held jointly together. By 1000AD the Orthodox left when they excommunicated the Pope. By 1200AD so many were leaving the Roman Catholic Church that the Church had to issue new rulings that grace through the Eucharist could only be administered by a priest and that you had to attend the Church (check the 4th Lateran Council of 1215AD). The Catholics got so mad about criticism about their errors that they were willing to burn John Wycliffe at the stake for translating the Bible for all to read. By the 1500s, the time of the Reformation, there were so many errors that it was time for reform. One would have hope they would have looked inward. But that didn't stopped Catholics from issuing later doctrines like the infallibility of the Pope (something the Orthodox will never buy), the deity of Mary, etc.

It isn't surprising that Catholics have given up on Augustine (as well as some Protestants). Augustine is the heart of the Reformation. Whether Augustine had a faulty view of Hebrew I don't know and is immaterial. What Augustine did have was a superior understanding of theology-how scripture fits together-a rare gift. His later writings showed a progress in his thinking and understanding. Consequently, Augustine was one of the very first people to put together a systematic theology, at a time when few thought about that.

No one would argue that Christ isn't preserving the church. The argument centers on what precisely is the church. If you want to argue that the church is the Roman Catholic Church, then you would be right according to the RCC dogma but wrong according the Vatican II. Either only those people in the Catholic Church can be saved or other people outside the Catholic Church can be saved as well. Catholics cannot say what is right.

So what precisely is Christ preserving? What is "authentic doctrine"?

[Springfield Reformer]

KJV:

1Co 4:15  For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.

So the KJV went with the literal meaning on murioi ("10,000"), but good lexical resources will tell you this had become an expression effectively meaning "countless," so I get why some translators would use it on a theory of dynamic equivalence.  I'm just not a big fan of dynamic equivalence.  Though I will also concede there are translation scenarios where there really is no way to do a direct translation and searching for some sort of equivalent function is a matter of necessity.

As for some alleged aversion to "father" in the KJV, not at all.  Certainly not in this passage. In fact, the Vulgate and the KJV and the Greek are all remarkably close here:

The Vulgate:

nam si decem milia pedagogorum habeatis in Christo sed non multos patres nam in Christo Iesu per evangelium ego vos genui

And the Greek:

εαν γαρ μυριους παιδαγωγους εχητε εν χριστω αλλ ου πολλους πατερας εν γαρ χριστω ιησου δια του ευαγγελιου εγω υμας εγεννησα 

And the Vulgate:

For if you have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet not many fathers. For in Christ Jesus, by the gospel, I have begotten you.

See http://www.latinvulgate.com/lv/verse.aspx?t=1&b=7&c=4

In any event, this does not validate creating an ecclesiastical title of "papa," which is expressly forbidden by Christ. We only have one who bears that title, the Heavenly Father.  But Paul here speaks to a spiritual reality, that by analogy to human fatherhood, these Corinthians came to be born into the family of God through Paul's ministry of the Gospel among them. This is impossibly far from justifying systematic breach of Christ's direct command to avoid the term as a title in the assembly.

Being called to dinner.  Later ...

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

Third entry “And the Vulgate” should be “And the Douay-Rheims.” Sorry.

[CTrent1564]

HarleyD:

Well I appreciate you giving me a date 600AD. Grace and Free will can’t go together?? I disagree, it is we on this side of the divide can’t reconcile how they do, only God knows.

You missed what I said, it was the Protestants who were attacking Saint Augustine, not Catholics. In other words, it was Protestants posting at a Catholic site stating Augustine got it wrong with his justification that was infused [Grace is not the debate] because he was not fluent in Hebrew and his understanding of Hebrew got lost in translation in Latin via Greek from the Hebrew [Again, it was the Protestants, Reformed mind you, criticizing Augustine, not Catholics]. Catholics have not given up on Augustine as he was one.

Diety of Mary, not even going to respond to that. No such thing has happened and can happen as she is human. I thought you would have gotten that by now as the Assumption of Mary has been discussed, and I think you and I have actually been part of those discussions. Mary is not God and no Catholic teaching would ever make such claim because that is heresy.

he issue of pre-Vatican II and post Vatican II on who is part of the Church is what you are getting at. There is only 1 Church, all are in it at some level, some more than others, but all are related to it or part of it so the question of how one understands “outside the Church there is no salvation” is one of those things that has always been part of Church teaching, but it has never been completely and definitively defined.

[CTrent1564]

And the notion of papa or Pope is being used precisely in the manner that Saint Paul speaks of being a Father to the Corinthians. Nothing controversial here.

[Elsie]

Like I said, the topic of the thread was related to the Sunday readings that every Catholic heard at Mass/Liturgy this past Sunday, which was Isiah 22 [the Keys prefiguration] and Mt 16:16-18.

I don't know about the TOPIC, but the TITLE is: If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope

[af_vet_1981]

Ahh, but the washing of the hands is Talmud, not Torah, and directly disputed by Yeshua:

Do wash your hands or leave them dirty when you eat ? If you are a parent, do you teach your children to wash their hands or leave them dirty when they eat ?

[af_vet_1981]

HOW they transgressed the commandment of YHWH is that 'washing the hands' was not a commandment of YHWH... Do not add to, nor take away from...

I don't think that was the reason. Jerome, who was Fourth Century, explained the ritual washing was from Psalm 26 and he would have been very aware of the story from the gospel.

I will wash mine hands in innocency: so will I compass thine altar, O Lord:

[CTrent1564]

Elsie:

But the article by Msg. Pope was written to Catholics and the Liturgical Texts at last Sunday’s Mass were Isaiah 22:20-24 from the OT and Matthew 16:16-18. Msg. Pope’s blog is for Catholics wanting to get a solid explanation on the Liturgical Readings and this one related to the role of the Pope and thus how those 2 Scripture text are understood in Catholic ecclesiology and in particular to the role of the Pope [Bishop of Rome]. So yes, in the Catholicism, there is One Pope and I nor any other Catholic not the Pope [because he is the Pope] is it.

[roamer_1]

Do wash your hands or leave them dirty when you eat ? If you are a parent, do you teach your children to wash their hands or leave them dirty when they eat ?

It has nothing to do with hygiene. It has to do with the authority of the rabbis to change the very commandments of YHWH.

Procedure and Practice

The procedure is to pour water out from a cup or glass first twice over the right hand and then twice over the left hand--care being taken that the unwashed hands do not touch the water used for the washing. The hands are then dried with a towel before partaking of the meal. A benediction is recited over the washing of the hands: "Blessed art Thou, O Lord our God, King of the universe, who has sanctified us with Thy commandments and has commanded us concerning the washing of the hands."

The reference to the command has to be understood in the context that rabbinic ordinances are also commanded by God. Observant Jews are very strict in this matter of washing the hands before meals.

Src

IOW, The rabbis made it up to prove their own power.

[roamer_1]

If No One Is Pope, Everyone is Pope

If no one has beer, everyone has beer?

[daniel1212]

If the scripture teaches transubstantiation, then we must believe that Christ ate His own flesh and blood, and will continue to do so, even in heaven.

Well, using the often-used RC hermeneutic, since the Scripture does not say He did not and would not, then it can be, if Rome says so.

[daniel1212]

I agree with the Catholic Notion... End of story

As your responses have made clear by now, you believe whatever Rome officially says, under the premise of her assured infallibility as the historical magisterium and steward of Scripture. End of fantasy.

Had you been in the first century, the faithful RC would follow the Scribes and Pharisees who sat in the seat of Moses as the historical magisterium and steward of Scripture, asking why you should follow an itinerant preacher in the desert who are insects who disagreed with the magisterium who thus rejected him.

As well as another itinerant preacher who reproved them by Scripture, and invoked the baptism of the first itinerant preacher when challenged to name who gave Him His authority. (Mk. 11:27-33)

And who established His Truth claims upon scriptural substantiation in word and in power, as did the early church as it began upon this basis. (Mt. 22:23-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 12:12, etc.)

And the common people rightly discerned Truth and followed these preachers while the historical magisterium was wrong.

Laity: Never man spake like this man. Then answered the Catholic, "Are ye also deceived? Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him? But this people who knoweth not the law are cursed." (cf John 7:46-49)

[Springfield Reformer]

Now this is confusing.  You say:

the notion of papa or Pope is being used precisely in the manner that Saint Paul speaks of being a Father to the Corinthians.

But in post 412 you seem to suggest there can only be one pope.  So now you have a problem. Because if, as you say, the sense of the title is exactly the same, then you cannot be limited to one pope, because you would have Peter being "papa" at the same time as Paul being "papa." Ergo, two popes.  But if you say no, no they're not the same, then the sense of the title cannot be the same. "precisely in the manner" means "precisely in the manner," not "almost the same except for some raft of unspoken qualifiers."

Bu there are further problems. Let's say I accept your hypothesis that the Papa is the Papa in precisely the manner of Paul being father to the Corinthians.  To be true, that would mean the Papa was personally involved in in-person Gospel ministry, and further actually participant in the conversions of everyone who can relate to him as Papa.  Because that is Paul's sense, inescapably evident from the text. So are you saying the Papa was really personally involved in the Gospel conversions of every Catholic on earth?  But if not, then the sense is different, is it not?

One more thing.  None of what Paul said makes go away the command of Jesus to avoid certain ecclesiastical titles. For review:

Mat 23:8-10  But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.  (9)  And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.  (10)  Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.

So now we have a new conundrum:  How can Paul's statement be reconciled with Christ's command? If Paul is assuming an ecclesiastical title to himself, then He is in violation of the command of Christ, because that is what is forbidden here.  It was a practice among the rabbinics of His day to allow themselves to be called "Father Paul," or "Father Jose ben Jochanan," or "Father Chanan," or "Father Chelphetha," to name only a few examples. See Gill on Matthew 23:9.  

Those are ecclesiastical titles, tokens of high honor given to the sages.  And it is against those ecclesiastical titles that Jesus' command is specifically directed, not the sense of a man as father to his natural son, nor even the sense of an evangelist to those converted under his ministry.  Those do not represent an office of universal scope, but a real, and very local, human relationship. So Paul's sense is of personally begetting children in the faith, not an ecclesiastical title worn as a crown of authority over billions of people he never even met, let alone evangelized.

But the command of Christ does not go away.  "Papa's" title is a standing rejection of that command.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

The bible is often metaphor, and no one denies this, other than my perhaps wrong understanding that bible alone Christians take all of scripture literally, except John 6.

That's an important and helpful insight. "Bible alone Christians" are very often not well understood by their opponents. This is not something in which I am trying to fix blame, but it is a real problem with some of these FR conversations. For one thing, "Bible alone" is a misnomer if it is taken in an absolute sense.  It's really more like "Bible first," or "Bible supreme" concept.  "Bible alone" is a straw man.  We who take the Bible as our supreme authority in matters of faith and doctrine are happy to be enlightened by sources of knowledge outside the Bible, linguistic, patristic, scientific, archaeological, etc.  Very often those sources will help us better understand the Scriptures. But at the end of the day, when all fonts of wisdom have been considered, and an actual decision of faith, morals, or doctrine must be made, for us the Scriptures will trump every other claim to authority.

Furthermore, this means we are not predisposed to either a rigid literalism or a flamboyant anti-literalism. We just want to get at original intent, wherever that takes us, similar to the conservative approach to the Constitution.  What is the author saying?  Sometimes that can be solved most naturally with literal understanding, and sometimes best with figurative, and most often with a mixture of both.  

For example, we no doubt both accept that Jesus bodily rose from the dead. Some would turn even that into a symbol with no corporeal reality, but we would reject that, because it is clear from the text that the resurrection of Jesus was both a spiritual and corporeal event, and that's how the disciples experienced it. So we accept that, because that is clearly what the author intended to convey.

certain instructions are NOT metaphor or symbol; the ten commandments and the beatitudes are clear instruction; as well as John 6.

Direct commandments and other such instruction often do have a more literal flavor to them, but even here there can be a mix of metaphor and literalness.  God sent real manna from Heaven to sustain Israel.  They were under specific instructions on how to gather and prepare it. But we also know it was a metaphor for the Heavenly bread, Jesus Christ, as taught in John 6.

And Israel was under instructions to remember the very real events of the Exodus from Egypt, including that amazing walling up of the waters of the Red Sea, the terrifying night of the angel of death, the real sacrifice offered for the firstborn of Israel, and the making of the first passover meal.  All vividly real, but all pointing forward by prophetic metaphor to Christ, with the Red Sea a picture of our baptism and escape from sin, the passover lamb an image of Christ, by which we too escape death, the unleavened matzo of the passover meal representing both Israel's hasty escape from Egypt, and the body of our Savior broken for our escape from a slavery far worse than Egypt's.

I didn't realize how late it was. perhaps we can pick up on John 6 later. Suffice it to say for now that it is already entering metaphoric space when Jesus speaks of Himself as the Bread of Heaven, because He is using the literal manna to represent Himself, and that is metaphor.

Anyway, I must go to bed.

Peace,

SR

[Elsie]

God is the only one who saves, and he saves thru Christ and The Holy Spirit and the Church is the instrument that Christ founded and formed to bring humanity into communion with Him and others.

I'm quite sure that you believe this; but...

2 Corinthians 5:18-21

18 All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; 19 that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. 20 Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. 21 For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.

HMMMmmm...

Nothing about 'church' here.

[Elsie]

God is the only one who saves, and he saves thru Christ and The Holy Spirit and the Church is the instrument that Christ founded and formed to bring humanity into communion with Him and others.

Others?