Posted on 10/14/2007 8:25:58 PM PDT by Salvation
If that is so, then the current pope is the last pope. No?
I don’t think landscaping is the issue. Jerusalem has 4 at most, and probably just 3. The issue is whether they can count hills that are outside of Jerusalem.
I’d think they cannot. But, it’s the only way to get to 7.
Rome, on the other hand, has at least 7 hills inside the 100 AD city boundaries.
No. Only the end-times nature of the description of Peter the Roman implies that there are no further popes. In fact, nothing suggests that there would be any limit to the number of popes between Gloria Olivae and Peter Romanus.
I wish I knew how to find the thread, but I was shown a topographical map of the current Jerusalem, with three hills, and the ancient Jerusalem, which had seven inside the ancient boundaries.
Any RC writer who looks at this prophecy and interprets it as “the Pope is the anti-Christ” needs a new pair of glasses.
“In extreme persecution, the seat of the Holy Roman Church will be occupied by Peter the Roman, who will feed the sheep through many tribulations, at the term of which the city of seven hills will be destroyed, and the formidable Judge will judge his people. The End.”
Since the Holy Spirit protects the Church from teaching error, any notion that the anti-Christ will have Peter’s seat is outlandish at best. No sitting Pope can preside over a false Church. The prophecy as translated indicates that the Church will be in the midst of great persecution, but the pope will provide for the sheep during the tribulation, after which the persecutor will be destroyed and the world will be judged. At worst, if my take on the prophecy is correct, the seat of Peter becomes vacant during the tribulation - there is no more succession - and Christ Himself returns. The end.
My opinion is just an opinion. Pious speculation is just speculation. But this is what I based it on.
1. No pope has taken the name Peter (except to whom the name was given, Simon bar-Jonah)
2. Peter was the first pope; “Peter the Roman” is supposedly the last pope.
3. Peter is the representative of Christ on earth.
4. Jesus is “first” and “last” (alpha and omega) just as “Peter” is the first pope and the “last” pope.
5. Jesus will come again to render the Final Judgment.
6. The Church will never fall - therefore, when Jesus comes, He will be the visible head (the pope) of the still-existent Church.
7. Thus, the title “Peter the Roman” gives me the impression that Peter the Roman is Christ Himself. “Peter” and “Christ” are symbolically interchangeable since one purposely represents the other. The “Roman” obviously denotes the Church at Rome - the Catholic Church.
At any rate. It’s for amusement purposes only. I don’t know any more than the next person and the track record for successfully predicting things like this is close to 0%.
FYI, Christ is the institution of the Catholic Church. If Christ isn't our focus, then why do certain Protestants expend so much energy attacking the Holy Eucharist, which is Christ Himself? Our liturgy, our sacraments, our creed is entirely centered on Jesus Christ. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't done any serious investigation. And unfortunately, it does require serious investigation, if only because 500 years of disinformation has so poisoned even the academic pursuit of Catholic understanding, that a large portion of society thinks that Jesus Christ was shagging Mary Magdalene because, well, Dan Brown said so.
Plainly speaking, the only people focusing on the "institution" of the Church are the people attacking it. The title of this thread wasn't, "Catholics Rule, Protestants are Whores". It was about the alleged prophecies of St. Malachy.
Catholics are obliged to defend their faith when it's attacked. Perhaps I'm more passionate than others. But when the powers that be come to your door and ask for your Bible, you'd better have the heart to say "no" - you'd better love your faith enough to suffer for it as Christ did. Maybe that means being a little unpopular on FR, but my faith was scandalized by certain "cheap shots" on this thread. At least the Church never backs down in the face of criticism, and neither should we. Read some of the writings of Justin Martyr and Athanasius and others. In the immortal words of Billy Joel, "we didn't start the fire".
I wish you well on your journey. The Church is a rock. You would do well to investigate it thoroughly. If not, so be it.
I was looking at a topo map of ancient Jerusalem. It had 3 (possibly 4) hills inside the ancient boundaries.
By the way, where did you come up with this nugget?
But there's lots more seven-hilled cities to choose from. Which city was built on top of seven hills?
I’ve read your article and seen similar.
The difference is the topographic map. There are not 7 hills inside the walls of ancient Jerusalem.
If folks wish to believe there were, that’s just fine with me. The fact remains, however, that there are not.
Do not use the word "damnable" as it encourages potty language.
Some English versions of the Bible use the term, "damnable heresies", and that was the idea I had when asking about the word. Certainly not in the vein of employing vulgarity or promoting vulgarity, but in the context of heresies being false beliefs that damn the soul to hell, which is the context used by the Apostles and early church.
Since it is objectionable, and personally I think is a tad PC, I do understand how on the internet it could be easily misunderstood, and will gladly use another term that cannot be misconstrued.
The other words are tolerable in religious debate providing the delivery is not hateful.
Thanks.
The main guideline is always this: discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
Which is always my goal, however, my experience of years on the net on boards like this one, shows me that no matter how much one strives to accomplish that goal, there are those who take things personally when nothing personal is said or intended and then take things to a personal level themselves.
Neither does the Rome of today.
That does not change the fact that John was referring to Rome at the time it was written.
According to the Unam Sanctum and the "two swords" doctrine, Rome, or rather the Vatican does rule both the ecclesial and secular or "temporal" world as denoted in the following declaration from the "Unam Sanctum":
We are informed by the texts of the gospels that in this Church and in its power are two swords; namely, the spiritual and the temporal. For when the Apostles say: 'Behold, here are two swords' [Lk 22:38] that is to say, in the Church, since the Apostles were speaking, the Lord did not reply that there were too many, but sufficient. Certainly the one who denies that the temporal sword is in the power of Peter has not listened well to the word of the Lord commanding: 'Put up thy sword into thy scabbard' [Mt 26:52]. Both, therefore, are in the power of the Church, that is to say, the spiritual and the material sword, but the former is to be administered _for_ the Church but the latter by the Church; the former in the hands of the priest; the latter by the hands of kings and soldiers, but at the will and sufferance of the priest.
However, one sword ought to be subordinated to the other and temporal authority, subjected to spiritual power. For since the Apostle said: 'There is no power except from God and the things that are, are ordained of God' [Rom 13:1-2], but they would not be ordained if one sword were not subordinated to the other and if the inferior one, as it were, were not led upwards by the other.
It has been a long standing doctrine of Rome that the Roman church and pope of Rome are the supreme rulers of both the ecclesiastical realm as well as the temporal realm.
The
One
Holy
Catholic
and
Apostolic
Church.
Which is not represented by the church of Rome.
He now knows you wrote that :>)
Not hardly. The Eucharist was not seen as an onging sacrifice at all, that was a much later development in the western church after Theodosius I made Christianity the religion of the empire.
What sort of worship dost thou engage in?
The same as is described in the Didache.
Chapter 9. The Eucharist. Now concerning the Eucharist, give thanks this way. First, concerning the cup:
We thank thee, our Father, for the holy vine of David Thy servant, which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever..
Nothing there about the wine being the actual blood of Christ.
And concerning the broken bread:
We thank Thee, our Father, for the life and knowledge which You madest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Even as this broken bread was scattered over the hills, and was gathered together and became one, so let Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom; for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever..
Nothing about the bread being the actual, literal flesh of Christ.
But let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist, unless they have been baptized into the name of the Lord; for concerning this also the Lord has said, "Give not that which is holy to the dogs."
Chapter 10. Prayer after Communion. But after you are filled, give thanks this way:
We thank Thee, holy Father, for Thy holy name which You didst cause to tabernacle in our hearts, and for the knowledge and faith and immortality, which You modest known to us through Jesus Thy Servant; to Thee be the glory for ever. Thou, Master almighty, didst create all things for Thy name's sake; You gavest food and drink to men for enjoyment, that they might give thanks to Thee; but to us You didst freely give SPIRITUAL food and drink and life eternal through Thy Servant. Before all things we thank Thee that You are mighty; to Thee be the glory for ever. Remember, Lord, Thy Church, to deliver it from all evil and to make it perfect in Thy love, and gather it from the four winds, sanctified for Thy kingdom which Thou have prepared for it; for Thine is the power and the glory for ever. Let grace come, and let this world pass away. Hosanna to the God (Son) of David! If any one is holy, let him come; if any one is not so, let him repent. Maranatha. Amen.
We agree with the Didache that the "cup and bread" are SPIRITUAL food, not the actual, literal blood and flesh of Jesus as Rome later came to believe.
.
I have, which is precisely why the early church fathers did not have any concept of petrine primacy in any pro-Roman papal sense at all.
, instead of our short-hand recaps, you would see that the Church finds that Augustine’s and Eusebius’s comments to be fully consistent with papal infallibility
Of course Rome misrepresents the writings of Eusebius and Augustine, taking them out of context to imply a pro-Roman papal primacy when none was ever implied. Rome reads later papal doctrines back into them where they do not exist.
: it is not the MAN, but the DOCTRINE asserted BY the man, which is what the papal element of the magisterium consists of.
Wrong!
The rock was faith, but Peter was called, “rock” because he embodied that faith, and to he who embodied that faith was given the authority.
Wrong again, Peter was not given any sole authority at all, and the early church fathers did not teach that. Rather, Peter was a figure of the Church and every single believer was given the "keys", as the Peter is simply representative of all true believers and what was promised to Peter is given to all believers who truly follow Christ. They all become what Peter is. This is the view expressed in the following comments from Origin:
And if we too have said like Peter, ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by the light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, ‘Thou art Peter,’ etc. For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them, and upon every such rock is built every word of the Church, and the polity in accordance with it; for in each of the perfect, who have the combination of words and deeds and thoughts which fill up the blessedness, is the church built by God.
But if you suppose that upon the one Peter only the whole church is built by God, what would you say about John the son of thunder or each one of the Apostles? Shall we otherwise dare to say, that against Peter in particular the gates of Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other Apostles and the perfect? Does not the saying previously made, ‘The gates of Hades shall not prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And also the saying, ‘Upon this rock I will build My Church?’ Are the keys of the kingdom of heaven given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven,’ be common to others, how shall not all things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?
‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.’ If any one says this to Him...he will obtain the things that were spoken according to the letter of the Gospel to that Peter, but, as the spirit of the Gospel teaches to every one who becomes such as that Peter was. For ALL(emphasis mine) bear the surname ‘rock’ who are the imitators of Christ, that is, of the spiritual rock which followed those who are being saved, that they may drink from it the spiritual draught. But these bear the surname of rock just as Christ does. But also as members of Christ deriving their surname from Him they are called Christians, and from the rock, Peters...And to all such the saying of the Savior might be spoken, ‘Thou art Peter’ etc., down to the words, ‘prevail against it.’ But what is the it? Is it the rock upon which Christ builds the Church, or is it the Church? For the phrase is ambiguous. Or is it as if the rock and the Church were one and the same? This I think to be true; for neither against the rock on which Christ builds His Church, nor against the Church will the gates of Hades prevail. Now, if the gates of Hades prevail against any one, such an one cannot be a rock upon which the Christ builds the Church, nor the Church built by Jesus upon the rock---(Allan Menzies, Ante–Nicene Fathers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951), Origen, Commentary on Matthew, Chapters 10-11).
I wonder why the authors of Jesus, Peter and the Keys left that quote out?
In reality, the early church fathers had no concept of any petrine primacy being bestowed on the bishops of Rome as any supreme rulers of the Church as the successors of Peter, as Rome came to attempt to claim.
Augustine wasn’t questionning papal authority; in fact, he appealed to it frequently.
Funny, Augustine told the Innocent I to back off during his indictments of Pelagius, whom Innocent I found to be "orthodox" and commanded Augustine to withdraw his indictments. Augustine told Innocent I in no uncertain terms to take a hike.
He was seperating the sins of a previous pope from the truth of the Catholic church.
LOL, thanks for the laugh.
Really?
Every RC writer I've read, which is not a small number, do indeed say "Peter the Roman" is the Antichrist.
The anti-Christ would shepherd the flock through the end-times tribulations?
No, he shepherds the decieved into hell.
Like I said it is probably a fraud.
That the prophecy is a fraud would not surprise me at all, particularly with Rome's long history of producing forgeries and fraudulent documents upon which it has based so many of it's claims.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12473a.htm#malachy
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.