Posted on 06/29/2011 5:46:53 AM PDT by Not gonna take it anymore
After St. Peter died upside down on a cross in the Circus of Caligula and Nero, the surviving Christians obtained his body and buried him quickly nearby, on the steeply sloping Vatican Hill to the north of the Circus. That hill had become a makeshift graveyard four months earlier after the fire of Rome had killed so many residents of the metropolis that their loved ones began to use any open spot they could find on the roadsides radiating outside the city. . . .
When the tropaion of Peter was found underneath the high altar during archaeological escavations in 1941, there was great rejoicing, because it matched what Gaius had written at the end of the second century. Even more exciting was the fact that they found bones in what was clearly Peter’s tomb underneath the victory monument.
(Excerpt) Read more at integratedcatholiclife.org ...
"Thou art Peter (rock) and upon this rock I will build my church."
Nothing that a little education in 5th or 6th grade English class won't cure...
You and this are not the same...But then maybe you, this, I, they, we and that are all the same thing in a Catholic school...
Don't go trying to submit church for your 'Church'...They are not the same thing...
Ask people who stands at the gates of heaven.
I know who stands at the gates of Heaven...It's Jesus Christ...It sure ain't the Peter of your fairy tales...And it ain't Mary...
A little bible study would help you guys right out...Jesus is the source of the True Presence in the body of all believers, whether they eat a cracker, a piece of watermelon, or nothing at all...
And what special priviledge or authority did that confer upun him?
For that matter Peter was the only Apostle directly addressed by Jesus as Satan. Do you attach as much significance to the "satan" episode as you do to the "sheep" one?
It's quite easy to, unless one suffers from megalomania.
And was passed on to all the disciples to feed the sheep...Was not a job given exclusively to Peter...
Where? Don't bail on me now, like you usually do when asked the hard questions. Where does it say it?
(Mark) The whole 'feed my sheep' deal was given directly to Peter, as well.
And what special priviledge or authority did that confer upun him?
That combined with everything else gave Peter the leadership aka Pope.
For that matter Peter was the only Apostle directly addressed by Jesus as Satan. Do you attach as much significance to the "satan" episode as you do to the "sheep" one?
You bet. Peter was constantly chastized because he was acting as a human unconstrained and Jesus meant him for things better than that: the leadership of the Apostles. Imagine the highs and lows - Peter walked on water, and then faltered. He followed Jesus to the trial, and then fled. But he was prepared as best as his fallible person was and took charge at Pentecost. Peter was not a model citizen by any mean, however, he might be held up as a model Christian. Fallible and failing, yet persevering.
Excellent question.
One of the best explanations that I have found is this:
Also, consider that when Unam Sanctam was enacted:
1) There really and ideally was only one visible Church in the mind of the Catholic Church.
2) Unam Sanctam makes NO pronouncement on the validity of the existence of other Churches as such.
3) Today, the Catholic Church recognizes that there are other valid Churches aside from the Catholic Church proper, however they are imperfect and a departure from the Faith (my addition).
4) This current recognition does not affect Unam Sanctam in any way. It was, and always has been, meant for Catholics and for any who leave the Catholic Church having been once convinced of its Truth. It has never been meant for those born outside the Catholic Church (as the situation of these is mitigated by the principle of invincible ignorance).
I think that this is valid, given that this was written a quarter of a millennium before the Reformation started to take off.
I presume you took these arguments from the same "Catholic Answers" site from which I also found the following" " Roman Catholic theologians are divided on the question of whether this is ex cathedra or not. The Catholic Church's magisterium has made no official pronouncement about the infallibility of this statement."
To my knowledge, by this standard, the Catholic Church's magisterium then has made no official pronouncement concerning the infallibility of any Pope's statement.
Further, for (your?) arguments to be valid one must assume that any "infallible" Papal Declaration is valid for that moment only, subject to constantly changing conditions and definitions.
Very weak my friend.
Oh yes! Brilliantly elaborate, and brilliantly confusing at times. (Confusing to Catholics and non-Catholikes alike.)
I repeat, Jesus has never chosen to elaborate on salvation within the Catholic Church.
“This name change was meant to show both Peter’s rank as leader of the apostles......”
Wrong.
1 Peter 5:1-3 - “So I exhort the elders among you, as a fellow elder and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, as well as a partaker in the glory that is going to be revealed: shepherd the flock of God that is among you, exercising oversight, not under compulsion, but willingly, as God would have you; not for shameful gain, but eagerly; not domineering over those in your charge, but being examples to the flock.”
Peter refers to himself as simply a “fellow elder”. Not senior elder, not head elder, or any other bogus title.
Then why is Peter given the Keys of Heaven?
Notice that is “Keys” (plural)
Why is Peter always listed first in the lists of the apostles given by the four evangelists?
Why does the one could run faster (John) wait for Peter to enter the tomb first?
Why is it that Peter, even though he denied Christ in one instance, recognizes him and blurts out, “It is the Lord.”
??
St. Peter pray for the unbelievers.
To my knowledge, by this standard, the Catholic Church's magisterium then has made no official pronouncement concerning the infallibility of any Pope's statement.
Further, for (your?) arguments to be valid one must assume that any "infallible" Papal Declaration is valid for that moment only, subject to constantly changing conditions and definitions.
Very weak my friend.
For the conditions of the time, the Church does make pronouncements and decisions. As human society changes, so does the Church change in how it interacts with it. Not as weak as it might seem.
To my knowledge, by this standard, the Catholic Church's magisterium then has made no official pronouncement concerning the infallibility of any Pope's statement.
Further, for (your?) arguments to be valid one must assume that any "infallible" Papal Declaration is valid for that moment only, subject to constantly changing conditions and definitions.
Very weak my friend.
For the conditions of the time, the Church does make pronouncements and decisions. As human society changes, so does the Church change in how it interacts with it. Not as weak as it might seem.
To my knowledge, by this standard, the Catholic Church's magisterium then has made no official pronouncement concerning the infallibility of any Pope's statement.
Further, for (your?) arguments to be valid one must assume that any "infallible" Papal Declaration is valid for that moment only, subject to constantly changing conditions and definitions.
Very weak my friend.
For the conditions of the time, the Church does make pronouncements and decisions. As human society changes, so does the Church change in how it interacts with it. Not as weak as it might seem.
Christian theology can be rather involved...
I repeat, Jesus has never chosen to elaborate on salvation within the Catholic Church.
Your NT is as complete as mine.
Snide comments do not answer the question that begs an answer.
Why does God change Peter’s name to rock?
Do you have one? Or just more snide comments and laughably lame guess that it was because Peter was stubborn.
History says that they are.
St. Peter’s story is no fairy tale, though some would like to believe so in order to rest easy in their rejection of the Church.
He who receives you, receives me and he who rejects you, rejects me.
Well, it took awhile, but as usual in these debates, the protestant position devolves to nasty and uncalled for comments regarding the Catholic faith.
I gladly submit to this persecution in defense of Christ’s church and my faith in Him, who founded her and protects her from all, including the gates of hell.
Christ told us to “Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you.”
In light of that, I will move on from this debate and pray for you, instead of giving in to my sinful human nature.
Peter never hesitated to take the lead, he was led by the Holy Spirit to do so. History confirms Peter as the first pope even if he himself did not see or understand that as his role.
One must understand that though they were the first Apostles and the first disciples, they did not know everything. We see in Acts how questions came up, then the Apostles gathered and a decision was reached on how to handle or answer these situations.
That dynamic has not changed in the Church since its beginning.
Am I to understand what is "Infallible" today might not be tomorrow because of changes in human society?
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.