Posted on 02/27/2013 1:26:56 PM PST by NKP_Vet
Pope Benedict XVI will officially retire at 8pm tomorrow, but his retirement package is raising a few eyebrows — and resurrecting rumors about his sexuality.
Rather than decamp to some monastery in Germany as many expected, Benedict will instead stay living in the Vatican.
CNN reports he will be living in the Mater Ecclesiae (Mother of the Church) building, which formerly housed a cloistered convent in the Vatican gardens. He will be referred to as the "emeritus pope" and keep wearing the white — though he will lose his trademark red shoes, perhaps wearing a pair of "handcrafted brown loafers" instead, the WSJ reports.
One detail that has caused particular scrutiny is that the Pope will continue to live with his trusted secretary Archbishop Georg Ganswein, who will also be head of the new Pope's household — from the sounds of it, working two jobs.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
If that's the lure, what do you think is on the other end of the hook?
http://www.catholicleague.org/andrew-sullivan-smears-pope-again/
“Andrew Sullivan accuses the pope of being a homosexual. His evidence? The pope’s “handsome male companion [Archbishop Georg Ganswein] will continue to live with him, while working for the other Pope during the day.” Sullivan asks, “Are we supposed to think that’s, well, a normal arrangement?”
Speaking about what is normal is hardly normal for Sullivan. To be specific, in 2001 he solicited anal sex with anonymous men by posting a picture of his torso on the Internet. He explicitly requested to have sex with men who did not wear condoms, begging for orgies. Unfortunately for him, he was outed by his boyfriends after they recognized it was his body”
The church has left itself wide open to anything and everything with deep scandal. It’s corrupt all the way through with the gay mafia.
Fifty sin, four hundred hide it, they recuirt more and gain more power and all avert their eyes and make excuses. For decades sexual perversion flourished by the doers and an organization abetting the actors. Decade after decade. Everyone is smeared by it. Evil hides and flourishes in denial and secret.
The organization will clean itself up or drop all appearances, go totally dark and fall. Like Sodom, God will bring it down. I have no doubt He’s exposing it to the fire of truth right now.
“The church has left itself wide open to anything and everything with deep scandal. It’s corrupt all the way through with the gay mafia”
You must be Andrew Sullivan’s sister and a rapid follower of brother Jimmy Swaggart.
The forces of evil have been trying to bring down the Catholic Church for 2,000 years. Christ said the gates of hell would would not bring down the Church. He said if they hated him they would hate his followers.
I see this board has plenty of Catholic bashers. That too is to be expected.
So why post this then? Christ never sinned and He was killed. Why is it some on God's green earth expect more for themselves? I do not keep tabs on who is who, but could it be that Andrew is Catholic? Well, I looked it up after that thought occurred to me and sure enough Andrew is Catholic. And as is routinely posted here, once a Catholic always a Catholic. Peter says that 'judgment' begins with the preacher/priest holy mens class. Now who is helping Obama ruin this nation???????? Why we have saint Biden, saint Roberts, sister Pewlouise, sister Sebelius, amongst a host of others.
We protesters are aware of a sola scripture that requires the removal of 'dead wood'.... This organization is rotting from within because of all the dabbing of whitewash over its long history. IF you do not like these comments then quite posting articles that solicits such reactions. The 'keys' given Peter are not in use these days.
LOL, that's really rich. ROTFL
It just so happens that all the folks you singled out have been very public about the fact that they do not agree with Catholic Doctrine. They all say they read the Bible, pray, and let the Holy Spirit guide them on how to interpret Scripture and what to do no matter what the Catholic Church says.
It's cute seeing people who publicly embrace and repeat pure Protestant doctrine being called Catholic when it suits the agenda of a poster. Later on, though, the same folks who do such things turn around and brag about how their denomination, sect, cult, or garage band, is attracting Catholics away from the Catholic Church. All those tens of thousands of different little non-Catholic groups (the majority of which ordain queers and marry one queer to another) love to brag about how they've drawn people away from the Catholic Church and that those who left made a public confession of faith and no longer accept Catholic Doctrine.
Odd that those who brag about how many former Catholics are in their garage band pretend folks who publicly accept Self Alone and reject Catholic Doctrine are still Catholic. I bet it hurts the feelings of all those former Catholics at the "Feed & Seed Bluegrass Restaurant & Church" to know they might still be called Catholic any moment. They said the magic words, made a public confession of faith, and now the very same people who claim to have worked hard to draw them away from the Catholic Church in the first place make smart remarks about them. I believe that's what people call, "two faced".
It's sad to see former Catholics like Biden and Pelosi publicly embrace Protestant Doctrine then be snarked at by those they've joined.
Instead of pretending they're still Catholic the Self Alone crowd should be bragging about convincing them to accept the solid, Protestant derived Self Alone Doctrine of Eve and the heresy of Core just like the majority of the population do. Such self-serving alteration of facts is nothing new for people who interpret everything to suit their agenda and preferences of the moment, though. They reverse themselves whenever it "gets them through the night" or over a rough spot. People who think nothing of reversing themselves and teaching that murder by contraceptive isn't murder after four hundred years of teaching that it was murder don't worry about reversing themselves. Whatever scratches itching ears is what will be taught no matter how long the same church taught the exact opposite before public opinion changed.
I guess when you're part of the more than two thirds of the population who have always been the vast majority trying to hide from responsibility when things go downhill is so hard that the majority folks get desperate enough to float all sorts of lies and joke theories.
Maybe a little more than 20% of the crowd running the government for King Barry is Catholic, but I doubt it and the fact of the matter is that non-Catholics who claim to be Christian drive the King Barry agenda and do his bidding. Catholics have never once been the majority in either House of Congress. In fact, it's seldom if ever that the percentage of Catholics in Congress has been as high as the percentage of Catholics in the population.
This nation is now and always has been a nation controlled by the non-Catholic, Protestant and Protestant derived super majority that's never been in danger of not being over seventy percent of the population. The Catholic Church in America is in a mess because so many in the leadership wanted to be as spineless and popular with the crowd just like most non-Catholic clergy were by the sixties. They wanted to be Protestant in all but name and ignored the Vatican and Catholic Doctrine to do so try and build their "own thing" just like tens of thousands of non-Catholic groups each build their "own thing" and call it Christianity.
And please, it's just awful to be so rude to converts like Biden, Pelosi, and Sebelius, who publicly proclaqim Self Alone Protestant doctrines and openly reject Catholic Doctrine. They accept exactly same things the non-Catholic folks preach so, that's it. They've said the magic words, they're in due to the doctrine of Once Self Always Self. The Self Alone crowd convinced them to agree with them and now want to call them "dead wood" when they're exactly like their fellow Self Alone folks. That's a not very Christian thing to do but it's typical of those who follow Eve rather than Christ.
As for Peter and the keys,
Protestant Scholars Agree Peter Is the Rock - by Gary Hoge
August 19, 2012 by Samual Frost
One day, when Jesus was in the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” (Matt. 16:13). The disciples gave a variety of answers before Peter finally said, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:16). What happened next is the subject of some controversy:
Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven. And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven” (Matt. 16:17-19).
To whom or to what was Jesus referring when He said, “On this rock I will build my Church”? What rock was He talking about? Catholics, noting that the name “Peter” (Greek: Petros) is really just the masculine form of the Greek word for “rock” (petra), say He was referring to Simon son of Jonah. If they’re right, if the Church was to be built in some sense on Peter himself, as head of the apostles, then this supports the Catholic doctrine of the papacy. Naturally, Protestants aren’t comfortable with that at all, and so historically, they have claimed that the “rock” to which Jesus referred was Peter’s faith, or perhaps, Christ Himself.
But as the passions of the Reformation era have cooled, and Protestant scholars have taken a more dispassionate look at this text, they have come to agree more and more that Jesus was referring to Peter himself as the rock. Of course, they disagree with the Catholic interpretation of what this means, but many now agree that the Catholic explanation of the grammar of the text is correct.
The following quotations, all of which are from Protestant Bible scholars, are taken from the book Jesus, Peter & the Keys: a Scriptural Handbook on the Papacy (Scott Butler et al., (Santa Barbara, CA: Queenship Publishing), 1996).
William Hendriksen Member of the Reformed Christian Church, Professor of New Testament Literature at Calvin Seminary
The meaning is, “You are Peter, that is Rock, and upon this rock, that is, on you, Peter I will build my church.” Our Lord, speaking Aramaic, probably said, “And I say to you, you are Kepha, and on this kepha I will build my church.” Jesus, then, is promising Peter that he is going to build his church on him! I accept this view. (New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1973), 647.)
Gerhard Maier Leading conservative evangelical Lutheran theologian
Nowadays a broad consensus has emerged which – in accordance with the words of the text – applies the promise to Peter as a person. On this point liberal (H. J. Holtzmann, E. Schweiger) and conservative (Cullmann, Flew) theologians agree, as well as representatives of Roman Catholic exegesis. (“The Church in the Gospel of Matthew: Hermeneutical Analysis of the Current Debate,” Biblical Interpretation and Church Text and Context, (Flemington Markets, NSW: Paternoster Press, 1984), 58.)
Donald A. Carson III Baptist and Professor of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical Seminary
Although it is true that petros and petra can mean “stone” and “rock” respectively in earlier Greek, the distinction is largely confined to poetry. Moreover the underlying Aramaic is in this case unquestionable; and most probably kepha was used in both clauses (“you are kepha” and “on this kepha”), since the word was used both for a name and for a “rock.” The Peshitta (written in Syriac, a language cognate with Aramaic) makes no distinction between the words in the two clauses. The Greek makes the distinction between petros and petra simply because it is trying to preserve the pun, and in Greek the feminine petra could not very well serve as a masculine name. (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary: Volume 8 (Matthew, Mark, Luke), (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1984), 368.)
The word Peter petros, meaning “rock” (Gk 4377), is masculine, and in Jesus’ follow-up statement he uses the feminine word petra (Gk 4376). On the basis of this change, many have attempted to avoid identifying Peter as the rock on which Jesus builds his church. Yet if it were not for Protestant reactions against extremes of Roman Catholic interpretations, it is doubtful whether many would have taken “rock” to be anything or anyone other than Peter. (Zondervan NIV Bible Commentary – New Testament, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1994), 78.)
John Peter Lange German Protestant scholar
The Saviour, no doubt, used in both clauses the Aramaic word kepha (hence the Greek Kephas applied to Simon, John i.42; comp. 1 Cor. i.12; iii.22; ix.5; Gal. ii.9), which means rock and is used both as a proper and a common noun. . . . The proper translation then would be: “Thou art Rock, and upon this rock,” etc. (Lange’s Commentary on the Holy Scriptures: The Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 8, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1976), 293.)
John A. Broadus Baptist author
Many insist on the distinction between the two Greek words, thou art Petros and on this petra, holding that if the rock had meant Peter, either petros or petra would have been used both times, and that petros signifies a separate stone or fragment broken off, while petra is the massive rock. But this distinction is almost entirely confined to poetry, the common prose word instead of petros being lithos; nor is the distinction uniformly observed.
But the main answer here is that our Lord undoubtedly spoke Aramaic, which has no known means of making such a distinction [between feminine petra and masculine petros in Greek]. The Peshitta (Western Aramaic) renders, “Thou are kipho, and on this kipho.” The Eastern Aramaic, spoken in Palestine in the time of Christ, must necessarily have said in like manner, “Thou are kepha, and on this kepha.” . . . Beza called attention to the fact that it is so likewise in French: “Thou art Pierre, and on this pierre”; and Nicholson suggests that we could say, “Thou art Piers (old English for Peter), and on this pier.” (Commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1886), 355-356.)
J. Knox Chamblin Presbyterian and New Testament Professor, Reformed Theological Seminary
By the words “this rock” Jesus means not himself, nor his teaching, nor God the Father, nor Peter’s confession, but Peter himself. The phrase is immediately preceded by a direct and emphatic reference to Peter. As Jesus identifies himself as the Builder, the rock on which he builds is most naturally understood as someone (or something) other than Jesus himself. The demonstrative this, whether denoting what is physically close to Jesus or what is literally close in Matthew, more naturally refers to Peter (v. 18) than to the more remote confession (v. 16). The link between the clauses of verse 18 is made yet stronger by the play on words, “You are Peter (Gk. Petros), and on this rock (Gk. petra) I will build my church.” As an apostle, Peter utters the confession of verse 16; as a confessor he receives the designation this rock from Jesus. (“Matthew,” Evangelical Commentary on the Bible, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1989), 742.)
Craig L. Blomberg Baptist and Professor of New Testament, Denver Seminary
Acknowledging Jesus as The Christ illustrates the appropriateness of Simon’s nickname “Peter” (Petros = rock). This is not the first time Simon has been called Peter (cf. John 1:42), but it is certainly the most famous. Jesus’ declaration, “You are Peter,” parallels Peter’s confession, “You are the Christ,” as if to say, “Since you can tell me who I am, I will tell you who you are.” The expression “this rock” almost certainly refers to Peter, following immediately after his name, just as the words following “the Christ” in v. 16 applied to Jesus. The play on words in the Greek between Peter’s name (Petros) and the word “rock” (petra) makes sense only if Peter is the rock and if Jesus is about to explain the significance of this identification. (The New American Commentary: Matthew, vol. 22, (Nashville: Broadman, 1992), 251-252.)
David Hill Presbyterian minister and Senior Lecturer in the Department of Biblical Studies, University of Sheffield, England
On this rock I will build my church: the word-play goes back to Aramaic tradition. It is on Peter himself, the confessor of his Messiahship, that Jesus will build the Church. The disciple becomes, as it were, the foundation stone of the community. Attempts to interpret the “rock” as something other than Peter in person (e.g., his faith, the truth revealed to him) are due to Protestant bias, and introduce to the statement a degree of subtlety which is highly unlikely. (“The Gospel of Matthew,” The New Century Bible Commentary, (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1972), 261.)
Suzanne de Dietrich Presbyterian theologian
The play on words in verse 18 indicates the Aramaic origin of the passage. The new name contains a promise. “Simon,” the fluctuating, impulsive disciple, will, by the grace of God, be the “rock” on which God will build the new community. (The Layman’s Bible Commentary: Matthew, vol. 16, (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1961), 93.)
Donald A. Hagner Fuller Theological Seminary
The natural reading of the passage, despite the necessary shift from Petros to petra required by the word play in the Greek (but not the Aramaic, where the same word kepha occurs in both places), is that it is Peter who is the rock upon which the church is to be built. . . . The frequent attempts that have been made, largely in the past, to deny this in favor of the view that the confession itself is the rock . . . seem to be largely motivated by Protestant prejudice against a passage that is used by the Roman Catholics to justify the papacy. (“Matthew 14-28,” Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 33b, (Dallas: Word Books, 1995), 470.)
Balance of article at the site embedded in the title.
“I see this board has plenty of Catholic bashers. That too is to be expected.”
That sentence reminds me of the famous saying.........”those who live in glass houses,etc.”
What has amazed me is how so many on this board have come to defense of serial sodomizer, degenerate, immoral Andrew Sullivan, and actually used his rants and character assassination against the Pope to once again bash the Catholic Church. Usually it’s liberals bashing the Church because the Church doesn’t allow abortion, and women ordination, and married clergy. I see the hatred of the Church also runs deep in so called “conservatives”. And Sullivan or anyone else who has openly mocked the Church has caused great scandal in the Church has given up the right to even call themselves Catholic. End of story.
Now mind you, I am aware of the volumes of man's words words words to appear to have truth on their side. I mean really now who cares what Peter actually penned, as somebody else took possession of his keys.
Very strange indeed to have line upon line upon line making claims while only quoting one Book, Matthew and a very few versus to create a new doctrine.
Before Peter walked this earth, and Christ became born of flesh there is another writing that clearly states there are ‘two’ rocks... And as it is Written, it is stated the over-comers will sing this song. Maybe some might know it and for those who do not it is the Song of Moses found in Deuteronomy 32. Revelation 15:3 ....
And they do it persistently...
The Holy Spirit guards over His Church and cleans it, that’s why He has kept it for 2000 years despite attacks from without and within.
Let's see, how many Democrats are non-Catholics? 65% and those include such limelights as the great Obama himself. Or Jimmah Carter
If you take Biden as some example, then is Obama a paragon of non-Catholics? Nah, both comparisons are wrong.
The people in the church have free will just like every other human being. The church is made of human beings.
The Catholic people’s Christian faith will survive but the corrupt clergy will not stand in place. Either the cardinals will reform it and weed out the anti-God ideology and activity or God will do it for them. God’s not traveling down the road of the Tower of Bable and Sodom in order to prop up the homomafia and globalists running the church in His name.
Obama is the mouth piece - figure head, for the religion of liberalism. Andrew Sullivan's claim to 'fame' is his sexuality. Saint Biden is the highest ranking Catholic in American politics. I have heard not a peep from the powers that be in Rome regarding the mockery Saint Biden has made of the Creator.
Why bring up Jimmah Carter? According to what I continually read, posted almost daily right here is that the Catholic religion is the only 'true' religion, and the rest of humanity not stamped Catholic are, well, spawns of Luther. I keep reading comments there was/is no greater evil than old Luther.
Now lest it appear that I think Jimmah walks on the water, NOT so. He is a bleeding heart liberal that is completely clueless in what is required by the Creator to have and maintain His protection and blessings.
Until I read posts and comments here about Luther I never gave him much time or my mind. However, it is quite strange how that the Catholic doctrine supposedly in possession of Peter's keys, have a blood red hate for Luther. Part of the doctrine given Peter in the keys was 'Judge not lest ye be judged'.... Not one human being alive in the flesh on God's green earth has a clue, let alone any authority to condemn Luther to hell.
Nancy the 'red' Pewlouise held the position of Speaker of the House. Meaning she was suppose to speak for the people. There is ample evidence she betrayed US and sold US out to the Marxists overlords, yet she is on the road to sainthood. Something stinks to high heaven in Rome, and some need to whine and wail about being persecuted? H E L L O!!!!
For the same reason you bring up Pelosi. Neither is representative -- unless you wish to say that Obama is representative of all non-Catholics?
Is Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez a celebrated Catholic?
For you to blame all protestants for Obama, I would say you are wrong.
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.