Doors of Castel Gandolfo closed. Credit: EWTN.
Posted on 02/28/2013 2:04:29 PM PST by NYer
.- With the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI on Thursday evening, the Swiss Guards have left their posts and sealed the gates of the former pontiff's temporary residence of Castel Gandolfo.
A crowd of Catholic faithful gathered Feb. 28 outside the papal vacation spot. At 8 p.m. Roman time, a loud bell rang eight times as they shouted “Viva il Papa!” or “Long live the Pope!”
The Swiss Guards entered Castel Gandolfo and hung up their ceremonial weapons – called halberds – on the inner walls as there is no longer a sitting Pope for them to protect.
Vatican gendarmes dressed in black uniforms have relieved the guards. The doors of Castel Gandolfo have been sealed, symbolizing the vacancy of the See of Peter and the lights of the papal residence in Vatican City are dark.
Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI has exchanged his red papal shoes for simple brown ones given to him on his recent trip to Leon in Mexico. He now wears a simple white cassock without the mozzetta – the short cape that covers his shoulders.
Benedict XVI traveled to Castel Gandolfo by helicopter and car two hours before his resignation took effect. Hundreds of Catholic faithful greeted his arrival to hear his final words as pontiff.
“I’m simply a pilgrim that is starting the last stage of his pilgrimage on Earth,” he remarked, “but I would still like with my heart, with my love, with my prayer, with my reflection, with all my inner strength to work for the common good of the Church and of humanity, and I feel very supported by your sympathy.”
“Let’s go ahead together with the Lord for the good of the Church and of the world,” he said before making his final apostolic blessing.
“Thank you and good night. Thanks to all of you,” Pope Benedict said before departing from the Castel Gandolfo balcony.
Now that he has resigned, the former Pope will live at Castel Gandolfo for two months before moving to a monastery inside Vatican City. In the upcoming days, 115 cardinals will gather at the Vatican to elect his successor.
Why, why, just plain old why can’t Catholics just give a simple answer to a simple question?...actually we both know why.
You are not the first Catholic belief system poster who reads my posts with little comprehension and then complains about something I did not say. And ends with ??? or !!!
The Christian church started in the first century centered on Jesus Christ and represented as His body made up of all true Christians and is still going to this day.
Some Catholics are members, some refuse to acknowledge it and substitute Catholicism for the true body.
And every US former President gets Secret Service protection after he leaves office, etc. Take a break.
How you got the diatribe:
Sorry but it appears you are in error. viz According to Dolan, Catholics and guns don`t mix. [Some Americans are Catholic] Ain`t the ex-pope Catholic ? It is hypocrisy for Dolan to agree with Cuominitsa and Obummer and yet want popes to be protected by Uzi`s- We have the same rights as the Pope to defend ourselves- If the POPE has Uzi`s we should too. We are all equal under the law and under God. Debate that ontological premise in your ear. New York City, N.Y., Feb 20, 2013 / 02:00 am (CNA).- Cardinal Timothy M. Dolan of New York highlighted President Barack Obama's “call for sensible steps on gun control,” noting that it is an area of agreement for the two leaders. “I found myself nodding in agreement when the President said, '...Overwhelming majorities of Americans – Americans who believe in the Second Amendment – have come together around common-sense reform, like background checks that will make it harder for criminals to get their hands on a gun,'” the cardinal said. In a Feb. 15 post on his blog, “The Gospel in the Digital Age,” he explained that he was “very much in favor” of legislation passed by New York last month that constituted “the most comprehensive gun control bill in the country.” http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-dolan-finds-common-ground-with-obama-on-guns/
etc. out of my post is beyond me, much less saying my statement was wrong. Sheesh.
Soooooooo, let me repeat the question for you....you said the Catholic Church was started in 1700 or so.....is that what you believe? Notice 1 question mark.
Soooooooo, let me repeat the question for you....you said the Catholic Church was started in 1700 or so.....is that what you believe? Notice 1 question mark.
Soooooooo, let me repeat the question for you....you said the Catholic Church was started in 1700 or so.....is that what you believe? Notice 1 question mark.
Soooooooo, let me repeat the question for you....you said the Catholic Church was started in 1700 or so.....is that what you believe? Notice 1 question mark.
Soooooooo, let me repeat the question for you....you said the Catholic Church was started in 1700 or so.....is that what you believe? Notice 1 question mark.
Soooooooo, let me repeat the question for you....you said the Catholic Church was started in 1700 or so.....is that what you believe? Notice 1 question mark.
Soooooooo, let me repeat the question for you....you said the Catholic Church was started in 1700 or so.....is that what you believe? Notice 1 question mark.
If you would have, understanding would flood your being.
Biblical Christians understand it quite well as the God breathed scriptures make it clear.
It looks like you are being obtuse and doing an inordinate amount of nit picking.
I noticed another poster here denies the workings of the Holy Spirit in interpreting scripture, is that a Catholic rule?
But then you repeat your question— not once but seven times, and it STILL isn't what I said. (It really is not important when the Catholic church started, what is important is the true church of Jesus, described below)
Let me repeat my post to you, read it really slowly and see if there isn't something you can do to perhaps stop asking that question concerning something that I did NOT say.
See the bolded area?Are you saying that the Catholic Church started in 1700 or so?? REALLY???
You are not the first Catholic belief system poster who reads my posts with little comprehension and then complains about something I did not say.
The Christian church started in the first century centered on Jesus Christ and represented as His body made up of all true Christians and is still going to this day.
Some Catholics are members, some refuse to acknowledge it and substitute Catholicism for the true body.
All are welcome in Christ's church, the body of Christ.
Jesus, in Revelation 3:20---Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.
Apparently a sola scripturist is unable to cite scripture in defense of his beliefs when challenged.
That’s because this belief isn’t found anywhere in the bible.
If you find this tenditious to have to actually prove your own beliefs in scripture, I’m not sure what to say. Measure you use will be measured to you.
Good job, JCB yer lookin’ good!
If you don't care to read the Bible, it's not my problem.
But therein lie the answers you (seem to) seek.
Posting a scripture to prove a point never seems to work with set in stone believers in the Catholic belief system.
If Catholics wish to depend on the teachings of the Catholic church sans the guidance of the Holy Spirit that is their choice.
Jesus is the Rock.
That is the only Rock that the Christian church is built upon.
“Posting a scripture”
You’ve been challenged. Post scripture away. You said this concept comes from scripture, I’d like some proof of it.
“some must label others falsely in order to make themselves look good.”
So you are saying that sola scripturist is an insult? I thought you believed that the bible was the foremost authority on Christianity. Is this not so?
There is ample evidence in the New Testament that Peter was first in authority among the apostles. Whenever they were named, Peter headed the list (Matt. 10:1-4, Mark 3:16-19, Luke 6:14-16, Acts 1:13); sometimes the apostles were referred to as "Peter and those who were with him" (Luke 9:32).
Peter’s preeminent position among the apostles was symbolized at the very beginning of his relationship with Christ. At their first meeting, Christ told Simon that his name would thereafter be Peter, which translates as "Rock" (John 1:42). The startling thing was that—aside from the single time that Abraham is called a "rock" (Hebrew: Tsur; Aramaic: Kepha) in Isaiah 51:1-2—in the Old Testament only God was called a rock. The word rock was not used as a proper name in the ancient world. If you were to turn to a companion and say, "From now on your name is Asparagus," people would wonder: Why Asparagus? What is the meaning of it? What does it signify? Indeed, why call Simon the fisherman "Rock"? Christ was not given to meaningless gestures, and neither were the Jews as a whole when it came to names. Giving a new name meant that the status of the person was changed, as when Abram’s name was changed to Abraham (Gen.17:5), Jacob’s to Israel (Gen. 32:28), Eliakim’s to Joakim (2 Kgs. 23:34), or the names of the four Hebrew youths—Daniel, Hananiah, Mishael, and Azariah to Belteshazzar, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego (Dan. 1:6-7). But no Jew had ever been called "Rock." The Jews would give other names taken from nature, such as Deborah ("bee," Gen. 35:8), and Rachel ("ewe," Gen. 29:16), but never "Rock." In the New Testament James and John were nicknamed Boanerges, meaning "Sons of Thunder," by Christ, but that was never regularly used in place of their original names, and it certainly was not given as a new name. But in the case of Simon-bar-Jonah, his new name Kephas (Greek: Petros) definitely replaced the old.
Not only was there significance in Simon being given a new and unusual name, but the place where Jesus solemnly conferred it upon Peter was also important. It happened when "Jesus came into the district of Caesarea Philippi" (Matt. 16:13), a city that Philip the Tetrarch built and named in honor of Caesar Augustus, who had died in A.D. 14. The city lay near cascades in the Jordan River and near a gigantic wall of rock, a wall about 200 feet high and 500 feet long, which is part of the southern foothills of Mount Hermon. The city no longer exists, but its ruins are near the small Arab town of Banias; and at the base of the rock wall may be found what is left of one of the springs that fed the Jordan. It was here that Jesus pointed to Simon and said, "You are Peter" (Matt. 16:18).
The significance of the event must have been clear to the other apostles. As devout Jews they knew at once that the location was meant to emphasize the importance of what was being done. None complained of Simon being singled out for this honor; and in the rest of the New Testament he is called by his new name, while James and John remain just James and John, not Boanerges.
When he first saw Simon, "Jesus looked at him, and said, ‘So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas (which means Peter)’" (John 1:42). The word Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic Kepha into Greek. Later, after Peter and the other disciples had been with Christ for some time, they went to Caesarea Philippi, where Peter made his profession of faith: "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God" (Matt. 16:16). Jesus told him that this truth was specially revealed to him, and then he solemnly reiterated: "And I tell you, you are Peter" (Matt. 16:18). To this was added the promise that the Church would be founded, in some way, on Peter (Matt. 16:18).
Then two important things were told the apostle. "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules. Later the apostles as a whole would be given similar power [Matt.18:18], but here Peter received it in a special sense.
Peter alone was promised something else also: "I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority. A walled city might have one great gate; and that gate had one great lock, worked by one great key. To be given the key to the city—an honor that exists even today, though its import is lost—meant to be given free access to and authority over the city. The city to which Peter was given the keys was the heavenly city itself. This symbolism for authority is used elsewhere in the Bible (Is. 22:22, Rev. 1:18).
Now take a closer look at the key verse: "You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church" (Matt. 16:18).
To whom, or to what, does it refer? Since Simon’s new name of Peter itself means rock, the sentence could be rewritten as: "You are Rock and upon this rock I will build my Church." The play on words seems obvious, but commentators wishing to avoid what follows from this—namely the establishment of the papacy—have suggested that the word rock could not refer to Peter but must refer to his profession of faith or to Christ.
From the grammatical point of view, the phrase "this rock" must relate back to the closest noun. Peter’s profession of faith ("You are the Christ, the Son of the living God") is two verses earlier, while his name, a proper noun, is in the immediately preceding clause.
As an analogy, consider this artificial sentence: "I have a car and a truck, and it is blue." Which is blue? The truck, because that is the noun closest to the pronoun "it." This is all the more clear if the reference to the car is two sentences earlier, as the reference to Peter’s profession is two sentences earlier than the term rock.
"some must label others falsely in order to make themselves look good."Is that what it is in your mind? It would seem so (from the way you seemed to say it with a condescending sneer when you first posted it to me), but projecting it onto me is contentious.So you are saying that sola scripturist is an insult?
[If you falsely labled me a Catholic would that be an insult?]
But lets deal with your inference that I am "saying that sola scripturist is an insult."
Let me quote a great debater:
I’d like some proof of it.Be wary of straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.
"I thought you believed that the bible was the foremost authority on Christianity. Is this not so?"
I think it very clear from my posts that God is the formost authority on Christianity. [One God in three persons, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit]
I will say though that the Bible is more an authority on Christianity than the Catholic church.
“Be wary of straining at a gnat, and swallowing a camel.”
It’s your faith that preaches that it’s doctrines can be found in scripture. It shouldn’t be difficult to find one of them if this is in fact the case.
“I will say though that the Bible is more an authority on Christianity than the Catholic church.”
Can a river rise higher than it’s own source?
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.
