Posted on 06/22/2015 6:31:38 PM PDT by ebb tide
Since my buddy Chris Ferrara has, perhaps before anyone else in the English speaking world, done a thorough examination of the pope’s environment encyclical, “Laudato Si,” I will confine myself here to some observations of a different sort and to proposing a few questions for consideration – to talking around it, so to speak.
A great many people, long before the document was issued yesterday, have been asking whether it should have been written at all. Is this appropriate for a pope? Why was it necessary? Why, of all the possible topics, did Pope Francis choose this one? Has he stepped outside the proper bounds of papal authority? Aren’t there more pressing matters for the head of the Catholic Church to think about? (Does anyone know how many Chaldean Catholics are still alive in Mosul, Iraq, for instance?)
Let me just start by claiming credit for being an environmentalist, in that the mass degradation of the natural world by industrial agriculture, manufacturing and yes, fossil fuels – by human short sightedness and obsession with material consumption – is of grave concern to me. I am, in short, a not-very closeted, Left-Coast hippie tree-hugger, and always have been, and so as a Catholic, I am looking actively for guidance in framing these topics. I have felt for a long time that the Church’s competent (that is, believing) theologians should address them.
The other day our friend Jimmy Akin offered his list of “12 things to know and share” about the leaking of the encyclical. I thought this was a useful format, so now that we can all read the thing for ourselves, I’m offering a different kind of list: larger issues to think about to give the document some context.
1 – Does the encyclical, in its topic or its handling, undercut papal authority? – How much authority does the papal office give Francis to make definitive statements about climate change, or about science in general? None. Nada. Not a lick. On the subject of global warming, climate change and the environment Pope Francis is as authoritative as the guy sitting next to you on the bus. He’s as authoritative as I am.
Papal infallibility does not extend either to scientific, economic or political matters. Nor does the ordinary authority of the papal office – aside from formal infallibility – bestow any particular insight into these matters. This is why, of course, popes have advisors and even ghost writers for non-infallible documents. But having made some very disputable statements as though they are indisputable facts, Pope Francis has with this document perhaps created bigger problems for himself, his successors and for the Church by undercutting the genuine authority that actually is proper to the office.
It is normal for popes to write encyclicals on topics for which they have personally little or no background. This is why they have advisors and drafting committees whose job it is (or perhaps was) to frame the papal responses with infinite care to ensure that he remains within strictly defined boundaries. But for all the papal documents on topics that are not specifically theological, has there ever been a time in modern Catholic history when a pope has made definitive claims on highly disputed scientific topics without the least nod to the legitimacy, or even existence of a debate?
What can we say about a pope who would declare, on a massively un-settled, vexed and hugely controversial scientific and political subject, “Global warming is real and humans caused it, and we know this because the mainstream science says so.” (With the implied coda, “So shut up, everybody who disagrees.”)
“Scientific consensus exists indicating firmly that we are in the presence of a worrisome warming of the climate system.”
“In recent decades… the heating was accompanied by the constant rise in the sea level…”
“…And [it] is also hard not to relate it to the increase in extreme weather events, regardless of the fact that we cannot attribute a cause scientifically determined to each particular phenomenon.”
“[N]umerous scientific studies indicate that most of the global warming of recent decades is due to the large concentration of greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and other) issued mainly because of human activity.”
All of these claims, presented by the pope under his authority as absolutely indisputable fact, have been disputed and sometimes even outright debunked, all by people well within the realm of perfectly reputable science.
In fact, so problematic has the claim become that “warmist” activists have had to change their scare-term to the more neutral “climate change” to avoid having people point and laugh at them at scientist parties. Someone might have informed the pope of this change before allowing him to embarrass himself.
But more pertinently, how can anyone ever trust Pope Francis’ pronouncements on any other topic again? How can such declarations be anything other than catastrophic for his personal credibility? Because the unwritten implication behind these extraordinary assertions is that he himself thinks he does have some kind of special insight.
So outrageous is the presumption that a pope could make definitive statements in highly politically charged scientific disputes, that some bolder among our Catholic writer colleagues were openly mocking it within hours of the encyclical’s release. Matt Archbold, brother of Remnant columnist Pat, posted the headline yesterday, “Good News. Pope Now Respected as Science Expert.”
Protestants have always accused Catholics of believing everything the pope says on every subject whatever. They have accused us, in fact if not word, of “papal positivism,” the very theological vice that has suddenly become fashionable within the Church. And with this foray into areas where he has no more competence than anyone else, Pope Francis himself appears to be first among this trend.
And this is not the first time. When he was asked why he thought there had been mutterings against his lack of clarity and sound leadership, Francis told Antonio Spadaro, “Look, I wrote an encyclical – true enough, it was by four hands – and an apostolic exhortation. I’m constantly making statements, giving homilies. That’s magisterium. That’s what I think, not what the media say that I think.”
The Catholic neo-conservative world tied itself into knots trying to demonstrate that the pope’s many interviews, homilies and off-the-cuff ramblings, and the frequently incomprehensible statements in them, meant nothing. That he wasn’t interested in changing Church doctrine or doing anything really crazy, because as everyone knows, interviews and off-the-cuff comments can’t be taken as part of the formal papal magisterium. Shortly after this, they fell silent as the Vatican issued a book compiling all the papal interviews, primarily those most controversial ones with the Marxist atheist Eugenio Scalfari, and calling it formally part of the Francis magisterium.
The conclusion seems inescapable that this is a pope who does not know the meaning of the term “papal magisterium,” or the purpose of his own office. Or perhaps who simply doesn’t care. Remember, this is also the pope who has repeatedly railed against “doctors of the law” and the Church’s previous interest in “small-minded rules.”
2 – Who were these advisors? – Many of the people who have criticised Pope Francis for coming down on this side of the “global warming” debate have pointed out that he is now keeping some very unpleasant company indeed. And appears to be doing so without the least embarrassment.
Who are these people? Well, one of the people at the press conference launching the encyclical officially – who was presumably also advising the pope – was Prof. Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, founding director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research. This is a highly respected member of the warmist community and is perhaps the best possible representative of their entire programme for humanity. And his influence is enormous. He advises the Chancellor of Germany, Europe’s lead economic nation and serves as chairman of the German Advisory Council on Global Change. At the transnational level, he is a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a body of the United Nations.
Professor Schellnhuber is a major voice calling for massive reduction in… wait for it… human population. In 2009, he articulated the commonly held opinion of the scientific left that the only solution for planet earth will be the elimination of all but one billion of the human population. The New York Times reported on his speech at an international climate meeting in Copenhagen, where he said it is a “triumph for science” that they have “stabilized” the estimate: “namely the estimates for the carrying capacity of the planet, namely below 1 billion people.” At that time, Herr Schellnhuber declined to specify a methodology for achieving this.
At the Vatican’s press conference, though, he focused on other priorities, protesting only that “the science of Laudato Si is watertight.” He added a warning that if “humanity” didn’t reduce carbon emissions, “we, our neighbors, and children will be exposed to intolerable risks.”
Pretty softy-toffee stuff for a guy who openly proposes eliminating over 5 billion people. Perhaps with a mind to where he was sitting, he added that he wanted to expel the “myth” that climate change has to be fought by reducing the number of poor.
“Contrary to what some have claimed, it is not the mass of poor people that destroys the planet, but the consumption of the rich,” he said. Which I’m sure represents a massive conversion in this, one of the world’s leading advocates of population control. Must’ve been the New Evangelization. (Rorate Caeli has more from the press conference here.)
3 – Who is this document really meant for? – Is this encyclical really meant for Catholics at all? A colleague of mine wrote, “LS is a meandering mishmash of muddled thought…” Is this surprising? Was anyone expecting anything else from the meanderingest, mish-mashiest leader of the Church we’ve ever had? I know that there is an ongoing contest at Vatican Radio to “translate” the pope’s homilies and Angelus addresses into language – complete sentences – that can actually be understood. There is a reason that VR usually only publishes summaries and not complete transcripts.
Certainly the atheist, anti-human, Marxist ideologues who are being recruited to promote and advise on it have no interest in informing or advising believers on the specific will of God about the proper stewardship and management of the earth’s resources. From their point of view, it could have said anything at all, as long as it was vague, disorganized, ambiguous and mish-mashy. Pope Francis personal writing, speaking (and presumably thinking) style is ideal for those who want to use the papal office to further their own causes. Only this time, of course, the pope himself has invited them to collaborate personally.
It certainly seems that the encyclical was intended by its real authors, the warmists and population-controllers, leftists and Marxists in and out of the Church, as little more than a prop to hold up in front of cameras during interviews and say, “See? The pope agrees with us. And the Catholic Church has to obey because it’s the pope and as everyone knows, all Catholics have to believe unquestioningly everything the pope says, right?”
Which is already happening. In his commentary, Chris Ferrara predicted that “the world will ignore the good elements in LS and proclaim a great victory for climate change fanatics—a victory Francis will undoubtedly have given them…” And indeed, with the ink barely dry, that machinery is already well in motion.
Crux, the Catholic magazine of the bitterly anti-Catholic leftist paper the Boston Globe, quoted Argentinean Bishop Marcelo Sánchez Sorondo, president of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy of Sciences, who, they said, “shrugged off the criticism the document is receiving from some sectors of society.”
Crux continues: “Though Catholic skeptics on climate change are within their rights not to believe in it, that doesn’t mean [they] can ignore the fact that Laudato Si’ is now part of the Church’s official teaching.”
“One can’t choose to only accept the documents we like,” they quoted the archbishop saying.
From the redoubtable Fr. Thomas Rosica, the English language spokesman for the Holy See press office and vigorous defender of all Canadian things Catholic and lefty, we have, “No Catholic is free to dissent from the teaching of Laudato Si.” Well, we’ve been told, eh?
The irony of watching the Catholic extreme left demanding that conservatives obey the pope and accusing them of being “cafeteria Catholics” has been one of the more entertaining aspects of the entire Francis parade for the last two years. All we needed, really, was an encyclical, and now we get to watch them insisting that this type of papal document “IS SO magisterial and infallible, dammit! And is to be obeyed WITHOUT QUESTION!”
4– Has the pope undercut the Church’s work for the poor in the developing world? – But much less entertainingly, there are concerns that Pope Francis in this document has clearly and repeatedly taken the position of some of the Church’s most bitter and venomous enemies, and, moreover, the enemies of the very poor he claims to want to defend. This is, after all, the camp at the UN and elsewhere of those who would resolve the problem of poverty, particularly developing world poverty, by simply eliminating the poor.
In other words, it could easily be argued that Pope Francis has undercut decades of work defending the poor and helpless of his own delegation at the UN. This is the group of people who have sometimes been the sole voice opposing the population control agenda that has been forcing abortion, sterilization and enforced contraception on the developing world.
And before anyone starts howling, let me say that a single, rather ambiguous, token four-line paragraph – in a nearly 200 page document – stating that “concern for the protection of nature” is “incompatible with the justification of abortion,” reads like the barest possible token nod. And it is not going to have the protective power of an umbrella in a hurricane. Particularly since it is immediately followed with the notion that some people’s existence really can be “troublesome or inconvenient,” and whose existence “is uncomfortable and creates difficulties.”
“If personal and social sensitivity towards the acceptance of the new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away.” … Right. That’ll show em!
5 – Let’s talk about the White Coat fallacy – We keep hearing, from the encyclical itself and from its defenders on the left that “global warming” and climate change catastrophizing is “mainstream science”. Let’s examine what that means, if anything.
How does real science actually work? We all learned it in high school: a scientist observes natural phenomena, then comes up with experiments to test his observations and writes down the results. He develops a hypothesis to explain the observed phenomena and then tests it some more. As the results of his tests bring him more information, he may or may not adjust his hypothesis. Then he publishes the results of his investigation, and other scientists reproduce the tests to see if they get the same result. This process continues more or less indefinitely and information on the observed phenomena is added a piece at a time in an infuriatingly slow process that is of no interest to journalists and politicians whatsoever.
Sometimes the scientific world succumbs to the temptation to say, “This thing we’ve observed, we’ve got it licked. We know all about it. The science is settled.” Sometimes this is a pretty safe bet. The planet, for example, does seem to be going around the sun, and not the other way round. But in general, with questions that anyone is still paying the slightest attention to, the notion of “settled science” is an oxymoron. The only way one could have “mainstream” science is if science itself had become heavily politicized. Which it has.
Let’s examine a completely different topic. When does pregnancy occur? From the 1880s, medical science knew that a unique human being comes into existence from the moment the gametes are fused. Later they found out more about genes and this idea was confirmed again. And again. Every textbook ever published on the subject of human embryology confirms the same findings: a unique, genetically distinct member of a given species comes into existence at fertilization.
How is pregnancy now defined by governments around the world, informed by their scientific advisors? It is usually defined as beginning when the zygote implants in the endometrium. This is the “mainstream” scientific opinion among doctors and bioethics committees the world over. It is the “settled science” on human reproduction. Only, of course, it came about because the medical world wanted to get wedded to chemical contraception, and in 1965, had to get it past the Catholic doctors in all the professional medical bodies.
Later, in the early 2000s when governments around the world again wanted to pass legislation having to do with human reproduction, this time created artificially in petri dishes, they asked the same group of people if it was OK. In every case, the science advisors shouted in chorus, “Sure!” No parliamentary or congressional committee in any jurisdiction anywhere ever invited anyone who specialized in embryology to give evidence at the public hearing stage. They didn’t need to. Everyone knows, the “science is settled.”
An entire science-writer career could be made out of the incredible political shenanigans being perpetrated to bolster materialist Darwinism. Heaven help any scientist who dares to breathe the slightest doubt about the orthodoxy of random mutation and selection.
Briefly, what we’ve got here is a papal example of the old White Coat fallacy: a simplistic appeal to “science” or “scientists say” that would receive a failing grade from any reputable journalism school.
6 – A brief note about the footnotes – Every encyclical ever written relies heavily on lots of different sources, and these are normally listed at the bottom as footnotes, and this one is no different. There is only one problem, however. Nowhere in the midst of all these rather extraordinary scientific claims is there a single footnote saying where, exactly, the pope got his “solid” and “settled” “mainstream science”.
We have the usual roster of encyclicals, statements from bishops’ conferences, Vatican II documents, apostolic exhortations, even one or two saints. But where are the scientific references? Where are the citations to articles in peer review journals? To papers from scientific conferences? Where, in other words, did the pope’s scientific assertions come from?
In fact, out of a final total of 172 footnotes, the only “scientist” quoted is the discredited heretic, eugenicist, Nazi-supporter and archaeological hoaxer Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
~
How is this document going to be received by the world? We are seeing that already, and Catholics concerned about the unspoken messages being sent by this encyclical are being told quite firmly by Francis’ main supporters to “Shut up and obey.”
How should believing Catholics deal with it? I would recommend the advice given by St. Paul. If you feel inclined, read it, figure out as best you can which parts are good and theologically sound, give them your assent, and then stop worrying about it.
And pray for the pope and the Church, and pray that saner heads will soon prevail. The Synod is coming; let us not be distracted.
This is what you get when tradition is equal or surpasses scripture.
. I'd love to know what catholic seminary schools teach on biblical interpretation.
As one article indicated they spend a lot of time on Latin. I think that's a huge part of the problem.
Can't wait to see how they dodge your points. It's like listening to Jay Carney or Baghdad Bob!
According to you, but where is this an infallible or otherwise binding interpretation? And since what Rome says of Scripture, Tradition and history must be your basis for Truth as a faithful RC (indeed, Cath. teaching is that we cannot even validly know what Scripture consists of apart from faith in her as its instrument), then why should what you think be of any consequence?
If you hope to convert us by condescending to appeal to Scripture as being the supreme authority, your end is bring us to abandon the weight of Scripture as being the basis for the veracity of Truth claims, and instead rest upon the premise of the ensured veracity of Rome.
And if you disagree with that as being your end, then you are in disagreement with far more weightier RCs then yourself, and are another example of the diverse liberal and conservative amalgam called Catholicism (but which you cannot separate from without being sectarian or schismatic).
This needs to be said as while we can debate you on Scripture, experience shows that RCs are bound to defend Rome not matter what expense to credulity, and thus no matter how much their attempts to defend Roman tradition are refuted and they are silenced, they end up posting the same parroted polemics again as if nothing was said.
In biblical tradition, the servant of the household who holds the keys carries DYNASTIC authority with the power of succession. Peter identifies Christ as the King (messiah). Christ as King uses His authority to NOW give the keys to Peter as steward symbolizing authority to bind and loose. The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors. The key as a symbol of authority is also met with in the Talmud.
But which simply does not translate into this being a fulfillment of Is. 22, while if anything in that regard is fulfilled it seen in Christ, as shown and ignored. Nowhere does the Holy Spirit invoke Is. 22 this as pertaining to Peter, nor does the use of language denote that, nor does the Spirit reveal Peter as exercising a uniquely authoritative binding and loosing rule over all the churches or having a perpetuated office, which Is. 22 does not teach.
Instead, as said and ignored, not only was this prophecy of Eliakim's ascendancy apparently fulfilled in the OT [as 2Ki. 19:1 2Ki. 18:18, 2Ki. 18:37 and Is. 3622, 37:2 all refer to Eliakim being over the house, (bayith, same in Is. 22:15,22) which Shebna the treasurer was, (Is. 22:15) and evidently had much prestige and power, though the details of his actual fall are not mentioned [and who may not be the same as "Shebna the scribe" (sâkan) mentioned later] - but the text actually foretells:
"In that day, saith the LORD of hosts, shall the nail that is fastened in the sure place be removed, and be cut down, and fall; and the burden that was upon it shall be cut off: for the LORD hath spoken it." (Isa 22:25)
Whether this refers to Shebna or Eliakim is irrelevant, for in any case it means that being a nail that is fastened in the sure place does not necessarily denote permanency, as it did not here.
Yet if we are looking for a future fulfillment with permanency, both the language concept of a key and being a father to the house of David corresponds more fully to Christ, and who alone is promised a continued reign (though when He has put all His enemies under His feet, He will deliver the kingdom to His Father: 1Cor. 15:24-28).
For it is Christ who alone is said to be clothed "with a garment down to the foot, and girt about the paps with a golden girdle," (Rv. 1:13; cf. Is. 22:21) and who came to be an everlasting father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. (Is. 22:21; cf. Heb. 7:14; 8:8; 9:6) And who specifically is said to be given "the key of the house of David," "so he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open," (Is. 22:22) as He now “hath the key of David, he that openeth, and no man shutteth; and shutteth, and no man openeth.” (Rev. 3:7) and is a nail in a sure place who sits in a glorious throne in His father's house, (Is. 22:23; cf. Rv. 3:7) And upon Him shall hang “all the glory of his father’s house, the offspring and the issue, ” (Is. 22:24) for He is the head of the body, the church, (Colossians 1:18) "from whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth,“ (Eph. 4:16) and in Jesus Christ dwells "all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Col. 2:9)
Thus neither Eliakim nor Peter are shown having this manner of fulfillment, nor does it necessarily denote successors (Christ has none Himself, but took over from the Father). Thus if this " a nail in a sure place" corresponds to anyone future then it is Christ, and nothing is said of Eliakim having a vice regent. Thus this prophecy is actually contrary to Peter being that Eliakim.
Rabbinical tradition contains the authority of determining who has the power of binding and loosing.
Which was not new, and certainly did not require ensured infallibility. Peter was given binding/loosing power, which aspect itself corresponds to Is. 22, and Peter was the street-level leader among the 11 (which type of leadership all should pray for), but that the church looked to Peter as the first of a line of infallible popes reigning in Rome over all as their supreme head is not seen in Scripture, or early history Read on.
The 1906 Jewish encyclopedia notes that the expression “to bind the key upon his shoulder denotes POSSESSION of office. (Isaiah 22:22) Offices have successors.
But which is not what Is. 22 promises to this office, as shown above.
The binding and loosing IS TOTALLY AND COMPLETELY unique to Peter because THE POWER WAS GIVEN TO HIM BY JESUS THE KING, HIMSELF. That is why it is unique.
Still wrong, regardless of how much you may shout it. For while Peter was the initial object of this reception, yet as said and ignored, the "key (to the kingdom) is the gospel, by which one is translated into the kingdom of Christ, (Col. 1:13)" and which word all the church preached. (Acts 8:4)
And the power and function of binding and loosing pertained to all the apostles, judicially to the elders, while spiritually to all believers. (Mt. 18:15-20; Ja, 5:14-19)
Scripture teaches that one can be bound by sickness and thus Christ, who came to loose captives, (Lk. 4:18) set such free, (Lk. 13:11-16) as did others.
Being set free from sins by faith in the gospel of the crucified and risen Lord Jesus is a form of loosing, with unbelief leaving souls bound. And Paul who received the gospel by special Divine revelation, and not from man, preached justification by faith before Acts 15.
And in which we do not see Peter binding anyone to his judgment, but instead he merely exhorted the church not to yoke the Gentiles into having to keep all the Law (though the moral law was reinforced as manifesting obedient saving faith).
Instead, the final conclusive sentence awaited the judgment of James, which provided it as being Scripturally substantiated, after Paul and Barnabas added their testimony confirmatory of Peter's exhortation and testimony, and which the elders collectively bound the churches to accept.
In church discipline, Paul together with the church bound an incestuous man in 1Co. 5 to chastisement by the devil.
The elders (primarily) of the church as well as other holy intercessors can also obtain the loosing of deliverance of sins for which one may be chastened for. (Ja, 5:14-18)
In addition, Elijah bound and loosed the heavens, which James invokes as an example of what holy believers may do. For while the judicial aspect of binding and loosing pertained to the magisterium, as in the OT. (Dt. 17:8-13) spiritually it is provided for all holy believers. (Mt. 18:15-20; Ja, 5:14-19)
This is not due to RC’s reading into the text - it is due to a logical reading of the text. The early Church recognized the primacy of the Office of Peter. The letter (extant) of Pope Clement the 1st, writing an Epistle to the Corinthians, he as Bishop of Rome with particular authority gives them clear doctrinal instructions. This was done in the 1st century, showing the succession of this thought from the beginning. He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.
Rather, it is evident that you have uncritically ingested papal propaganda, which even RC scholarship provides testimony against .
First Epistle of Clement is actually anonymous, and is only traditionally attributed to Clement of Rome, And it exhorts to "Take up the epistle of the blessed Paul the Apostle" (xlvii. 1) who can hardly be said to teach , much less promote, Peter as the supreme infallible head to whom all the churches were to look to.
Not once does Paul tell any church to submit to Peter as supreme head, even to those which had problems (nor do the letters to the 7 churches in Rv. 2+3). And Paul mentions Peter second after James in Gal. 2 among those who "seemed to be pillars," and who collective affirm Paul's ministry which many were discrediting. Yet Paul proceeds to mention how he publicly rebuked Peter for his duplicity. (Gal. 2)
The only support we have in the NT for Peter's position is that he was the street-level leader among the 11, and pastor of the first church, but there is no teaching o any apostolic successors (like for James: Acts 12:1,2) after Judas who was to maintain the original 12: Rv. 21:14) or for any apostolic successors elected by voting, versus casting lots (no politics). (Acts 1:15ff)
And as the esteemed (by many RCs also who often invoke him) Anglican scholar J.N.D Kelley finds that the letter indicates a plurality of elders at the church at Rome, which is a scholarly consensus of regarding the early church, versus a monarchical episcopate. More .
And another others , Catholic theologian and a Jesuit priest Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops (New York: The Newman Press), examines possible mentions of “succession” from the first three centuries, and concludes from that study that,
“the episcopate [development of bishops] is a the fruit of a post New Testament development,” and cannot concur with those (interacting with Jones) who see little reason to doubt the notion that there was a single bishop in Rome through the middle of the second century:
Hence I stand with the majority of scholars who agree that one does not find evidence in the New Testament to support the theory that the apostles or their coworkers left [just] one person as “bishop” in charge of each local church...
...the evidence both from the New Testament and from such writings as I Clement, the Letter of Polycarp to the Philippians and The Shepherd of Hennas favors the view that initially the presbyters in each church, as a college, possessed all the powers needed for effective ministry. This would mean that the apostles handed on what was transmissible of their mandate as an undifferentiated whole, in which the powers that would eventually be seen as episcopal were not yet distinguished from the rest. Hence, the development of the episcopate would have meant the differentiation of ministerial powers that had previously existed in an undifferentiated state and the consequent reservation to the bishop of certain of the powers previously held collegially by the presbyters. — Francis Sullivan, in his work From Apostles to Bishops , pp. 221, 222,2 24
Klaus Schatz [Jesuit Father theologian, professor of church history at the St. George’s Philosophical and Theological School in Frankfurt] in his work, “Papal Primacy ,” pp. 1-4, finds:
“New Testament scholars agree..., The further question whether there was any notion of an enduring office beyond Peter’s lifetime, if posed in purely historical terms, should probably be answered in the negative.
That is, if we ask whether the historical Jesus, in commissioning Peter, expected him to have successors, or whether the authority of the Gospel of Matthew, writing after Peter’s death, was aware that Peter and his commission survived in the leaders of the Roman community who succeeded him, the answer in both cases is probably 'no.”
“....that does not mean that the figure and the commission of the Peter of the New Testament did not encompass the possibility, if it is projected into a Church enduring for centuries and concerned in some way to to secure its ties to its apostolic origins and to Jesus himself.
If we ask in addition whether the primitive church was aware, after Peter’s death, that his authority had passed to the next bishop of Rome, or in other words that the head of the community at Rome was now the successor of Peter, the Church’s rock and hence the subject of the promise in Matthew 16:18-19, the question, put in those terms, must certainly be given a negative answer.” (page 1-2)
[Schatz goes on to express that he does not doubt Peter was martyred in Rome, and that Christians in the 2nd century were convinced that Vatican Hill had something to do with Peter's grave.]
"Nevertheless, concrete claims of a primacy over the whole church cannot be inferred from this conviction. If one had asked a Christian in the year 100, 200, or even 300 whether the bishop of Rome was the head of all Christians, or whether there was a supreme bishop over all the other bishops and having the last word in questions affecting the whole Church, he or she would certainly have said no." (page 3, top)
He also references the Alexandrian canon of the OT, books that Luther threw out.
Which means, if he referenced them as Scripture, that he was one of those who held to these as being so, while other notable figures (ss Jerome) did not, and scholarly doubts and disagreements about books continued down thru centuries and right into Trent, which provided the first infallible, indisputable canon for RCs after the death of Luther .
That Luther was some maverick in judging the apocrypha as not being Scripture proper, and that he was in dissent from an infallible canon, and did not include in his Bible, is Cath propaganda.
This Pope shold have stuck to doctrine. He has jumped the shark by believing in fake climate change; but the encyclical is NOT an ex Cathedra pronouncement on faith and morals that is required belief.
And just what makes you think that encyclicals, or this encyclical, do not require religious assent of mind and will, and preclude public dissent? What kind of RC are you? (There are different types, all of which Rome counts and treats as members in life an and in death.)
bump
Thanks for the ping. Another often overlooked fact is that the giving of the keys to Peter was a future event. Jesus says “I will give,” and in Matthew 18 He gives the binding and loosing to all the disciples. There being no literal “keys” in the story, we know the keys are a metaphor. Jesus in Matthew 16 equates the keys to the binding and loosing (keys open and close things, after all), so we know the power of binding and loosing given to disciples in chapter 18 is the same power Jesus said He would eventually give to Peter. This isn’t really very hard at all.
Peace,
SR
An indictment so clear that they by their will to follow after idols will not hear it. Selah
You answer your on question
Amen
One of the reasons Rome has fallen into so much error is they do not understand this simple principle ...
The common folk in Peter's time had rope or twine they used to secure the gate or door entry. To open a door secured by such meant to loose the binding. To secure such a door or gate was to bind it to the structure to which it hinged.
Lest our stiffnecked catholics invoke their carnal minds too deeply, John's revelation uses this same imagery of 'a door opened in Heaven, CH 4 v1. Such door as that would need a key or keys, but opening it would still be 'loosening' it. That door's key is faith. When Peter preached faith not by the law, that bound the door of the law which the Blood of Christ on the Mercy Seat covered once for all forever.
Were the ones with wives or mistresses and gales of children also frauds? what about Pope Stephen VI he had the previous pope exhumed from his grave, taken to court and tried for various crimes. The corpse was found guilty as sin and his three blessing fingers were hacked off as punishment. He was then reburied before he was dug up once again in order to be thrown into the Tiber.
Then there was Pope John XII that took his mother as his wife....Seems the Roman church has been run by frauds for a long time...this one just has the internet
bump
It’s stunning to watch the duplicity of thought and practice from Catholics. It’s the Catholic Church they believe in, not God’s word.
It’s fascinating to study in depth isn’t it? Well done! The twisting by the Catholic Church is pure evil.
That “unbroken chain” is a joke isn’t it?
The common folk in Peter's time had rope or twine they used to secure the gate or door entry. To open a door secured by such meant to loose the binding. To secure such a door or gate was to bind it to the structure to which it hinged.
This is a prime example of how dangerous private interpretation of Scripture is for those think they know more than they actually do. The presenting of the keys by Jesus to Peter in Matthew 16 is actually a reference to Isaiah 22:
Thus says the Lord, the GOD of hosts: Up, go to that official, Shebna, master of the palace, “What have you here? Whom have you here, that you have hewn for yourself a tomb here, Hewing a tomb on high, carving a resting place in the rock?” The LORD shall hurl you down headlong, mortal man! He shall grip you firmly, And roll you up and toss you like a ball into a broad land. There you will die, there with the chariots you glory in, you disgrace to your master’s house! I will thrust you from your office and pull you down from your station. On that day I will summon my servant Eliakim, son of Hilkiah; I will clothe him with your robe, gird him with your sash, confer on him your authority. He shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, and to the house of Judah. I will place the key of the House of David on his shoulder; what he opens, no one will shut, what he shuts, no one will open. I will fix him as a peg in a firm place, a seat of honor for his ancestral house; On him shall hang all the glory of his ancestral house: descendants and offspring, all the little dishes, from bowls to jugs. (Isaiah 22:15-24)Thus the keys are the symbol of the office of Master of the Palace or the vicar of the king. It is this office that Jesus conferred upon Peter.
Before or after Peter was condemned?
Galatians 2:11 NASB
But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
In your working so hard to remain blind, you ahev missed that I am affirming the Isaiah passage not refuting it! The concept of loosing and binding is easily compared to the gates and doorways of common folks in Peter’s times. The doors and agtes are no loess opened or bound using rope latchets or brass nobs and keys! You would turn an ice cream cone upside down and scoff at the sugar cone, letting the ice cream fall upon the ground to tell me I didn’t give to you an ice cream cone! There are none so blind as they who will not see.
What you are missing is that the keys and the power to loose and bind are referring to an office as the chief minister that was conferred upon Peter and is exercised today by the pope.
Bless your little heart, I’m not missing that, I’m not assenting to that Romish dogma. I can read the Bible and if something is not in it I can detect that. I understand how the New Covenant sealed withy Christ’s blood differs from previous covenants, too. I can also discenr the meaning of binding and loosing with regard to doorways opened and closed, as illustrated precisely with the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost to the Jews and at the house of Cornelius for the Gentiles. Those passages from Acts give in minute detail the opening of a door to Salvation by faith to the Jews, closing the door of working for salvation via trying to keep the alws. In the house of Cornelius we see the doorway opened to Gentiles and the First Church Council at Jerusalem confirms the closing of the doorway of the law of sen and death. Sacrilege apologists with haughty ‘only us’ attitudes cannot see it because their mind are under catholic sacrilege at any point when something might awaken the dead soul within them, by satan’s design. The modern cahtolic church is a satanic masterpiece. Just look at what satan now has at its helm!
And his science adviser believes in gaia “earth god” no more needs to be said!
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.