Posted on 11/21/2019 4:26:57 PM PST by ebb tide
*****
It's really to easy it's almost not fair.
Run on back to your caucus threads where two, maybe three, will post.
St Peter was Jesus Christ’s first vicar; and Peter betrayed Him three times in one night.
What’s your point?
Some people are legends in their own minds.
Nope. The term vicar was a later development not witnessed in the NT.
Yes you are.
You may recall all of his disciples fled Him.
Did Peter remain Christ’s first Vicar? Was Paul considered as equal to Peter and the 11? Will Paul be seated on a throne, judging the 12 tribes of Israel, as Christ promised the 12 (with Mathias replacing Judas)? What will he be sitting on? There are only 12 thrones, besides Christ’s throne. Is Paul going to bring a lawn chair to the table?
Luther was not in the NT.
What’s your point?
You may not recall St John at the foot of the Cross.
Then all the disciples left Him and fled. Last sent from Matthew 26:56
Dude. Stop. You’re just embarrassing yourself now. You’re flailing away in this losing argument like your buddy.
Who’s my “buddy” and why didn’t you courtesy ping him?
No need to. He’s losing on another thread.
I’m outta here for now. Gonna finish watching the game.
Have you never read 1 Peter 5:1 ebb tide??
“The elders which are among you I exhort, WHOM AM ALSO AN ELDER, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partner of the glory that shall be revealed”
Peter referred to himself as an ELDER of the Church. If Peter was indeed the “first Pope”, the prince of the apostles, and the head of the Church, why did he not claim that title here? He certainly missed an opportunity to make it clear to all the churches. But he DID NOT. He said he was an ELDER. Because that is EXACTLY what he was. Unless you want to call him a liar.
Just proves my observation that you stalk Catholic threads.
True, but it is so refreshing and honest for you to say it. I don't mean this in a snarky way. When people don't know, they ought to ask... which is what you are doing. It shows a good will.
"The Pope is God’s representative on earth acc. to RCC."
Yes, that's true: but be careful not to take that in an exaggerated or mistaken way. He is the Successor of St. Peter, not the Successor of Christ.
As Peter's successor he inherits the power of the Keys (Matthew 16:18). To ponder the significance of the "keys" --- this is a symbolic, and not a literal thing, of course --- read Isaiah 22:20 ff ---and you'll see it designates the Chief Steward in charge of the Royal Household. Interestingly in this Isaiah episode, the man who was made Steward was eventually deposed because he was unfaithful to the king's wishes. That has happened to popes, too: not often, but it has happened before.
"The Pope speaks for God acc.to RCC."
Actually the Pope's normative job is to carefully preserve the Deposit of Faith, which means the core doctrines.It is an essentially conservative task: you could even call it a "Theology of Repetition." The Pope is NOT an all-purpose oracle; nor a prophet in the sense of the OT prophets who were inspired writers of Scripture; nor can ANY Pope be a source of public revelation. Public Revelation ceased at the death of the last Apostle, around 100 AD.
"Every Pope aligns himself with the first Pope, Peter, acc. to RCC.
Yes --- as I said, he is the Successor to Peter, and possesses the power of the Keys. This does not protect him absolutely from error, any more than it protected Peter from all error. Even from the very beginning, when Peter is given this topmost post (Matthew 15:19), within 4 verses he blows it (v 23) to the extent that Jesus is really angry and calls him "a stumbling block" and "Satan"!
Not a perfect launch for his brand!
However, upon his repentance, Jesus restored him, and commanded him to "confirm the brethren" in the Faith.
Peter could be corrected, even by a man who was not one of the original Twelve. "And when Cephas came to Antioch, I [Paul] opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong."
And this has been considered legitimate since New Testament days. If a leader (like Paul) admonishes the pope, it's called a "fraternal correction". If laypeople do so, it is called the "sensus fidelium" (the sense of the faithful).
The First Vatican Council (ended in 1870) while affirming Papal primacy, put very strict limits on the concept of Papal infallibility, to the extent that, historically, those conditions are almost never met.
There are still some extreme tendencies held by a minority of -- well, I'd call them "papal maximalists", they are historically called "Ultramontanists," -- who attribute to the Pope, even in his private opinions, absolute infallibility even in matters beyond faith and morals. Some go even further off the rails, and claim impeccability --- that the Pope supposedly cannot sin. These are errors of interpretation which the Church never held, and which were firmly and formally rejected 150 years ago.
Therefore is not "judging the Pope" (as to his soul, his internal disposition). The subject of the judgment is not his state of grace or his eternal destination (which are known only to God.) That is subjective and outside of our purview. What we ARE judging is whether something objectively observable --- a statement or an act -- was consistent with the Deposit or Faith, or not.
Ordinarily if it is some highly technical matter (Filioque? Yes or no?) such a judgment would be made by someone with suitable education and eminence. But on some things a child could correct him. (Is Jesus God? Yes or no?) The answer is "Yes," and I hope an ordinary Catholic 7-year-old would notice if the Pope or anyone else said something contrary to that.
"How then are RCC members in the position to argue with or disrespect ANY Pope and they it’s alright in God’s eyes?"
There are two parts to that question: "Argue with"' or "disrespect".
Argue with? Yes. Pope Francis repeatedly insisted that people "argue with" him, for instance, in his encyclical "Laudato Si." Maybe he regrets that now, but argue we will ... not about dogma (the Deposit of Faith) but about the pope's own "Theologoumena" (theological opinions.) (I admit I dug out that big ol' imposing Greek word just to emphasize that there's a BIG difference between papal "opinion" and authentic papal doctrine. Those argument have never ceased and never will. Except in heaven!
Disrespect? No. I shouldn't disrespect anyone, whether it's the pope's dish washer, let alone the Pope. I note with sorrow that there IS a lot of disrespect around here. That is wrong. I admit I have contributed to it at times. I have been wrong. I should be arguing like St. Catherine of Siena (a famous 13th century arguer-with-the-Pope) who chastised him but showed a very touching respect.She was a daughter, not a brawler.
There are FReepers who I expect to jump in with quotes from their very favorite 13h century Pope voicing very antique forms of Ultramontanism.
Very ironically, all or nearly all of these FReeper Ultramontanists, are Evangelicals or Protestants of some sort.
I have no ill-will toward Protestant Ultramontanists, but you know what their problem is? They don' ask questions. Or maybe their problem is, they don't listen to answers.
That's why they don't know enough about Catholicism.
Did you read my post 116? Peter says specifically there that he is an ELDER. Please read it and get back to me. This would make all popes ELDERS in the church.
Go Texans!
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.