Cross section of necropolis below the Bernini altar
Posted on 01/20/2005 6:44:04 AM PST by NYer
"Where Peter is, there is the church … he who is not with the Pope is not with God, and who desires to be with God must be with the Pope."
These words, reflecting on the meaning of the visions in Fatima, were uttered by Sister Lucia, the only surviving witness to the apparitions there. Our Lady of Fatima summons us to convert to a living and authentic faith in the only God of the Trinity, who is truly present in the Eucharist. The Mother of God reminds us that the Pope plays a decisive role in the transmission of the fullness of the faith. The Pope, as the successor to Saint Peter, is the rock on which Christ builds his church (Mt. 16:18). It is to Saint Peter that our Lord Jesus granted full authority to infallibly teach the truths of the faith and to lead and govern the entire church. Saint Peter was the first to establish the bishop’s capital in Rome, and to consecrate it with his own blood, the blood of a martyr. For this reason each successor to Saint Peter in the Capital acquires primacy over the whole Church.
Saint Peter resided in Rome and suffered a martyr’s death there in the year 67 A.D., at the time of the Christian persecutions during the reign of the emperor Nero. The exact place of his martyrdom is unknown. Historians believe Saint Peter was crucified upside down in Nero’s amphitheater, which was situated where the Vatican now stands. He was buried at a nearby cemetery. Many years of excavations underneath the Basilica of Saint Peter led to the discovery of the first Pope’s tomb. The tomb lies directly beneath the Pope’s altar in the Vatican Basilica. This tomb signifies that each bishop of Rome is Saint Peter’s successor and by virtue of his office as "the successor of Christ and the Pastor of the whole Church has full, supreme and universal power over the church" (Christus Dominus 2:9).
For thirteen centuries no one questioned the presence of Saint Peter’s tomb in the Vatican. The first to dispute this were the adherents of the Waldensian heresy, who rejected the primacy of the Pope, maintaining that Saint Peter was never in Rome, let alone that his tomb was there. Likewise, Luther and other leaders of the Reformation denied the existence of Saint Peter’s tomb in the Vatican, at the same time calling into question the primacy and infallibility of the Pope in matters of faith.
Excavation work beneath St Peter’s Basilica began in the spring of 1939 following the death of Pius XI, who had expressed the wish to be buried in the Vatican Grottos. During the digging of his grave, the remains of a pagan necropolis from Roman times were discovered. Hearing of this discovery, Pope Pius XII commissioned a team of research workers to begin excavations and investigations, which after several years lead to sensational discoveries. During the 10 years of archaeological work part of a large cemetery was discovered. Its greatest period of development would have taken place between the 2nd and the beginning of the 4th centuries A.D. Sepulchres were discovered along a street, which ran in the vicinity of Nero’s amphitheater. That superbly preserved necropolis is a typical pagan cemetery, and in it are also found Christian graves. To this day one can admire tombs and monuments of unparalleled architectural beauty, which belonged to affluent Roman families.
In the Valerius’ vault a Latin inscription was found: Petrus rogat Iesus Christus pro sanctis hominibus chrestianis ad corpus suum sepultis (Peter prays to Jesus Christ for the Christians buried near his body). In Popilius Herakles’ tomb the following inscription was found; IN VATIC. AD CIRCUM (at the Vatican, near the amphitheater), which confirms the cemetery’s location on the Vatican hills in the vicinity of Nero’s amphitheater. In the main, however, these were sepulchres of families professing a pagan religion.
At the beginning of the 4th century the cemetery was in full use. According to Roman law the tombs were sacred and inviolable. The only reason the emperor Constantine (280 – 337) was required to break the Roman cemetery law in the case of this necropolis was the necessity of building a Christian basilica on the terrain owing to the great devotion Christians had to the tomb of St. Peter, which was located there. The emperor ordered a so-called congestion terrarum, demolishing the northern end of the cemetery and covering tombs which were found in its southern part with earth. The aim was to obtain a wide flat area on the slope of the Vatican hill at the same level as the tomb of Saint Peter, and to begin the construction of the basilica there in reverence to the first Pope. It bears witness to the tremendous veneration in which the first Christians held the tomb of Saint Peter.
Cross section of necropolis below the Bernini altar
The excavations carried out in the central area of the basilica, under the pope’s altar, lead to the sensational discovery of the tomb and relics of St. Peter. First to be discovered was a huge cuboidal marble reliquary almost 3 yards wide. It had been built by the emperor Constantine in the years 321 – 324. A small tombstone, in the shape of a hollowed-out chapel, was found inside the reliquary and was supported by two columns and set in a red-plastered wall. Since this tiny memorial had been enclosed in the reliquary it must have been of extraordinary significance. The research workers had come upon the most important section of the Vatican Basilica and the entire underground necropolis. It became evident that this was the first monument to be erected, in the 2nd century, on St Peter’s tomb. The first Christians considered the tomb of St. Peter a victorious trophy. Since the earliest information concerning the ‘trophy-tomb’ of St. Peter comes from the Roman priest Gaius, this tombstone was called Gaius’ Trophy. Early in the 2nd century the Roman Christian community built the ‘trophy-tomb’ on the unexpectedly modest grave of St Peter, which had quite simply been dug in the ground. On its western side a red plastered wall enclosed it. This wall surrounded a small burial ground about 8 x 4 yards. Many common and simple graves were found there, placed around St. Peter’s grave, on top of which sat Gaius’ Trophy. The tomb of the Apostle Peter was particularly highly venerated, to which the many inscriptions on the so called ‘g – wall’ bear witness, including a large inscription in Greek: "Peter is here at the ‘red wall’."
Red Wall
The research undertaken over many years by Professor Margherita Guarducci led to the discovery of the meanings of the many inscriptions on the ‘g – wall’. They were written by the one person responsible for that place, according to established principles of mystical cryptography, and were both spiritually as well as logically ordered. As an example, we know that the letters u - á mean a transition from the end, that is from death to the beginning, to the fullness of life.
Aside from the names of the dead the name of St. Peter appears, linked with the names of Christ and Mary, as well as the profession of belief in the Blessed Trinity; that Jesus Christ is true God and true man; that he is the second person in the Blessed Trinity, the Son of God, the Beginning and the End, the Life, the Light, the Resurrection, Salvation, Peace and Victory etc. In this manner Christians professed their faith in the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s Divinity, the intercession of Mary and eternal life and prayed for their dead.
This is extremely important testimony indicative of the fact that since the very beginnings of Christianity there was a very deep faith in the Blessed Trinity, Christ’s divinity, the intercession of the Mother of God and eternal life, as well as the primacy of St. Peter.
It is also worthwhile to mention at this point the inscription hoc vince (with this you shall conquer) near Christ’s monogram. It is the Latin translation of a famous Greek inscription ôdoôu íéeáM, which the emperor Constantine saw in the sky, together with a cross, before his victory in the Battle of Milvian Bridge against Maxentius’s armies on October 28 in the year 312.
Archaeologists were very surprised when they failed to find the relics of St. Peter in the grave dug in the ground. They were later found just over 2 yards above the original grave in a recess in the ‘g-wall’. The recess containing the relics was discovered on October 13, 1941. It transpired that the emperor Constantine had transferred the relics of St. Peter from the original grave to the specially prepared recess in the ‘g - wall’ during the construction of the marble reliquary.
The relics became the subject of anthropological studies of many years duration. Initially the studies were headed by Professor Galeazzi Lisi, then by Professor Correnti. The results of the studies were printed in 1965 in a book published by the Vatican: Le reliquie di Pietro sotto la Confessione della Basilica Vaticana.. The bones of St. Peter, placed at the time of the emperor Constantine in the ‘g-wall’ recess, were wrapped in a valuable purple cloth interwoven with pure gold.
The anthropological studies revealed that the bones belonged to one person, a male of stocky build, aged between 60 – 70 years and 5 feet 5 inches tall.
The scientific confirmation of the authenticity of the relics of St. Peter was an extremely important event. During the general audience on June 26, 1968 Pope Paul VI officially announced the discovery of the relics of St Peter. The following day, during the course of formal celebrations, 19 receptacles holding the relics of the first Pope were laid to rest in the recess of the ‘g-wall,’ where they remain to this day.
Father M. Piotrowski, Society of Christ
September 23, 2004
When Paul says "they that resist purchase to themselves damnation" (Rom 13:2), is he placing civil government between the Christian and God?
I'm not requesting anything. I am making the bold, flat statement that Jesus is the Rock of His Church.
BTW, I would think it customary to cite your source when you cut and paste from Catholic Answers and the like.
How many years without a Pope would have to pass before you would accept that the "unbroken" line was broken?
Do you need help in using proper linkage?
For another view: The Bones Of St. Peter
Do you note the irony between Begone Anti-Catholic Troll and (God send you a Blessed 2005!) ?
Preach on! Let's face it, the children of the Protestant Rebellion would have little to believe if they did not have the Catholic Church to rail against. "Read the Bible and just have a little faith" is not much to found a religious system on, and all it does is lead to 27,000 different officially defined belief systems anyway.
The leaders of the church up to the time of pope Gregory the Great were in unanimous agreement: none of them interpreted Mt 16:18 according to modern Roman Catholic dogma. Agreement with the church fathers rejects the belief that Peter was the first pope, was infallible, and passed on his authority to others. According to J.H. Dollinger The Pope and the Council (London, 1869), p. 74:
"Of all the Fathers who interpret these passages in the Gospels (Mt 16:18; Jn 21:17), not a single one applies to them to the Roman bishops as Peter's successors. How many Fathers have busied themselves with these texts, yet not one of them whose commentaries we posses - Origen, Chrysostom, Hilary, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, and those whose interpretations are collected in cantenas - has dropped the faintest hint that the primacy of Rome is the consequence of the commission and promise to Peter!
Not one of them has explained the rock or foundation upon which Christ would build His church as the office given to Peter to be transmitted to his successors, or Peter's confession of faith in Christ; often both together."
Peter De Rosa wrote in Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (Crown Publishers, 1988), pp. 24-25:
"It may jolt them to hear that the great Fathers of the Church saw no connection between it [Mt 16:18] and the pope. Not one of them applies "Thou are Peter" to anyone but Peter. One after another they analyze it: Cyprian, Origen, Cyril, Hilary, Jerome, Ambrose, Augustine. They are not exactly Protestants.
Not one of them calls the bishop of Rome a Rock or applies to him specifically the promise of the Keys...
For the Fathers, it is Peter's faith - or the Lord in whom Peter had his faith - which is called the Rock, not Peter. All the Councils of the church from Nicaea in the fourth century to COnstance in the fifteenth agree that Christ himself is the only foundation of the church, that is, the Rock onwhich the church rests.
...not one of the Fathers speaks of a transference of power from Peter to those who succeed him....There is no hint of an abiding Petrine office.
So the early church did not look on Peter as Bishop of Rome, nor, therefore, did it think that each Bishop of Rome succeeded Peter....The gospels did not create the papacy; the papacy, once in being, leaned for support on the gospels"
These are astonishing revelations from devout Catholics, and experts of Roman Catholic Church history. Furthermore, to be intellectually honest, Catholics absolutely must spend time researching the evidence supporting the claim that popes are the apostolic successors to the apostle Peter. All Scriptural arguments aside, does historical evidence support any claim of an unbroken line of 262 popes?
There's no record that Peter was ever Bishop of Rome, therefor no Bishop of Rome could possibly be his successor (its non-sequitor not to mention illogical). Iraneus, Bishop of Lyons, provided the first list of 12 Bishops of Rome. Linus appears first on this list. Eusebius of Caesaria, the Father of church history, never mentioned Peter as Bishop of Rome. He simply states that Peter came to Rome "about the end of his days" and was crucified there. Paul, in his epistle to the Romans, greets many people by name, but Peter is not. That's an extremely odd omission for an apostle who is Bishop of Rome.
The Vatican has released official lists of popes, arbitrarily begining with Peter and continuing to the present John Paul II. All these lists over time have been revised and each is now in conflict with each other. Liber Pontificalis, is presumed to be the first list composed by pope Hormisdus (514-23), yet even the Catholic Encyclopedia casts doubt on its authenticity, and most scholars agree it contains a healthy dose of fiction. The Catholic Encyclopedia (Catholic University of America, 1967) vol. 1, p. 632 s.v. "antipopes", acknowledges:
"But it must be frankly admitted that bias or deficiency in the sources make it impossible to determine in certain cases whether the claimants were popes or anti-popes"
The simple truth is that the Roman Catholic Church itself with its vast archives of historical documents cannot verify an accurate and complete list of popes. The claim of an unbroken line of succession back to Peter is mere fiction. And in all actuality, the Bishop of Rome wasn't considered to be the pope of the universal Church until about 1000 A.D.
Morever,it is undisputed historical fact that the Bishop of Rome had only authority of the territory of Rome itself. If this was not true, then all of the Church would, as is the case today, be involved in chosing him. However, when the citizens of Rome had their absolute right to chose their own Bishop abrogated, the citizens of Rome revolted and forced their will upon local civil and religious authorities. How can mob pressure be called apostolic succession by the direction of the Holy Spirit?
Powerful families such as the Colonna, Orsini, Annibaldi, COnti,Caetani, et ali, fought wars for the papacy for centuries. Imperial armies installed and deposed popes, as did Roman mobs. Some were murdered, and more than one pope was executed by a jealous husband who found him in bed with his wife. That's apostolic succcession?
Money and/or violence more often than not determined who the pope's successor would be. It begs the question of why it was necessary on 23 Sep 1122, at the Concordat of Worms, that Emperor Henry V made pope Calixtus II swear that the election of bishops and abbots would take place "without simony and without violence" (see Ehler, Sidney Z., John B Morrall, trans. and eds., Church and State Through the Centuries, London 1954, p 48).
In 366, Ursinus and Damasus simultaneously were elected pope by rival factions. Ursinus' followers managed after much violence to have him installed as pope. Nevertheless, after a bloody three-day battle, Damasus (with the backing of the emperor) emerged the ultimate winner. Apostolic succession operating through armed force is just a breathtaking way to run a religion. The ironic thing here is that Damasus in 382 was the first to use Mt 16:18 to claim supreme spiritual authority. He was both bloody, wealthy, powerful and exceedingly corrupt, surrounding himself with luxuries that would have made an emperor blush.
Stephen VII, who had pope Formosus exhumed and then condemed the corpse in a mock trial for heresy, was soon thereafter strangled by zealot opponents who promptly elected Cardinal Sergius. Nevertheless, would be pope Sergius was immediately chased out of Rome by a rival faction who elected Romanus as "Vicar of Christ."
E.R. Chamberlin in The Bad Popes (Barnes & Noble, p. 21), writes:
"Over the next twelve months four more popes scrambled onto the bloodstained throne, mainatained themselves precarisously for a few weeks - or even days - before being hurled themselves into their graves.
Seven popes and an anti-pope appeared in a little over six years when...Cardinal Sergius reappeared after seven years' exile, backed now by swords of a feudal lord who saw a means thereby of gaining entry into Rome. The reigning pope [Leo V, 903] found his grave, the slaughters in the city reached a climax, and then Cardinal Sergius emerged as pope Sergius [III, 904-11], the sole survivor of the claimants and now supreme pontiff."
The diaries of the Master of Ceremonies at the conclave that elected pope Alexander VI (1492-1503), John Burchard, holds much insight into the election process. In the diary he states that only five votes were not bought. "The young Cardinal Giovanni de' Medici, who refused to sell his vote, thought it prudent to leave Rome immediately" after the election (see: Chamberlin, op. cit. p. 172). Borgia bought the papacy with "villas, towns and abbeys...[and] four mule-loads of silver to his greatest rival, Cardinal Sforza, to induce him to step down." Remarks Peter de Rosa, not so facetiously in all actuality (despite his intent in that regard): "It is instructive to see, by the way of the Burchard diaries, how the Holy Spirit goes about choosing St. Peters successor" (see: Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy, Crown Publishers, 1988, p. 104). The tawdry and dark tale of apostolic succession nevertheless goes on and on ad nauseum.
Quit apart from Roman Catholic tradition Scripture teaches something completely different concerning apostolic succession. Paul and Barnabas personally laid their hands upon the successor of their choice and ordained them, when they were sent forth by the church at Antioch to undertake their first missionary journey (Acts 13:3). Timothy's appointment to the ministry was also done by the elders laying hands upon him (I Tim 4:14), as did Paul when he imparted a special spiritual gift to Timothy (II Tim 1:6). This biblical procedure has never been followed with regard to successors of bishops of Rome or the popes.
Nevertheless, I've digressed. WHO IS THE ROCK central to the controversy? The truth is, it doesn't depend upon a disputable interpretation of a few verses, but upon the totality of Scripture. God himself is described as the unfailing "Rock" of our salvation throughout the entire Old Testament (Dt 32:3,4; Psa 62:1,2; etc.) The Bible declares that God is the only rock: "For who is God save [except] the Lord? or who is a rock save [except] our God?" (Psa 18:31).
In the New Testament, it is made clear that Jesus Christ is the Rock upon which the church is built and that He, being God and one with the Father, is therefor the only rock. The rock upon which the "wise man buildeth his house" was not Peter but Christ and his teachings (Mt 7:24-29). Peter himself points out that Christ is the "chief cornerstone" upon which the church is built (I Pt 2:6-8) and quotes an Old Testament passage for affect in that regard. Likewise, Paul called Christ "the chief cornerstone" of the church and declares that the church is also "built upon the foundation of [all] the apostles and prophets" (Eph 2:20). No special position for Peter here anywhere (and not even a position acknowledged by Peter himeself).
Furthermore, what Christ meant by giving "the keys" to Peter is explained in Mt 16:19. According to Spiros Zodhiates, editor of commentary in the Key Word Study Bible (KJV), a more accurate translation out of the Greek reads:
"And I will give thee the keys of the kingdom of the heavens. And whatever thou shalt bind on the earth shall be as having been bound in the heavens; and whatever thou shalt loose on the earth shall be as having been loosed in the heavens." Before these verses can be understood correctly, a distinction must be made between "the church" (v18), and the kingdom of the heavens (v19). The Church is the representative of the body of believers here on earth while the kingdom of the heavens is made up of both the earthly and heavenly realms. The teaching here is that those things which are conclusively decided by God in the kingdom of heaven, having been so decided upon, are emulated by the Church on earth. The Church is made up of true believers who acknowledge the deity of Christ as Peter did. Christ is the "Rock" upon which the Church is built (I Cor 3:11). There is no reference made here to binding and loosing of persons. One can note that this speaks exclusively of things because of the neuter gender of the indefinite pronouns hos [Strong's 3739: probably a primary word (or perhaps a form of the article 3588); the relatively (sometimes demonstrative) pronoun, who, which, what, that:--one, (an-, the) other, some, that, what, which, who(-m, -se), etc. See also 3757. ] in v19, and hosos hos'-os [Strongs 3745: by reduplication from 3739; as (much, great, long, etc.) as:--all (that), as (long, many, much) (as), how great (many, much), (in-)asmuch as, so many as, that (ever), the more, those things, what (great, -soever), wheresoever, wherewithsoever, which, X while, who(-soever).] in v18. Believers can never make conclusive decisions about things, but can only confirm those decisions which have already been made by God himself as conclusive in the general context of His kingdom both on earth and in heaven. The two verbs dedemenon (from deo, deh'-o Strongs 1210), and lelumenon (from luo, loo'-o Strongs 3089), are both perfect passive participles which should have been translated respectively as "having been bound" and "having been loosed" already in the heavens.
A. T. Robertsons says:
And I also say unto thee (k'agô de soi legô). "The emphasis is not on 'Thou art Peter' over against 'Thou art the Christ,' but on Kagô: 'The Father hath revealed to thee one truth, and I also tell you another" (McNeile). Jesus calls Peter here by the name that he had said he would have (Jn 1:42). Peter (Petros) is simply the Greek word for Cephas (Aramaic). Then it was prophecy, now it is fact. In verse Mt 16:17 Jesus addresses him as "Simon Bar-Jonah," his full patronymic (Aramaic) name. But Jesus has a purpose now in using his nickname "Peter" which he had himself given him. Jesus makes a remarkable play on Peter's name, a pun in fact, that has caused volumes of controversy and endless theological strife. On this rock (epi tautêi têi petrâi) Jesus says, a ledge or cliff of rock like that in Mt 7:24 on which the wise man built his house. Petros is usually a smaller detachment of the massive ledge. But too much must not be made of this point since Jesus probably spoke Aramaic to Peter which draws no such distinction (Kêphâ). What did Jesus mean by this word-play?
I will build my church (oikodomêsô mou tên ekklêsian). It is the figure of a building and he uses the word ekklêsian which occurs in the New Testament usually of a local organization, but sometimes in a more general sense. What is the sense here in which Jesus uses it? The word originally meant "assembly" (Act 19:39), but it came to be applied to an "unassembled assembly" as in Act 8:3 for the Christians persecuted by Saul from house to house. "And the name for the new Israel, ekklêsia, in His mouth is not an anachronism. It is an old familiar name for the congregation of Israel found in Dt 18:16; 23:2 and Psalms, both books well known to Jesus" (Bruce). It is interesting to observe that in Ps 89:1ff most of the important words employed by Jesus on this occasion occur in the LXX text. So oikodomêsô in Ps 89:5; ekklêsia in Ps 89:6; katischuô in Ps 89:22; Christos in Ps 89:39,52; hâidês in Ps 89:49 (ek cheiros hâidou). If one is puzzled over the use of "building" with the word ekklêsia it will be helpful to turn to 1Pe 2:5. Peter, the very one to whom Jesus is here speaking, writing to the Christians in the five Roman provinces in Asia (1Pe 1:1), says: "You are built a spiritual house" (oikodomeisthe oikos pneumatikos). It is difficult to resist the impression that Peter recalls the words of Jesus to him on this memorable occasion. Further on (1Pe 2:9) he speaks of them as an elect race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, showing beyond controversy that Peter's use of building a spiritual house is general, not local. This is undoubtedly the picture in the mind of Christ here in Mt 16:18. It is a great spiritual house, Christ's Israel, not the Jewish nation, which he describes. What is the rock on which Christ will build his vast temple? Not on Peter alone or mainly or primarily. Peter by his confession was furnished with the illustration for the rock on which His church will rest. It is the same kind of faith that Peter has just confessed. The perpetuity of this church general is guaranteed.
The gates of Hades (pulai hâidou) shall not prevail against it (ou katischusousin autês). Each word here creates difficulty. Hades is technically the unseen world, the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed, that is death. Paul uses thanate in 1Co 15:55 in quoting Ho 13:14 for hâidê. It is not common in the papyri, but it is common on tombstones in Asia Minor, "doubtless a survival of its use in the old Greek religion" (Moulton and Milligan, Vocabulary). The ancient pagans divided Hades (a privative and idein, to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both "Abraham's bosom" and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. Lu 16:25). Christ was in Hades (Ac 2:27,31), not in Gehenna. We have here the figure of two buildings, the Church of Christ on the Rock, the House of Death (Hades). "In the Old Testament the 'gates of Hades' (Sheol) never bears any other meaning (Isa 38:10; Wisd. 16:3; 3Macc. 5:51) than death," McNeile claims. See also Ps 9:13; 107:18; Job 38:17 (pulai thanatou pulôroi hâidou). It is not the picture of Hades attacking Christ's church, but of death's possible victory over the church. "The ekklêsia is built upon the Messiahship of her master, and death, the gates of Hades, will not prevail against her by keeping Him imprisoned. It was a mysterious truth, which He will soon tell them in plain words (verse Mt 16:21); it is echoed in Ac 2:24,31" (McNeile). Christ's church will prevail and survive because He will burst the gates of Hades and come forth conqueror. He will ever live and be the guarantor of the perpetuity of His people or church. The verb katischuô (literally have strength against, ischuô from ischus and kat-) occurs also in Lu 21:36; 23:23. It appears in the ancient Greek, the LXX, and in the papyri with the accusative and is used in the modern Greek with the sense of gaining the mastery over. The wealth of imagery in Mt 16:18 makes it difficult to decide each detail, but the main point is clear. The ekklêsia which consists of those confessing Christ as Peter has just done will not cease. The gates of Hades or bars of Sheol will not close down on it. Christ will rise and will keep his church alive. Sublime Porte used to be the title of Turkish power in Constantinople.
The Keys of the kingdom (tas kleidas tês basileias). Here again we have the figure of a building with keys to open from the outside. The question is raised at once if Jesus does not here mean the same thing by "kingdom" that he did by "church" in verse Mt 16:18. In Re 1:18; 3:7 Christ the Risen Lord has "the keys of death and of Hades." He has also "the keys of the kingdom of heaven" which he here hands over to Peter as "gatekeeper" or "steward" (oikonomos) provided we do not understand it as a special and peculiar prerogative belonging to Peter. The same power here given to Peter belongs to every disciple of Jesus in all the ages. Advocates of papal supremacy insist on the primacy of Peter here and the power of Peter to pass on this supposed sovereignty to others. But this is all quite beside the mark. We shall soon see the disciples actually disputing again (Mt 18:1) as to which of them is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven as they will again (Mt 20:21) and even on the night before Christ's death. Clearly neither Peter nor the rest understood Jesus to say here that Peter was to have supreme authority. What is added shows that Peter held the keys precisely as every preacher and teacher does. To "bind" (dêsêis) in rabbinical language is to forbid, to "loose" (lusêis) is to permit. Peter would be like a rabbi who passes on many points. Rabbis of the school of Hillel "loosed" many things that the school of Schammai "bound." The teaching of Jesus is the standard for Peter and for all preachers of Christ. Note the future perfect indicative (estai dedemenon, estai lelumenon), a state of completion. All this assumes, of course, that Peter's use of the keys will be in accord with the teaching and mind of Christ. The binding and loosing is repeated by Jesus to all the disciples (Mt 18:18). Later after the Resurrection Christ will use this same language to all the disciples (Jn 20:23), showing that it was not a special prerogative of Peter. He is simply first among equals, primus inter pares, because on this occasion he was spokesman for the faith of all. It is a violent leap in logic to claim power to forgive sins, to pronounce absolution, by reason of the technical rabbinical language that Jesus employed about binding and loosing. Every preacher uses the keys of the kingdom when he proclaims the terms of salvation in Christ. The proclamation of these terms when accepted by faith in Christ has the sanction and approval of God the Father. The more personal we make these great words the nearer we come to the mind of Christ. The more ecclesiastical we make them the further we drift away from him.
OK, you are either completely ignorant of history and the events I was talking about or you are mearly trying to provoke a response (as a troll would). In either case you are not providing anything really worth responding to.
However, I will assume that you simply don't know your history and give this one try.
Look up the incidents (Avignon Captivity) and players involved (King Philip, Guillaume de Nogart, Popes such as Boniface VIII and Clement V, the Cathars, etc.) and you will see that I am not talking about the death of a Pope but the usurpation of the Papacy, most likely by the Cathars (Gnostics, those who deny the divinity and resurrection of Christ - you know, the folks who are the "good guys" in the Da Vinci Code).
The fact that the Papacy, even once "restored" to Rome and supposedly no longer under the heal of the French Monarchy has yet to condemn the kidnapping and death of one pope, the assassination of another and the manipulation of the College Of Cardinals by a temporal King to put a puppet into the Papacy is the proof to me that the Throne of Peter was irreovcably damaged in the decades around 1300.
Where does the Pope fit into "...that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
"he who rejects you rejects me" (Lk 10:16) How does your theory fit with this verse?
Faith without charity is dead. "He who saith that he knoweth him and keepeth not his commandments is a liar: and the truth is not in him." (1 John 2:4)
How can you blaspheme a person who is not deity.
1. Last I checked Mary is not omniscient, therefore cannot receive the simultaneous prayers of believers on earth.
2. Mary is not omnipotent, therefore she doesn't have the power onto salvation.
3. Mary is not omnipresent, therefore she cannot be living in the hearts of all believers.
Jesus Christ is God and worthy of our worship. Sacrilege is a form of anti-worship. Mary is not deity, therefore can receive no sacrilege.
Mary was blessed by God beyond all woman for two reasons. God chose that faithful handmaid as the only one to carry and Mother the Son of God.
Jesus disregarded Mary's potency, and according to tradition Peter disregarded his own potency by being crucified upside down. Also Paul set Peter straight on errant treatment of new gentile believers. Peter received the correction as a true follower, not leader, of Christ.
Speaking to His mother who at the marriage of Cana pressured Jesus into a miracle. However, Christ being constrained by the ten commandments to honor His mother fulfills her wishes, but lets her know to not pull that one again. Even though He clearly loved His mom and was not truly angry with her.
Jhn 2:3-4
3 And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine.
4 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come.
Once again we have a mother trying to protect her son. She hears of the danger Jesus is in and comes to remove Him to safety through the use of His brothers.
Mar 3:31-35
31 There came then his brethren and his mother, and, standing without, sent unto him, calling him.
35 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
Again, Jesus teaches His mom, who is a sinner in need of a savior, that she related to Him through doing God's will, like all sinners. His response was undoubtedly conveyed to her outside.
I say these things in Brotherly love, and with all the honor Mary deserves as a fellow believer in Jesus Christ.
>> Do you note the irony between Begone Anti-Catholic Troll and (God send you a Blessed 2005!) <<
Nope, none at all.
In fact, I like it a lot!
>>Let's face it, the children of the Protestant Rebellion would have little to believe if they did not have the Catholic Church to rail against. "Read the Bible and just have a little faith" is not much to found a religious system on, and all it does is lead to 27,000 different officially defined belief systems anyway.<<
Hehehe!
(3) In whom does the power to elect the Pope reside? If the Pope is not concerned to designate his successor directly, it belongs to him, on the other hand, to determine or modify the conditions of a valid election: "The Pope" says Cajetan, "can settle who the electors shall be, and change and limit in this way the mode of election to the point of invalidating anything done outside these arrangements" (De Comparatione Auctoritatis Papae et Concilii, cap. xiii, no. 201). Thus, resuming a usage introduced by Julius II, Pius IX decreed that if a Pope should chance to die during the sitting of an Oecumenical Council, the election of his successor would be made not by the Council, which would be at once interrupted ipso jure, but by the College of Cardinals alone (Acta et Decreta Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani, Rome 1872, p. 104 et seq. ). This same provision is recalled in the constitution Vacante Sede Apostolica, of Pius X, 25th Dec. 1904.In a case where the settled conditions of validity have become inapplicable, the task of determining new ones falls to the Church by devolution, this last word being taken, as Cajetan notes (Apologia, cap. xiii, no. 745) not in the strict sense (devolution is strictly to the higher authority in case of default in the lower) but in the wide sense, signifying all transmission even to an inferior.
It was in the course of the disputes on the respective authorities of Pope and Council that the question of the power to elect a Pope came up in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. On this point Cajetan's thought is as follows.
He explains first that the power to elect the Pope resides in his predecessors eminently, regularly and principally. Eminently, as the "forms" of lower beings are in the angels, who, however, are incapable in themselves of exercising the activities of bodies (Apologia, cap. xiii, no. 736). Regularly, that is to say as an ordinary right, unlike the Church in her widowhood, unable to determine a new mode of election save "in casu", unless forced by sheer necessity. Principally, unlike the widowed Church, in whom this power resides only secondarily (no. 737). During a vacancy of the Apostolic See, neither the Church nor the Council can contravene the provisions already laid down to determine the valid mode of election (De Comparata, cap. xiii, no. 202). However, in case of permission (for example if the Pope has provided nothing against it), or in case of ambiguity (for example, if it is unknown who the true Cardinals are or who the true Pope is, as was the case at the time of the Great Schism), the power "of applying the Papacy to such and such a person" devolves on the universal Church, the Church of God (ibid., no. 204).
Cajetan affirms next that the power to elect the Pope resides formally—that is to say in the Aristotelian sense, as apt to proceed directly to the act of electing—in the Roman Church, including in that Church the cardinal bishops who, in a way, are suffragans of the Bishop of Rome. That is why, according to the canonical rule provided, the right to elect the Pope belongs in fact to the cardinals alone (Apologia, cap. xiii, no. 742). That again is why, when the provisions of the Canon Law cannot be fulfilled, the right to elect will belong to certain members of the Church of Rome. In default of the Roman clergy the right will belong to the Church universal, of which the Pope is to be Bishop (ibid., nos. 741 and 746).
>>It places the Pope between Jesus and myself<<
With is not "between".
And it all depends on what is "is".
Not being one to parse words, please allow me to clarify.
I am saved by the grace of God, through the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. The Pope is not part of that equation. In fact, any man that places himself or anyone else in that equation is, willingly or unwillingly, an instrument of Satan.
Unfortunately it's completely irrelevant.
The Popes during the Avignon Captivity were virtually appointed by the French King (after they deposed and murdered two who opposed King Phillip) at the behest of the Cathars (knowingly or not).
Or are you saying that Guillaume de Nogart was acting as God's chosen agent? Then that would mean that the Pope's he had killed weren't supposed to be Pope, wouldn't it? But gee, those were actually elected by the College of Cardinals, so where does that leave your "authoritative" proof?
Quit spouting dogma and learn a little history.
Oh, and to the three folks who have posted to me on this topic, simply stating, repeatedly, "your argument makes no sense" and then not providing anything remotely related to the point I was making causes your "arguments" to be completely bogus. Assertion does not make for debate.
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.