Posted on 04/06/2013 9:57:55 AM PDT by Vermont Crank
The Church has a new Pope, Jorge Mario Bergoglio, the first non-European Pope, the first Latin American Pope, the first Pope called Francis. The mass media are trying to guess what will be the future of the Church during his Pontificate, by looking at his past as a cardinal, as Archbishop of Buenos Aires and as a simple priest. Which “revolution” will he bring about? Hans Küng has called him “the best possible choice” (La Repubblica, 14 March 2013). But it is only after he has made his principal appointments and after his first programmatic speeches that it will be possible to predict the line’s of Pope Francis’ pontificate. It is true for every Pope what Cardinal Enea Silvio Piccolomini said in 1458 when he was elected with the name of Pius II, “Forget Enea, welcome Pius.“
History never repeats itself exactly but the past helps us to understand the present. In the 16th century, the Catholic Church went through an unprecedented crisis. Humanism, with its immoral hedonism, had infected the Roman Curia and even the Pontiffs themselves. Against this corruption there emerged Martin Luther’s Protestant pseudo-reform which was dismissed by Pope Leo X, a Medici, as “a quarrel between monks“. The heresy had started to fizzle out when, on Leo X’s death in 1522, the first German Pope was elected, Adrian Florent from Utrecht who took the name Adrian VI. The brevity of his reign prevented him from bringing his projects to fruition, in particular – as the historian of the Popes, Ludwig von Pastor, writes – “the gigantic war against the mass of abuses which deformed the Roman Curia and nearly the whole Church.“
(Excerpt) Read more at lepantofoundation.org ...
A great place to begin is his eye-opening, The Second VaticanCouncil (an unwritten story)
CNN claimed he was the first non-European Pope then within the hour admitted their mistake.
... Can’t find “peters throne” in Christ’s words...
Man's always tried to dethrone Christ's rightful place, manufacturing even Himself to be there...and if not his idea of finding a way to upsurp Him by someone or something else...then use him like a tag line.
"But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written." John 21:25
won't
***There’s a lot of things Christ said and did that you won’r find in Scripture. A fact which is lost on the obtuse.***
And the Roman Catholic Church builds it’s entire existence on what it claims Christ did and said. Not what was actually delivered to us by the Holy Spirit.
Pure stupidity. The throne is the throne of the bark of St. Peter. Christ is the tree and we are its branches.
The expression “power of the keys” is derived from Christ’s words to St. Peter (in Matthew 16:19). The promise there made finds its explanation in Isaiah 22, in which “the key of the house of David” is conferred upon Eliacim, the son of Helcias, as the symbol of plenary authority in the Kingdom of Juda. Christ by employing this expression clearly designed to signify his intention to confer on St. Peter the supreme authority over His Church, that there be one Church, one teaching of his Word, and His Body and Blood will be found in the Holy Eucharist. All the rest emanate from the Eucharist. The Eucharist is the throne and its celebration in the Mass is through St. Peter, his Apostles, and his consecrated disciples.
The rest is all Benny Hinn, Bishop Jake, Joel Osteen, Rev. Schuller, Rev. Wright, Tammy Baker, your local Foursquare Church Pastor, etc,
“There’s a lot of things Christ said and did that you won’r find in Scripture. A fact which is lost on the obtuse.
“But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written.” John 21:25”
Your argument appears to be that we can make up anything and pretend Christ said it...
“Pure stupidity. The throne is the throne of the bark of St. Peter. Christ is the tree and we are its branches.”
I agree. The concept of a throne of Peter is as silly as a bark of Peter or a prince of Rome.
As to you interpretation of the passage, we will continue to disagree - hopefully as fellow believers in Christ.
Is there a Francis II. There is Francis. Period.
Basic English writing skills are lacking these days.
Your argument appears to want to completely dismiss oral tradition. We can never know all the teachings Jesus presented to the Apostles (or to others for that matter) just from scripture alone. Oral tradition is not a pretense for Church doctrine. This is very clear when one reads the many of writings of early Church Fathers, some of whom were taught directly by the Apostles. Some were presbyters and bishops appointed by the Apostles or were their successors.
“Your argument appears to be that we can make up anything and pretend Christ said it...”
And Christ said, “This is MY BODY...” I guess you believe that too, or do you ‘splain it away as most Bible Christians do?
“And Christ said, “This is MY BODY...” I guess you believe that too, or do you ‘splain it away as most Bible Christians do?”
Of course - we KNOW He said it. It is recorded.
Common sense and a thirst for the plain and simple truth is bred in the bones of those of us blessed to have been born in the hills and mountains of Vermont.
The Chair is, in its essence, a metaphor/symbol of authority and each Catholic Bishop has his Cathedral with its chair (cathedra) of authority as does the Pope whose Chair/Throne of Peter is in Saint Peter's.
Strangely, Moses ‘ chair is mentioned, but never Peter’s...
“Oral tradition is not a pretense for Church doctrine. This is very clear when one reads the many of writings of early Church Fathers...”
I can agree that there is value in tradition that occurred up until about 100ad. If it wasn’t practiced by then, written about by then, etc., the it is suspect. In any case it isn’t inspired and authoritative. If it appeared hundreds of years later, it is bogus.
“Matt 23:2 When Jesus spoke to the multitudes and to his disciples, [2] Saying: The scribes and the Pharisees have sitten on the chair of Moses”
You do understand Jesus was saying this to criticize the Scribes and Pharisees...?
So you're saying that anything anybody did or said after 100 AD is not, in any way, inspired or authoritative. I will have to disagree completely with you on that. I'm sure you are making the same old argument that - if it's not in the Bible, then it's not true or valid.
But that just takes us back to your original argument.
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.