Peter (Francis is now Peter) is the ROCK of the Church. THE ROCK. He has a preeminent role in the Church. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12260a.htm From the Catholic Encyclopedia The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17. In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him: “Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.” "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27). "And I say to thee: That thou art Peter. . ." He further proceeds to recompense this confession of His Divinity by bestowing upon him a reward proper to himself:
Thou art Peter [Cepha, transliterated also Kipha] and upon this rock [Cepha] I will build my Church. The word for Peter and for rock in the original Aramaic is one and the same; this renders it evident that the various attempts to explain the term "rock" as having reference not to Peter himself but to something else are misinterpretations. It is Peter who is the rock of the Church. The term ecclesia (ekklesia) here employed is the Greek rendering of the Hebrew qahal, the name which denoted the Hebrew nation viewed as God's Church (see THE CHURCH, I). "And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter. The expression presents no difficulty. In both the Old and New Testaments the Church is often spoken of under the metaphor of God's house (Numbers 12:7; Jeremiah 12:7; Hosea 8:1; 9:15; 1 Corinthians 3:9-17, Ephesians 2:20-2; 1 Timothy 3:5; Hebrews 3:5; 1 Peter 2:5). Peter is to be to the Church what the foundation is in regard to a house. He is to be the principle of unity, of stability, and of increase. He is the principle of unity, since what is not joined to that foundation is no part of the Church; of stability, since it is the firmness of this foundation in virtue of which the Church remains unshakenby the storms which buffet her; of increase, since, if she grows, it is because new stones are laid on this foundation. "And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One: The gates of hell shall not prevail against it. There can be but one explanation of this striking metaphor. The only manner in which a man can stand in such a relation to any corporate body is by possessing authority over it. The supreme head of a body, in dependence on whom all subordinate authorities hold their power, and he alone, can be said to be the principle of stability, unity, and increase. The promise acquires additional solemnity when we remember that both Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 28:16) and Christ's own words (Matthew 7:24) had attributed this office of foundation of the Church to Himself. He is therefore assigning to Peter, of course in a secondary degree, a prerogative which is His own, and thereby associating the Apostle with Himself in an altogether singular manner. "And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven. The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna: And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open. In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place. "And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" — words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.
Could you please point out exactly where in the CDF it says that the "Pope is the Church" as you mentioned earlier.
As you so rightly say Padraig in my non-heretical opinion, THIS pope (I do not say all popes) and the Church are, for all practical purposes, one and the same. He is the benign dictator, the benevolent despot. He is the captain of the barque and the helmsman. He owns his own process to which all in the barque are subject. This is akin to him being given emergency powers for these dire times. He knows he has to to take and keep control for as long as possible. We live in exceptional times which are only going to become more exceptional. They demand exceptional measures. In his pontificate the course of the Church is changed for ever but the destination is the same: God. Just as it is with every new pope. I do not present this this as either as a new teaching of the Church or a contradiction of teaching. It is simply a way in which he can be taken. He is the boss. He is in charge. He is, for all practical purposes, the Church, its visible head, one with the mind and heart of The Lord. And as far as I am concerned the Church could not be in better hands because his hands which point us in the right direction are at our service in persona Christi. Like it or not there will be new knowledge and understanding of the truth. That which has been revealed will be known better and better understood. Pope Francis is preparing us to receive this. The first lesson will be an education of sin. The second will be a revelation of power and glory. The third will be the experience of The Joy of Love. All other censure and strictures apply for now to the exercise of his office as they have since Peter. As others have said he is responsible for the teaching he gives, not for the interpretation of others or their manipulative ways but for the teaching he has given in his words, written and spoken, as intended and as inspired. Because of the hardness of men's hearts in his humility and in in his desire always to act in the best interests of the faithful, he has allowed some of his teaching to be "clarified" when in fact, they stand as they are: true to tradition and true to his mission of mercy - for now. He will always exercise mercy as far as he is able but this ability will be severely curtailed in its practical application in the very near future when tribulation demands that the piper be paid for all the wrong we have done. This tribulation will result from our own attitudes and actions and will be delivered through natural means and at the hands of man. Salvation is in his hands but there are those who try to wrest it out of his hands and there will be those who will try to undermine his God given authority. As they do now.
Thank you, Joe, for this and the earlier posts. You have convinced me that it is important to try to 'balance' the increasing numbers of critical posts (of Francis) that are being made on this forum by just a handful of members. Left to themselves, they will increasingly persuade themselves that their views are 'the future'. It might be interesting to have a poll that actually tried to assess where most members stand with regard to our good Pope. But the wording of the question would be so critical that it would probably not be a good idea.
There is no changing the 6 people pushing their agenda. And as long as Padraig accepts members calling Our Holy Father a heretic. Things on MOG have lost its way. Discussion and critique is always welcome but pushing the agenda of anti-church and anti-pope is very dangerous. I think i saw it coming when i left 2 months ago. I like debating spiritual things...but these long winded attacks affect me spiritually. I do appreciate MOG but it is gradually turning in the wrong direction. Too bad, this site had something special going on. At first it was a good spiritual tool. Other then those fake seers...but they disappeared on there own. This place had some very spiritual people. Now it has very extreme spiritual people.
So now when people question the continuous litany of the Popes actions that are not in line with the CDF they become "anti-church and anti-pope". I guess by that logic anyone who doesn't vote for Hillary this November is a misogynist. Just agree with the Popes statements and actions and shut up right?!
I am a very ordinary catholic from the pew and I have always upheld the position of the Pope. I still continue to pray and give the Pope respect but I am very concerned with what I see going on and how his words are being interpreted to OK subjective morality. There is no call for a change of life, repentance except to those who are perceived as conservative. I find his comment calling priests who refuse to baptise a baby of co-habituating couples 'animals' to be beyond belief. Priests are on the front line trying to uphold the teaching of the church and the Pope does not support them. There are many other examples too many to go into. I was talking to a reformed 'gay' man the other day who told me that for years he was advised by priests to not worry , everybody needs intimacy in their lives and it would be OK in the end. God understands. He eventually broke away from that life with the help of people who brought him to a deep place of prayer. He told me many priests write to the Vatican looking for the law to be loosened or changed. That's where things stand now in the church. Holy priests are fewer and fewer. The only thing I don't like about the comments on Pope Francis is directly calling him a heretic or generally disrespectful comments. I think they are not right. He is still the Vicar of Christ and his office is deserving of respect. Its a very difficult time but I am sure things will become clearer for all of us over the coming months. Unfortunately Satan and his minions are now at loose and the church is being shaken to its foundations.
St Maryrose, That is the Church from the beginning of time. You have some very good holy priests that hold tradition. And you have some that are on their own journey. What i mean is that they lost the path amd might be far away from God. And all the inbetween. But right now we can see the Saint John Paul the Second priests enetering the church. God has trained saints bringing the spirit of Saint John Paul 2 and Mother Theresa. If you were active in the church in those days...how special was seeing the mystical marriage of both those saints. But if you're were so caught up in SPX you probably missed the whole experience. Instead of focusing on your own house...like those two great saints. You were focusing on the heretic outside your house. Its a very mystical time. Lets work on our own house. I think we are in a very special time in the church. There will be much suffering but many great saints will be with us. May Gods Will be Done
Cardinal Christoph Schönborn may say whatever he wants, but Magisterium of the Church is what the we must follow – not Amoris Laetitia. The synod and its concluding document cannot change the doctrine, tradition and Magisterium of the Church. https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/key-doctrinal-errors-and-ambiguities-of-amoris-laetitia Cardinal Kasper is more like a protestant and I don’t consider cardinal Schönborn to be a good, catholic theologian. No. The pope seems to praise people who are liberal, progressive and ultra ecumenical. There is a schism between cardinals and bishops nowadays. Popes come and popes go, but the Church remain! Have you read about the letter the 13 cardinal sent to pope Francis? http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1351154?eng=y The pope was furious and shouted that those red hats can go. He will throw them out. Prayer needed!
Strange, the letter from the Cardinals was sent nearly a year ago and the Cardinals are still there! Your post is just twaddle.
Yes. The letter is not new. I hope the reaction of the pope would be 'just a twaddle' and would not come true later on.
David Whether the letter is a year old or not, we can't ignore the assertion of the Cardinals that the way the synod was orchestrated, was a break from previous protocol. Since it was not denied, it seems likely to be true and if so it is quite alarming. "The new synodal procedures will be seen in some quarters as lacking openness and genuine collegiality. In the past, the process of offering propositions and voting on them served the valuable purpose of taking the measure of the synod fathers' minds. The absence of propositions and their related discussions and voting seems to discourage open debate and to confine discussion to small groups; thus it seems urgent to us that the crafting of propositions to be voted on by the entire synod should be restored. Voting on a final document comes too late in the process for a full review and serious adjustment of the text. Additionally, the lack of input by the synod fathers in the composition of the drafting committee has created considerable unease. Members have been appointed, not elected, without consultation. Likewise, anyone drafting anything at the level of the small circles should be elected, not appointed. In turn, these things have created a concern that the new procedures are not true to the traditional spirit and purpose of a synod. It is unclear why these procedural changes are necessary. A number of fathers feel the new process seems designed to facilitate predetermined results on important disputed questions. Finally and perhaps most urgently, various fathers have expressed concern that a synod designed to address a vital pastoral matter – reinforcing the dignity of marriage and family – may become dominated by the theological/doctrinal issue of Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried. If so, this will inevitably raise even more fundamental issues about how the Church, going forward, should interpret and apply the Word of God, her doctrines and her disciplines to changes in culture. The collapse of liberal Protestant churches in the modern era, accelerated by their abandonment of key elements of Christian belief and practice in the name of pastoral adaptation, warrants great caution in our own synodal discussions." God Bless
Your post here of concern about some of the procedures used in the last synod have been expressed in such a gentle way - so different from the aggressive tone of some other posters - that I feel I should make a response. I believe Pope Francis genuinely sought the views of his fellow bishops and cardinals to help him lead the Church forward in its pastoral practice and its understanding of issues related to the family in our day. However, we need to be clear that the Church has never been and never will be a democracy. This applies to the mechanisms it uses to enable the shepherds of the Church to lead its members towards Jesus and holiness. The synod was held to help Pope Francis lead the Church forward. It was not held to allow the bishops to decide how the Church should move forward. I trust you see the difference. It is the Pope who has the authority and the responsibility. It is for these reasons that the continuing questioning of both the actions and the motives of the Pope are, in my view, highly inapparopriate. More recently, a letter of concern signed by many theologians and clergy was sent to all the participants of the synod, asking them to petition the Pope to make clarifications to his exhortation. I don't think Francis will complain about that but, equally, I anticipate he will not pay it much attention nor any follow ups by individual bishops. I don't think this will be through arrogance but simply because the exhortations is what it is. The Pope has done his best and left the Lord to make right what may not have been perfectly right in the final document. Above all, I think Pope Francis is very aware that Catholicism has always had a dangerous pharisaical approach in many of its members. When I look back at how I was brought up in my faith, it definitely had a pharisaical flavour which only gradually melted away in favour of finding a personal relationship to Jesus which is absolutely necessary if we are ever to get into heaven!
