djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (01/24/91)
In article <Jan.22.01.08.10.1991.28677@athos.rutgers.edu> drakenk@infonode.ingr.com (Keith Drake) writes: ... the kind of bigoted interdenominational hate-spewing that (imao) causes God and all the blessed Saints to turn their eyes away from the Earth in disgust. How christians can treat each other in this way, is and remains a mystery to me. Mellow out, Keith. It is not for us to judge each other's faith. That you are a devout christian is clear. But please remember also that Christ told us, "Judge not, lest ye be judged;" and that in the disputes over circumcision, and over what meats to eat, the Apostles decided that the most important thing is not to give offense. Please take a step back and see what you are doing: your actions (*NOT* you; I don't want to be judging Keith-the-person) are spreading dissent among the brethren. >Those with prejudiced hearts are the only ones who >should get angry when dicussing doctrinal differences(Matt.13:13-15). And >those who reject the truth and believe a lie are the only ones who will >refuse to change when shown they are in error(2 Thess. 2:9-11). Remember that. Keith, I'm not a Catholic, so I hope you can listen to me without feeling that I'm defending myself or my sect. I'm not. > Could Peter have been a pope? Technically, no; the office hadn't been invented yet. When Catholics refer to Peter as the first Pope, it's an unfortunate turn of phrase. What they mean is that he was the first "temporal head of the Church." Evidence for this point of view is plentiful, but the simplest and most authoritative is the words of Christ: "You are Peter [actually, an Aramaic word meaning "rock," translated to Peter, < Latin petra, Greek petros, "rock"], and on this rock I shall build my church." Also note that Christ told Peter that the keys of Heaven were given into his hands. While it is reasonable to dispute that this set up a permanent office of temporal head of the Church, or that the modern Popes inherit that office properly, it is just about undeniable that Christ meant what he meant. Further, a quick search of the Acts will show several incidents where Peter clearly *did* act as the head of the Church, even if only as "first among equals." This is, as Thomas Aquinas might have said, sufficient response to all the objections. Let's deal with a few anyway... >Not only does >the catholic church claim to be the sole authority to give interpretation >of the scriptures, They do not. They claim that they have preserved interpretations handed down from the earliest Church Fathers, or argued out by the best philosophical and theological minds of two thousand years. Much of this claim is justified by facts; many of these "traditions" clearly date back to the earliest records of Christendom; and neither you nor I is likely to hold a candle, philosophically or theologically, to (say) Thos. Aquinas, or the Council of Nicaea. This claim is, as I'm sure you can see, rather different from a claim to temporal authority to "make" on-the-spot interpretations of scripture. >but also claim that church traditions are heaven approved >and actually take precedence over New Testament scripture. An active untruth. (Note: I'm not calling you a liar. I'm saying that you have been misinformed by someone with a grudge against the RC church.) The first part of the statement is more-or-less true, though I don't think any educated Catholic would put it that way; the second part is just so much bologna. > 1 Christ is the only head of the church both in heaven and on earth. No Catholic would dispute this. However, they might question the temporal value of an authority who doesn't respond in any objective manner to questions of interpretation or policy. > 2. Other offices in the church with their qualifications and duties are >plainly mentioned(Eph. 4:11,1 Tim. 3). But where does the Bible speak about >the office and functions of a pope? Why is the Bible totally silent about it >if it is such an important role? Nor, if you think about it, does it mention a priest. It *does* mention bishops. And guess what? The actual, functional title of the Pope is "Bishop of Rome." The other titles are either scripturally derived or accretionary. "Pope" began as a term of affection, like calling a beloved old man "Papa." >A. Christ is the only foundation of the church. Oh? The Bible isn't one? > 2. The Bible is a book of harmony. Any explanation of a passage that > contradicts other scriptures is wrong. More or less correct. You get into trouble when you find that some scriptures directly contradict each other (read the two accounts of Creation for a very simple example), and you find that some rather fancy explaining is indeed required to deal with these. Let's say that we have two passages that contradict each other: "Thou shalt not kill," and "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." (Both from the same ed'n of the Bible, not my favorite -- for one thing, I believe the term translated as "witch" is more accurately "poisoner" -- but let that pass.) Now, if you take the first literally, you're in contradiction of the second. So most people take the first to mean "Thou shalt not _murder_," or some such thing. It may even be that the Hebrew word in the Commandment originally had that sense. But that's a guess; and many others take "Thou shalt not kill" to be a specific forbidding of capital punishment. This, at any rate, seems more harmonious with Christ's requirements that we forgive, love our enemies, and judge not. But then we're trapped with all the commands to execute various sorts of criminals... ...you see, it is *not* as simple as you try to make it. And that is a *simple* example. >2. The other apostles were given the same authority to bind and loose,Matt. 18:18 Jesus says clearly that the keys are given to Peter. > C. The other apostles did not honor Peter as one having supremacy. > > 1. If the disciples understood Peter was given supremacy why was there >strife amongst them over who would be greatest?(Luke 22:24-30.) Because the apostles were human. > b. If Jesus meant for Peter to be pope why did he not clearly settle >the issue then and there instead of telling the apostles that no one was to >exercise authority over the others? Yeah! And for that matter, why didn't he give us a calendar date for the Second Coming! Answer: because no matter *how* specific his instructions and prophecies were, we mere humans would have found *some* way to argue about them. We are a stiffnecked and pugnacious species. > 2. Paul said he was not inferior to any of the apostles(2 Cor. 11:5;12 >:11). Could this be true if Peter were pope? See remark above about "first among equals." > 5. Peter was never adressed with titles of primacy. He was never called >pope,vicar,reverend,right reverand,or father. Jesus said: "And call no man >on earth your father,for one is your father who is in heaven. Neither be >called masters;for one only is your master,even Christ"(Matt. 23:9-10). I presume, then, that you never call your father "father." This is a perfect example of how literal interpretation leads to trouble! (And yet... "Who are my mother and my brethren?" As I said: I'm no Aquinas. I don't pretend to understand all this. Perhaps we should agree to consult Aquinas, who argued things like this from Scriptural basis all the time...) > D. Peter exalted Christ as the chief shephard,1 Peter 2:25;5:4 So do Catholics. > 1. Catholics contend that Jesus made Peter the chief shephard when he >told him to feed his sheep,John 21:15-17. Chief under Christ, perhaps. > E. Peter refused worship at the house of Cornelius.Acts 10:25-26 Nobody worships Popes. > 2. Does the current pope of the RC church tell men not to humble themselves >to him? He washes others' feet. > 2. If Peter had lived in modern times he could not be pope because of >his marraige. If Peter had lived in modern times he could not be pope because he was Jewish, for that matter. What do modern times have to do with it? > G. Peter had to be rebuked, Gal.2:11-14. > 2. Who would rebuke the current pope? Me, for one:*) More to the point... the "Curia." > Traditions of the church are additions to the bible and therefore false. Additions to the Bible are necessarily false? So then all history of Christendom since then is a lie? *All* history? To take what you say at face value, it would be impossible for there to be a true history. > Catholics have no other authority but tradition for these doctrines and >practices:Purgatory,Incense,Images,Holy Water,Auricular Confession,Infant >Baptism,Prayers of the beads,Prayers to Mary,observance of holy days. Well, for that matter there's no authority but tradition for going to Church on Sundays, or for the current selection of books in the Bible. With the possible exceptions of Marianism and Purgatory, these are essentially harmless. (If you want to fuss about images, fine; on the other hand, like many, you seem to have a very serious misunderstanding of Mary's role in the RC Church.) Etcetera, etcetera. When you eat right fruIT, you see everything alive; It is inside spirIT, wITh enough grIT to survive; If you think that IT's pretentious, you've been taken for a ride Look across the mirror, sonny, before you choose de cide. IT is here; IT is now; IT is real; IT is Rael. Cos IT's only knock and know-all, but I like IT. --Genesis/The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway The Roach
djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) (01/30/91)
In article <Jan.25.23.25.34.1991.1135@athos.rutgers.edu> dhosek@hmcvax.claremont.edu (Don Hosek) writes: >In article <Jan.24.03.52.22.1991.26911@athos.rutgers.edu>, djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >>If Peter had lived in modern times he could not be pope because he was Jewish, >>for that matter. What do modern times have to do with it? > >Actually, according to canon law, _anyone_ can be Pope. They >needn't be a priest or celibate or male or Catholic for that >matter... All true, but you see I was making leetle joke about RCC politics. The chances of a Jewish convert being elected to the Papacy are slightly better than those of a woman being elected. Slightly. The Roach
conan@oreo.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) (02/03/91)
In article <Jan.30.03.45.45.1991.16104@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >All true, but you see I was making leetle joke about RCC politics. The >chances of a Jewish convert being elected to the Papacy are slightly better >than those of a woman being elected. Actually, a jewish convert stands a good if not high chance of being elevated to the papacy. Cardinal Lustiger (sp?), Archbishop of Paris is a convert and is widely respected. Of course, Catholic memory is long, and everybody remembers the disaster the last time a Frenchman was elected pope :-)! Yours in Christ, David Cruz-Uribe, SFO
fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu (Cathy Fasano) (02/08/91)
In article <Feb.2.23.25.03.1991.27523@athos.rutgers.edu> conan@oreo.berkeley.edu (David Cruz-Uribe) writes: >In article <Jan.30.03.45.45.1991.16104@athos.rutgers.edu> djdaneh@pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes) writes: >>All true, but you see I was making leetle joke about RCC politics. The >>chances of a Jewish convert being elected to the Papacy are slightly better >>than those of a woman being elected. > >Actually, a jewish convert stands a good if not high chance of being elevated >to the papacy. Cardinal Lustiger (sp?), Archbishop of Paris is a convert and >is widely respected. Of course, Catholic memory is long, and everybody >remembers the disaster the last time a Frenchman was elected pope :-)! While we're on the subject of Cardinal Lustiger -- a book recommendation: _First_Steps_In_Prayer_, Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger, translated by Rebecca Howell Balinski, Doubleday, 1987. The book is based on a series of talks originally delivered over Notre Dame Radio. It focuses on straightforward practical steps -- prayer forms, prayer at specific times of day, how to fit prayer into a busy schedule, etc. It is aimed at Catholics, but any Christian could find it useful. (As for long Catholic memory... :-) Us wops think that any non-Italian pope is a disaster! :-) ) cathy :-) -- Cathy Fasano fasano@unix.cis.pitt.edu cathy@gargoyle.uchicago.edu "If this is the way you treat your friends, Lord, no *wonder* you have so few of them!" -- St. Theresa of Avila (after her mule had just dumped her uncermoniously in a river they were crossing)