Well, well, well, our ole’ Pope Benedict is not done yet. Last time I wondered what inspired him to bring the old Latin Mass back (all Catholic churches speaking the same language?) and this time he is asserting the old argument that salvation is only available through the Roman Catholic Church and not through “other” Christian denominations.
My, my, he really is trying to reverse Vatican II which “modernized” the Church and brought it into the real world. Benedict maintains that the “old” ways were the best and he intends to take the Church back there. He maintains that he is only “reinterpreting” Vatican II because many got it all wrong; Vatican II was held from 1962 to 1965.
The last Pope was on a mission to unite but not this Pope…
Well, let’s examine what the Pope is talking about. He feels that since Jesus established his Church “on the Rock” which meant St. Peter (rock in Greek) and since Peter was the first Pope in Rome and all subsequent Popes were/are direct representatives of Peter (therefore of Jesus) only the Pope and his Church are true representatives of Jesus’ Church; all others are not “true” churches and thus cannot deliver salvation. Did you get all that?
Well many Christians including millions of Protestants and millions of Orthodox Christians disagree and history or the lack of will sustain their arguments.
Mathew 16:18 indeed has Jesus saying “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. I don’t believe the Gospels have any historic validity and have been translated so many times that one cannot be sure of what the original words actually were. Later on in the passage, Jesus tells Peter that he will have the keys to heaven and can “bind” things on earth and they will be bound in heaven – seemingly giving Peter some sort of authority.
People will translate Scripture in a way that will prove their point so you can argue Scripture interpretation till you turn blue and not convince anyone BUT the Catholic Church translated that passage as if Jesus was designating Peter as the head of His Church and they are sticking with that!
Now the fact about Peter being the first Pope IN ROME is a little harder for the Pope to explain. There is no historical corroboration that Peter was ever in Rome unless you saw the movie Quo Vadis and take that as historic fact.
This is a good time to remind everyone that there is NO mention of Jesus, his life and death and of his apostles in secular historic sources; the Gospels are not history books. Scholars always marvel at the power of Christianity today and through the ages but they also marvel at the absolute lack of any evidence – someone literate should have witnessed something and wrote it down – but nary a word exists.
The Catholic Church is adamant about Peter being in Rome and becoming the first Pope, etc. but even the Church maintains that the story of Peter is a “traditional” belief as in we have always believed that so it must be true. They even claim that Peter is buried under the Vatican – and how can that ever be proven even if they have a bunch of bones.
The PETRINE DOCTINE or the DOCTRINE OF PETRINE SUCCESSION is all important in the Pope’s claim that only the Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate Church founded by Jesus; without it the claim collapses.
Benedict is plainly stating that a Christian church MUST recognize Papal authority if it wants to be a “legitimate” Christian church through which people can obtain salvation; otherwise they are just wasting their time?
There is a lot more to this matter but I am off to San Diego for a conference and fun time and will revisit this exiting topic when I get back.
My, my, he really is trying to reverse Vatican II which “modernized” the Church and brought it into the real world. Benedict maintains that the “old” ways were the best and he intends to take the Church back there. He maintains that he is only “reinterpreting” Vatican II because many got it all wrong; Vatican II was held from 1962 to 1965.
The last Pope was on a mission to unite but not this Pope…
Well, let’s examine what the Pope is talking about. He feels that since Jesus established his Church “on the Rock” which meant St. Peter (rock in Greek) and since Peter was the first Pope in Rome and all subsequent Popes were/are direct representatives of Peter (therefore of Jesus) only the Pope and his Church are true representatives of Jesus’ Church; all others are not “true” churches and thus cannot deliver salvation. Did you get all that?
Well many Christians including millions of Protestants and millions of Orthodox Christians disagree and history or the lack of will sustain their arguments.
Mathew 16:18 indeed has Jesus saying “You are Peter and on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. I don’t believe the Gospels have any historic validity and have been translated so many times that one cannot be sure of what the original words actually were. Later on in the passage, Jesus tells Peter that he will have the keys to heaven and can “bind” things on earth and they will be bound in heaven – seemingly giving Peter some sort of authority.
People will translate Scripture in a way that will prove their point so you can argue Scripture interpretation till you turn blue and not convince anyone BUT the Catholic Church translated that passage as if Jesus was designating Peter as the head of His Church and they are sticking with that!
Now the fact about Peter being the first Pope IN ROME is a little harder for the Pope to explain. There is no historical corroboration that Peter was ever in Rome unless you saw the movie Quo Vadis and take that as historic fact.
This is a good time to remind everyone that there is NO mention of Jesus, his life and death and of his apostles in secular historic sources; the Gospels are not history books. Scholars always marvel at the power of Christianity today and through the ages but they also marvel at the absolute lack of any evidence – someone literate should have witnessed something and wrote it down – but nary a word exists.
The Catholic Church is adamant about Peter being in Rome and becoming the first Pope, etc. but even the Church maintains that the story of Peter is a “traditional” belief as in we have always believed that so it must be true. They even claim that Peter is buried under the Vatican – and how can that ever be proven even if they have a bunch of bones.
The PETRINE DOCTINE or the DOCTRINE OF PETRINE SUCCESSION is all important in the Pope’s claim that only the Roman Catholic Church is the legitimate Church founded by Jesus; without it the claim collapses.
Benedict is plainly stating that a Christian church MUST recognize Papal authority if it wants to be a “legitimate” Christian church through which people can obtain salvation; otherwise they are just wasting their time?
There is a lot more to this matter but I am off to San Diego for a conference and fun time and will revisit this exiting topic when I get back.
Jesus' appointing Peter His "prime minister" in the New Testament was done in a way reminiscent of the formula used for appointing Old Testament prime ministers - see Isaiah 22:22, I think
ReplyDelete